Indal Singh vs State of M.P. and Another

Sujoy Paul, J.—This writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 29.10.2012. The plaintiff/petitioner prayed before the court below that he be permitted to mark exhibits on the documents filed by the defendants. This prayer was objected by the other side. The court below has rejected the aforesaid prayer of the plaintiff by the impugned order. The singular question involved is whether the order passed by the court below is legal and justified?

The court below has rejected the said prayer on the ground that "as per law the said permission cannot be granted to the counsel for the plaintiff." However, the court below has not assigned any reason as to which provision of law is an impediment for the plaintiff. In the opinion of this Court, the court below has only mentioned about its conclusion and not assigned any reason therefor. The court below was under an obligation to assign reasons for the conclusion arrived. The Apex Court in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, , has emphasized the need for assigning reasons in administrative/quasi-judicial/judicial proceedings. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-

(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.

(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants'' faith in the justice delivery system.

(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.

(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny.

(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence.

(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process".

In the light of aforesaid Supreme Court judgment, the order of learned court below cannot be permitted to stand. The reasons are heartbeats of conclusion. The court below has not assigned any reason and, therefore, the impugned order to the extent plaintiff''s request for marking exhibits on the defendants'' documents is rejected, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the court below to rehear the parties on the said question/prayer of the plaintiff and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.