And therefore, I feel that this court is still doing justice to me and I am receiving justice even if all my prayers are turned down. I am still receiving justice even if I am sentenced for imprisonment or fined heavily. I then remember the promise of the presiding judge that he will reasonably explain me in his order that why I am not entitled to my prayers or why I am entitled to the punishment or fine.
Moreover, even if I am granted all the relief, the presiding judge will still explain in his order why I am duly entitled to the prayers. This will console my brother litigant.
Explained decision of the court will give satisfaction to me that I am adequately heard by the presiding judge, no matter my prayers are refused. Explained decision may bring in little inconvenience to the judges for it is little more time consuming. But I feel that there is no other way to do justice.
The reasons employed not only be intelligible but which will also deal with the substantial points which I have raised. What is of utmost importance is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy.
It further feels to me that unexplained decision of the court is like I am roughed up and told to get out from the court. Moreover, as an advocate, I am failing in my duties and inflicting injustice to my client if I do not give him explained decision of the court, irrespective of outcome of the case.
Explained decisions only breathe life into court order. The giving of satisfactory reasons is required by the ordinary man’s sense of justice and is also a healthy discipline for all who exercise powers over others. The fate of Justice is tied to the thread of reason.
The concentrated view that emerges in the background as aforesaid runs to the effect that the greatest guarantee of Justice is not the law but the personality of the Judge and the way he discharges his duties. The very search for reasons will put the judge on alert and minimize the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfairness in the conclusion.
Some authoritative views on reasoning of orders/ decisions, orders or decisions- whether administrative, quasi judicial or judicial.
Judicial orders:
(1) A Judgment/ Order must be a self contained document from which it should appear as to what were the facts of the case and what was the controversy which was tried to be settled by the Court. The process of reasoning by which Court came to a particular conclusion and decreed or dismissed the suit should clearly be reflected in the Judgment/Order. [Balraj Taneja V Sunil Madan, AIR 1999.]
(2) The Hon SC strongly objected to the practice of High Courts passing final orders without reasoned judgments. [St of Punjab V Jagdev Singh Talwandi, AIR 1984.]
(3) Fair play requires recording of germane and relevant precise reasons when an order affects the right of a citizen or a person irrespective of the fact whether it is judicial, quasi judicial or administrative act. Recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned has applied its mind to the facts on record. Reasons also aids the Appellate or Revisional Authority to see whether the maker of the order, Judgment, decree has justly meet out justice to the aggrieved person. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education Vs K.S. Gandhi (1991) 2 SCC 715
Administrative decisions:
(1) The question as to whether an administrative authority should record reasons for its decisions has however come up for consideration before the Supreme Court in number of cases. Underlying the need the SC in Travancore Rayons Ltd Vs Union of India AIR 1971 SC 862 observed that the necessity to give sufficient reasons which disclose proper appreciation of the problem to be solved and the mental process by which the conclusion is reached where a non judicial authority exercises a judicial function is obvious. Here in this case the order of the Central Govt in rejecting a Revision u/s 36 of the Central Excises & Salt Act 1944 merely stated that the Govt having carefully considered the points made by the Applicant saw no reason to interfere with the order. The order of the Central Govt being laconic (brief) was held to be vitiated.
(2) With the proliferation of administrative law, administrative authorities are in some kind of cases replacing courts of law and that has made all the more necessary that such authorities should accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them. The Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd Vs The Union of India AIR 1976 SC 1785
(3) The reasons if disclosed would be open to judicial scrutiny for ascertaining their nexus with the order, the refusal to disclose the reasons would equally be open to the scrutiny of the Court. Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 at page 613.
(4) It is pertinent to note that any action, decision or order of any statutory or public authority bereft of reasoning would be arbitrary, unfair and unjust violating article 14 of the Constitution of India or would be deemed to have been taken or arrived at by adopting unfair procedure offending article 21 of Constitution of India. Krishna Swami Vs Union of India. AIR 1993 SC 1407
(5) In Breen Vs Amalgamated Engineering Union, LORD DENNING MR, observed that the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.
(6) Hearing, however once given must be genuine and not formal or empty public relation exercise. In other words there must not be lip service to this rule or an audience allowed which tantamount to nothing. Swadeshi Cotton Mills V Union Of India. AIR 1981 SC 818.
Quasi Judicial / Tribunal orders:
(1) The quasi judicial authorities are enjoined with the duty and responsibility to see to it that in adjudicating upon proceedings which come up before them they pass properly reasoned orders so that those who are affected by such orders are assured that their case have received proper consideration at the hands of the said authorities and that such decisions have been reached according to law and have not been the result of caprice, whim or fancy and have been reached on ground of policy or expediency. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd Vs Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala AIR 1961 SC 1669
(2) Reasons disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi judicial; and reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and conclusions reached. Union of India Vs Mohan Lal Capoor (1973) 2 SCC 836
(3) Justice SUBBA RAO in a dissenting judgment once observed that if tribunals can make orders without giving reasons, the said powers in the hands of unscrupulous or dishonest officers may turn out to be a potent weapon for abuse of power. But if reasons for an order are given it will be an effective restraint on such abuse. Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd Vs Union of India AIR 1966 SC 671
(4) An order of Quasi Judicial nature without reasons is a wholly defective order in the eyes of law. Govt of India Vs Maxim A Lobo (1991) 190 ITR 101
Sandeep Jalan
(Advocate)
Legal issues !!
If you are facing any of these issues like (a) Recovery of Moneys (b) Immovable property disputes (c) grievances against Municipalities & Govts., including challenge to legitimacy of laws etc. (d) grievances against illegalities and highhandedness of Police like illegal arrests, refusal to register FIR, deliberately flawed investigations, etc (e) False FIRs (f) False Claims (g) False evidences (h) Grievances against Judges (i) Illegal or perverse Orders of the Courts / Tribunals, among others.
or
If you are looking for draft of any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the nature and attribute of any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the procedure followed in any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the grounds on which any order of the court / tribunal is challenged; or if you are facing any frivolous litigation.
https://www.litigationplatform.com/
Thank you.
Comments
Too often, I have seen judgments left ambiguous, even when they could have been crystal clear on the basis of evidence/arguments/case law, leaving a loophole for appeal.
I cannot second-guess the intentions of judges passing ambiguous orders, but it does not serve the purpose of speedy justice and propagates the appeal culture unnecessarily.
From:Bhushan Malgaonkar
From:Bhushan Malgaonkar