There’s a subtle but serious distinction between an order and a judgment

Although styled with citations from the Supreme Court, references to constitutional expectations from tribunals and an extended discourse on the Issue, Rule, Analysis and Conclusion (IRAC) method of dissecting legal issues as well as ratio decidendi (the underlying principle of a reason-based decision), the document is not a judgment. It is a procedural order under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013, allowing stakeholder meetings to be dispensed with for an uncontested amalgamation between wholly owned subsidiaries.

Also Read: Tribunal reforms hold the key to efficient dispute resolution in India

There was no adjudication. No objections were raised. Yet, there was a 36-paragraph exposition on doctrinal themes, judicial formatting and the philosophy of adjudication. A simple procedural matter became an occasion for judicial theorizing. The structure of the order created the impression of adjudication where none existed.

Confusing judgments with orders isn’t just about wording—it affects how justice is delivered. A judgment resolves contested rights, backed by structured reasoning and legal finality. An order, especially in procedural contexts, directs statutory compliance, often without adjudication. An order is meant to be a functional instrument of disposition. Blurring this line compromises institutional efficiency.

All judgments are orders, but not all orders are judgments. Offering detailed reasoning where the law calls only for confirming compliance is unnecessary. This creates an avoidable burden in terms of increased drafting time, a strain on judicial bandwidth and potential distraction from urgent matters like insolvency resolution. When disproportionate time is allocated to uncontested matters, it reduces the time available for matters that deserve the tribunal’s attention.

This is a systemic issue. There is a pattern of legal over-writing in routine matters. Unnecessarily detailed orders in perfunctory applications that are not disputed add to case pendency. Stakeholders regularly raise concerns about backlogs and limited judicial strength. So if uncontested matters are treated as platforms for legal essays, we need a change in approach.

Also Read: There’s no arguing with the broad thrust of CCI’s order on WhatsApp’s use of data

It is worth remembering that the tribunal’s core strength lies not in its volume of writing, but the precision of its decisions. Clarity, brevity and proportionality must guide the drafting of routine orders.

This is not a plea for mechanization. Procedural integrity must be maintained. But judicial economy is an imperative. Over-reasoning simple matters is no less a distortion than under-reasoning complex ones.

In All About Health, the order explained concepts like ‘majority’ with concurring and dissenting opinions, although there was no divergence in the bench. While doctrinally sound, this commentary was unnecessary. Observations in an order must be grounded in the case at hand. An order is not meant to educate, but to decide. When educational content overwhelms the dispositive part, it signals a mismatch in form and function.

Two practical concerns follow. First, the impact on appeals. When procedural orders read like judgments, it becomes hard for appellate forums to tell whether they are final or interim. This creates uncertainty over limitation periods, broadens the scope of appellate review and risks giving procedural directions the weight of precedent. The burden of appeal doesn’t arise from merits of the case, but from the confusion caused by how the order is written.

Second, it affects the tribunal’s productivity. The more the time spent elaborating uncontested matters, the less of it remains for final hearings and urgent cases.

The order rightly cited SBI vs Ajay Kumar Sood, but the context is key. That case involved contested rights and enduring consequences. The exhortation to write well-structured judgments is meant for substantive decisions, not procedural orders. Extending that mandate to consent-based applications misreads the goal of judicial writing.

This distinction goes to the heart of institutional functioning. In commercial adjudication, clear procedures and predictable outcomes are essential. Good drafting is not about flourishes of language. It’s about precision and control.

Also Read: Why those calling for reforms in India may need a reality check

What’s needed is not drastic reform, but structured internal guidance. The tribunal could adopt differentiated templates. For example, uncontested applications under Sections 230 to 232, backed by consent affidavits, could follow a concise format. Contested matters, on the other hand, would continue to merit a full exposition of the legal basis on which a decision is made. This bifurcation respects both transparency and judicial bandwidth.

Such an approach would bring tangible benefits: faster case disposal, improved readability and enhanced accessibility. It would also reassure stakeholders that the tribunal is applying its time proportionately across matters. The principle is simple: tribunals must distinguish between judgments and orders to maintain their efficiency, accessibility and authority as adjudicatory forums.

Better-written decisions are welcome. But what’s ‘better’ can vary. For procedural orders, less is more.

The author is an advocate and former judicial member of the National Company Law Tribunal.