Extravagant Judicial Poetics: A Failed Rhetoric In ‘Ranganatha Reddy’
- IJLLR Journal
- Jul 2
- 1 min read
Dhruv Malpani, Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University
ABSTRACT
This paper examines the contrasting judicial approaches in the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy, focusing particularly on Justice Krishna Iyer’s opinion. While the judgment addressed constitutional tensions between state-led nationalisation and individual property rights, this paper critiques the rhetorical strategy employed by Justice Iyer. Through an analysis of his literary and philosophical references, the study questions whether such expansive language aids legal reasoning or hinders accessibility and clarity. In contrast, Justice Untwalia’s restrained and direct style offers a conventional yet accessible interpretation. By comparing these linguistic and rhetorical choices, the paper highlights how judicial language influences public perception and legal legitimacy. Ultimately, it argues that Iyer’s verbose poetics, though well-intentioned, dilute the force of legal argumentation, creating a disconnect between the judiciary and the lay public. The work thus calls for a more balanced approach to judicial writing that marries clarity with constitutional depth.
