Editor’s note: Artificial intelligence’s fascinating intervention into law could just be disruptive, and thinking, writing about this is critical at this moment. AI is also, curiously, emerging as an instrument through which we can think more deeply about conundrums of legal thought and dealing with the complex legal framework in India. In this experimental piece, we get a glimpse into a conversation between senior advocate Mohan V. Katarki and Google’s Gemini AI on how India’s multilingual culture intersects with bold, anglican language of the law. In the fascinating discussion that follows, we note that in the backdrop of much fervour over the imposition of the Hindi language, the project of transitioning our courts from English to Indian languages will depend heavily on the technicalities of language. For instance, if laws written in Indian languages lack clarity because of absence of auxiliary verbs and because of verb coming at the end of sentence, it may contribute to litigation in our already overburdened courts.
THE “ART OF DRAFTING LAWS” is a specialised discipline that transforms abstract policy into concrete, enforceable legal texts. In a recent illuminating discussion, Senior Advocate Mohan Katarki engaged with Google Gemini AI to explore the nuances of this art, particularly in the context of India's multilingual legal system. The conversation honed in on how linguistic structures profoundly impact legal clarity and precision, revealing key challenges in transitioning from English to Indian languages like Hindi and Kannada.
The foundational principles of legal language
Both Mr. Katarki and Gemini emphasised that effective legal drafting demands clarity, precision, conciseness, consistency, coherence, and legal soundness. The ultimate goal is to create laws that are unambiguous and easily comprehensible to all stakeholders, from legal practitioners to the general public.
At its philosophical root, if law is conceived as a "command," then that command must be clear and easily identifiable to be just and effective. Ambiguity undermines its purpose, leading to misinterpretation and arbitrary enforcement. Laws serve both prohibitive forbidding actions, e.g., "thou shalt not steal") and permissive (granting rights or allowances, e.g., "citizens have the right to free speech") functions. Interestingly, even seemingly declarative legal provisions—such as definitions— implicitly carry prohibitive and permissive force. For example, defining "contract" implicitly prohibits agreements not meeting specified criteria from being legally binding.
The English "Shall" and "May": A standard of precision
The core of the linguistic challenge surfaced with the English auxiliary verbs "shall" and "may." In legal English, "shall" is typically interpreted as mandatory obligation or prohibition, allowing no discretion. Conversely, "may" invariably denotes permission, discretion, or power. This linguistic exactitude has been meticulously developed and legally cemented over centuries within common law jurisdictions, forming a unique and highly specialized "legal register."
The Indian language conundrum: Lack of direct equivalents
Mr. Katarki aptly pointed out that Hindi and Kannada, like many other languages, lack single-word direct equivalents that carry the same rigid, legally enshrined connotations as "shall" and "may." Instead, these languages convey similar concepts through:
Modal auxiliaries and suffixes: For instance, Hindi employs chaahiye (should), paṛnaa (have to), and saknaa (can/may), while Kannada uses suffixes like -bēku (must/should) and -bahudu (may/can).
Verb compounding and vector verbs: These add layers of meaning, indicating completion, direction, or benefactive/detrimental aspects (e.g., Hindi's ‘le lenaa’ to signify taking completely).
Explicit phrases: Direct statements such as "it is mandatory" or "it is permitted" are also utilized to ensure clarity.
The challenge isn't the inability of these languages to express such concepts, but rather the absence of a deeply standardized and universally accepted "legal register" for these terms, akin to that which has evolved for "shall" and "may" in English. This necessitates meticulous and consistent drafting practices, coupled with ongoing judicial interpretation, to build legal certainty.
Word order: A fundamental grammatical difference
Beyond specific auxiliary verbs, the discussion highlighted a more fundamental linguistic obstacle: word order. English is an SVO (Subject-Verb-Object) language, placing the verb early in the sentence (e.g., "The judge dismissed the case"). In contrast, Hindi and Kannada are SOV (Subject-Object-Verb) languages, where the verb appears at the end of the sentence (e.g., "न्यायाधीश नेमामलेको खारिज कि दिया").This SOV structure presents unique challenges in legal drafting:
* Delayed Comprehension: Readers must process an entire clause, including all objects and modifiers, before encountering the core action or command. In complex legal sentences with multiple conditions and exceptions, this can significantly increase cognitive load and hinder immediate understanding.
* Ambiguity in Modifiers: Placing the verb at the end can make it harder to ascertain the precise scope of negations or modal expressions that precede it, potentially leading to misinterpretations.
* Structuring Provisos: Integrating common legal elements like provisos ("Provided that...") or exceptions ("unless...") becomes more intricate when the main verb concludes the sentence, often resulting in lengthy and convoluted constructions if not handled expertly.
Legal drafters trained in the SVO English style may inadvertently mimic these structures when drafting in SOV Indian languages, leading to awkward and unclear legal prose.
A balancing act of precision and accessibility
The linguistic differences, particularly the nuances of expressing obligation/discretion and the fundamental word order variations, are indeed significant factors in India's ongoing reliance on English in its legal system. They underscore the immense value placed on the precision and established clarity offered by the English legal lexicon.
However, these linguistic features do not render Indian languages incapable of legal clarity. Rather, they demand different, often more explicit, and culturally adapted drafting methodologies. The challenge is systemic: to develop a robust, standardized legal register in Indian languages, complemented by comprehensive training for legal professionals in these specialized drafting techniques. While the road to a full transition is long and complex, requiring careful consideration of historical legacy, vast legal precedents, and practical administrative hurdles, acknowledging and strategically addressing these linguistic particularities is a crucial step towards making law truly accessible to all.