Applying Grice’s Maxims to Judicial Language: A Forensic Linguistic Study of the 2024 Supreme Court Case in Pakistan

Abstract

This study examines the linguistic patterns in the Supreme Court judgment Sunni Ittehad Council V. Election Commission of Pakistan through the lens of Grice’s conversational maxims theory (1975), specifically focusing on their forensic implications. By analyzing how adherence to or deviation from Grice’s maxims—Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner—affects the clarity, interpretability, and transparency of the legal judgment, the study highlights key areas where legal language may hinder public understanding. Utilizing qualitative discourse analysis, this research identifies linguistic choices that influence public perception and forensic interpretation, offering insights into how judicial language can be made more accessible and trustworthy. The study's findings emphasize the importance of clear, concise, and relevant communication in fostering judicial transparency and public trust in the legal system. By providing actionable recommendations based on Grice's framework, this research contributes to the ongoing discourse on improving the accessibility of legal language and the legitimacy of judicial decisions.