Drafting Petitions and Affidavits: Common Errors in Legal Language and How to Avoid Them

---

The strength of a legal petition or affidavit lies not only in its facts and evidence but also in the clarity, precision, and correctness of its language. In the legal world, words are tools of persuasion and instruments of justice. A single misplaced word or ambiguous phrase can distort meaning, weaken arguments, or even cause a petition to be dismissed. Drafting petitions and affidavits requires mastery over legal language, structure, and statutory requirements — a skill that varies significantly across common law and civil law systems. This variation also affects how legal education, procedural compliance, and linguistic expectations are taught and practiced across jurisdictions.

This blog explores the common linguistic errors made while drafting petitions and affidavits, with comparative and practical insights to help law students, advocates, and academicians understand how to write with clarity and accuracy.

1. The Importance of Legal Language in Drafting

Legal language serves a dual function — it must convey factual accuracy and reflect procedural propriety. Petitions and affidavits are sworn documents; hence, any linguistic inaccuracy could lead to perjury, dismissal, or judicial reprimand.

In common law countries like India, the UK, and the US, the emphasis is on detailed pleadings supported by precedents and legal reasoning. In contrast, civil law countries such as France or Germany rely on concise factual statements and codified principles. Regardless of the system, precision remains the soul of legal drafting. Whether drafting for a trial court or an appellate bench, the language must reflect both procedural integrity and persuasive clarity.

2. Common Errors in Drafting Petitions and Affidavits

(a) Ambiguity in Language

One of the most frequent issues is vague or ambiguous expressions. For example, writing “the respondent acted improperly” without specifying how or when creates interpretational gaps. Courts require specificity, not assumptions. Ambiguity not only weakens the petitioner’s position but may also shift interpretive burden onto the judge, risking adverse inference.
Correct approach: Use concrete facts — “The respondent failed to comply with Clause 5 of the contract dated 15th July 2023.”

(b) Overuse of Legalese

Excessive use of archaic terms like hereinafter, aforesaid, wherein makes petitions verbose and difficult to follow. Modern legal drafting encourages plain English without losing legal precision. Plain language improves accessibility for clients, junior advocates, and even judges managing heavy caseloads.
For instance, instead of saying, “The petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to,” one can write, “The petitioner requests this Court to.”

(c) Improper Structure

Many petitions lack logical sequencing — facts, grounds, and reliefs often overlap. The structure must follow a logical and statutory order:

1. Title and Jurisdiction
2. Facts of the Case
3. Grounds for Relief
4. Prayer/Relief Claimed
5. Verification

Skipping or merging sections can make the petition defective.

(d) Inconsistent Terminology

Using “applicant” in one paragraph and “petitioner” in another creates inconsistency. Legal drafting demands uniformity in terms used throughout the document. This consistency also aids in indexing, citation, and judicial referencing during hearings or appeals.

(e) Grammatical and Typographical Errors

Small grammatical mistakes can alter the entire meaning. For instance, in O’Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy (2017), the absence of a comma cost the company millions of dollars due to changed interpretation. Thus, punctuation in legal drafting is not a stylistic choice — it is a matter of substance.

(f) Mixing Facts with Arguments

An affidavit should contain facts within the personal knowledge of the deponent, not legal arguments or opinions. Yet, many drafters include argumentative statements such as “The respondent deliberately violated the law.” Such statements weaken the affidavit, as they are not factual assertions but inferences.
Correct approach: “The respondent did not submit the mandatory report as required under Rule 12.”

(g) Non-Compliance with Procedural Requirements

Errors like missing verification clauses, unsigned pages, or incorrect jurisdiction details can lead to outright rejection. Rule 1, Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in India, requires pleadings to contain material facts in a concise form — a rule often violated by over-explaining or under-stating facts.

(h) Copy-Paste Errors

In the age of digital drafting, copying templates without editing party names or facts is a serious professional lapse. Such negligence reflects lack of diligence and invites judicial criticism. Courts have increasingly emphasized drafting accountability, with some High Courts issuing circulars discouraging template misuse.

