In November 2019, India’s Supreme Court delivered its verdict on the Ayodhya dispute, a case that had simmered for decades, pitting religious claims against legal titles. The judgment? A whopping 1,045 pages. Yet, buried deep within this doorstop of a document after exhaustive recaps of history, archaeology, and colonial-era laws the operative order boiled down to a few crisp sentences: Allocate the disputed land for a Hindu temple and provide an alternative site for a mosque. One might wonder: Why the verbosity? Why not cut to the chase?
This phenomenon isn’t unique to India. Across the globe, court judgments have ballooned into epic narratives, often resembling novels more than legal decrees. In the US, Supreme Court opinions can run to thousands of words, with concurring and dissenting views adding layers. In Europe, the European Court of Human Rights churns out rulings that meticulously dissect facts, precedents, and human rights implications. But why? As courts grapple with increasingly complex societies, litigious cultures, and the need for unassailable reasoning, brevity takes a backseat.
This article delves into the reasons behind these lengthy tomes, exploring both Indian and global contexts, and examines how they serve or sometimes hinder the pursuit of justice.
The Anatomy of a Judgment: More Than Meets the Verdict
At its core, a court judgment isn’t just a winner-takes-all declaration; it’s a comprehensive roadmap. Judges must outline the facts, the legal questions, the arguments from all sides, and a step-by-step rationale for their decision. This structure ensures transparency, allows for appeals, and sets precedents for future cases.
As one Reddit user aptly put it in a discussion on lengthy US court decisions:
“Judgments are long because they contain all of the background and facts, not just a statement of who wins.”
Without this detail, rulings could be seen as arbitrary, eroding public trust.
Globally, the trend towards longer judgments reflects a more litigious world. In the UK, family law expert Matt Freeman notes on LinkedIn that modern statutes are denser, requiring judges to unpack intricate connections, which naturally inflates page counts. Victorian-era judgments rarely exceeded a dozen pages, but today’s cases fueled by voluminous evidence, expert testimonies, and appeals demand exhaustive treatment.
Take the US Supreme Court. Each term, opinions span thousands of pages, revised a dozen times before release. In 2018, the longest signed majority opinion was in Cooper v. Harris, clocking 10,773 words roughly 30–40 pages. Why? As cases grow complex, involving millions of documents in antitrust or mass tort suits, judges must sift through it all to justify their stance.
This exhaustive approach also guards against reversals. In Ireland, barrister Killian Flood observes that judgments have doubled in length over 30 years, symptomatic of overburdened courts striving for airtight reasoning. Similarly, in Australia, former High Court Justice Dyson Heydon lamented delays in judgment delivery, arguing that 12 months is too long yet the detail required often prolongs the process.
The Indian Context: Verbosity as a Virtue?
In India, the penchant for lengthy judgments is amplified by a judicial system groaning under 50 million pending cases, a backlog that could take 300 years to clear at current rates. Supreme Court verdicts often resemble scholarly treatises, weaving constitutional principles, historical context, and philosophical musings.
The 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case, which birthed the basic structure doctrine limiting Parliament’s amendment powers, spanned 700 pages across 13 judges’ opinions. Heard over 68 days, it set a template for multi-judge benches to expound at length, ensuring every angle is covered.
Recent examples underscore this trend. The 2018 Aadhaar verdict (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India) ran to 1,448 pages, dissecting privacy rights amid biometric data concerns. The 2015 NJAC ruling, invalidating a new judicial appointments system, hit 1,042 pages. Even in 2025, Justice J.B. Pardiwala’s 415-page order on Tamil Nadu’s gubernatorial delays was the year’s longest, imposing timelines and introducing deemed assent only for a constitution bench to trim it back in a 111-page reversal.
Why so prolix? Indian courts, often dealing with fundamental rights and policy matters, aim for comprehensiveness to preempt challenges. As Quora contributors note, overburdened judges handle hundreds of cases daily, yet must provide fair trials, leading to detailed expositions. Multi-judge benches add concurring opinions, inflating volumes.
Critics argue this style rooted in colonial legacies contrasts with pithier global counterparts. For instance, the US Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas verdict was 49 pages, while India’s analogous 2018 Navtej Singh Johar ruling stretched to 493.
Yet, length serves a purpose in India’s diverse, federal setup. Judgments must address cultural, regional, and socio-economic nuances, as in the 2024 Ridhima Pandey climate case, where the Supreme Court expanded rights amid a pending appeal. They also educate. In a nation where legal awareness is low, detailed reasoning demystifies the law.
The Downsides: Accessibility and Efficiency
Not everyone celebrates the sprawl. Long judgments can obscure key points, frustrating lawyers and litigants. In the UK, the Family Brief blog laments how discursive rulings reflect litigious societies and unrepresented parties demanding more from judges.
In India, a 72-year-old banking dispute finally settled in 2023 highlights systemic delays, with verbosity exacerbating backlogs. The Supreme Court itself has critiqued this. In a 2024 divorce case lasting three decades, it called the system injudicious, granting relief after sour relations dragged on.
Globally, calls for concision are growing. The US Supreme Court’s shadow docket unsigned, brief orders handles emergencies swiftly but draws flak for lacking explanation. In contrast, the International Court of Justice’s 2025 climate obligations advisory opinion, while sweeping, was distilled for impact.
A Balancing Act: Brevity vs. Thoroughness
Ultimately, lengthy judgments embody justice’s dual mandate: decide fairly and explain why. In an era of fake news and eroding faith in institutions, detailed reasoning builds legitimacy.
Yet, as Mark Twain quipped,
“I didn’t have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.”
Courts could learn from that and employ summaries, appendices, or digital tools for accessibility.
In India, with 24 cases pending over 30 years, reform is urgent. Globally, as cases like the 57-year US Myra Clark Gaines saga show, length often signals complexity, not inefficiency. But in the quest for justice, perhaps the most crucial order is balance: thorough enough to endure, concise enough to enlighten.
Subscribe Deshwale on YouTube
