HYBRID LEGALITY IN PRACTICE: REGISTER, JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, AND IMPARTIALITY IN SELECTED PAKISTANI LEGAL DISCOURSE

Abstract

This study explores the stylistic features of legal discourse in Pakistani criminal law, specifically through a register analysis of Supreme Court verdicts. The use of special vocabulary, sentence constructions and style of writing has been seen to make the legal language complex, rigid and closed-ended. Such complications in Pakistan impact transparency and accessibility since most of the English-written legal texts in the country are dominated by the Islamic and British traditions of law. The paper analyses the role of language in the formation of legal authority, the impartiality of the court, and the clarity of interpretation in Supreme Court of Pakistan decisions. The theoretical framework is premised on the stylistic and register analysis model by Halliday (1978) and Fairclough (1995), which aids in explaining how the social context and legal role influence language. The qualitative analysis focuses on the review of 12 verdicts of the English Supreme Court that can be regarded as the best examples of formal legal language in Pakistan because of their judicial authority and thoroughness. The selection of these judgements was due to the reason that they represent the most institutionalised and formal legal language in Pakistan. The results indicate that epistemic certainties, depersonalised agents, and integrations of verdicts into a network of intertextual precedents can be predicted by stylistic choices as a means of supporting the validity of judicial rulings. The research paper adds to the analysis of legal discourse through illustrating the use of register as an authority-making mechanism in postcolonial legal settings. The paper finds that the stylistic devices used are no longer ornamental but functional: they convey legal meaning, organise judicial reasoning, and promote the interpretation clarity of complex legal terms.