Table: Common Drafting Errors and Their Corrections

Error Type	Example of Mistake	Recommended Correction
Ambiguity	“The respondent acted improperly.”	“The respondent violated Clause 5 of the contract dated…”
Overuse of Legalese	“Hereinafter, aforesaid, whereas…”	Use plain English: “From now on,” “as mentioned above”
Inconsistent Terminology	“Applicant” vs “Petitioner”	Use one term consistently throughout
Mixing Facts with Arguments	“The respondent deliberately violated the law.”	“The respondent did not submit the required report…”
Grammatical/Punctuation Error	Missing comma in a list (e.g., Oakhurst Dairy case)	Proofread carefully; punctuation affects meaning
Structural Confusion	Merged or missing sections	Follow standard format: Facts → Grounds → Relief → Verification

3. Comparative Insights: Common vs. Civil Law Systems

In India, for instance, affidavits under Order XIX of CPC require personal verification and factual statements only, whereas civil law jurisdictions often treat affidavits as administrative statements rather than sworn evidence. The contrast shows how linguistic formality in common law jurisdictions holds procedural importance. Understanding these stylistic and procedural differences is crucial for cross-border litigation, international arbitration, and legal translation.

For readers familiar with this series, the structural and linguistic differences between common law and civil law systems have already been explored. In the context of drafting petitions and affidavits, these differences manifest in how detail, tone, and procedural compliance are prioritized across jurisdictions.

4. Practical Insights: How to Avoid Drafting Errors

1. Plan Before Drafting – Outline facts chronologically. Avoid inserting unnecessary details.
2. Use Active Voice – “The respondent failed to pay” is clearer than “Payment was not made by the respondent.”
3. Maintain Uniform Terminology – Once defined, use the same term consistently.
4. Proofread Carefully – Review for punctuation, factual accuracy, and jurisdictional details.
5. Stay Updated with Case Law – Courts evolve linguistic preferences; following recent judgments improves drafting quality.
6. Follow Model Formats – Refer to formats in procedural codes and High Court guidelines but customize for your case. Customization ensures relevance, avoids boilerplate errors, and demonstrates professional diligence.
7. Keep it Simple – As Justice Krishna Iyer once remarked, “Law is not a mystery; its language should not be either.”

Table: Legal Drafting Do’s and Don’ts

✅ Do’s	❌ Don’ts
Use clear, specific language	Avoid vague terms like “improper” or “illegal”
Follow standard structure and headings	Don’t merge or skip procedural sections
Maintain consistent terminology	Don’t switch between “petitioner” and “applicant”
Use active voice for clarity	Avoid passive constructions that obscure agency
Proofread for grammar and punctuation	Don’t rely solely on templates or auto-correct
Cite relevant statutes and precedents	Don’t overload with irrelevant case law
Customize formats to suit the case	Don’t copy-paste without verifying details
Keep tone professional and neutral	Avoid emotional or accusatory language

5. The Role of Technology in Modern Drafting

AI-assisted legal drafting tools now help in detecting grammatical and logical inconsistencies. However, they cannot replace the human understanding of legal context. Legal professionals must combine linguistic precision with critical reasoning — ensuring that petitions and affidavits not only read well but stand firm in court. Tools like citation checkers, clause analyzers, and jurisdictional validators are increasingly integrated into drafting workflows, but human oversight remains essential.

Conclusion

Drafting petitions and affidavits is both an art and a discipline. The key lies in clarity, consistency, and compliance. A well-drafted petition speaks for itself; it guides the judge, convinces the reader, and upholds justice. In a comparative sense, whether under common law’s persuasive narrative or civil law’s concise format, the essence remains the same — precision in legal language ensures the precision of justice.

---

References

1. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (India), Order VI & XIX.
2. O’Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy, 851 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2017).
3. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, Law and Language in India: A Jurist’s View, Indian Law Review, 1980.
4. Garner, Bryan A. Legal Writing in Plain English. University of Chicago Press, 2013.
5. Bhatia, Vijay K. Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. Routledge, 1993.

#LegalDrafting #PetitionWriting #AffidavitDrafting #LegalLanguage #ComparativeLaw #LawStudents #LegalPractice #LegalWriting #CourtPetitions #LegalEducation #DrGaneshVisavale