Mohendra Nath Bora vs State of Assam

K. Lahiri, J.—Perused the explanation submitted by the Sessions Judge. He has realised his error and regretted for rendering the non-speaking order. I am glad to note that learned Judge has realised that to perpetuate as error is no heroism, to rectify it is the compulsion of judicial conscience. A Judge ought to be wise enough to know that he is fallible, and therefore, ever ready to learn; great and honest enough to discard ail mere pride of opinion, and follow truth wherever it may lead and courageous enough to acknowledge his errors. These are the inspiring words of Justice Bronson in Pierce v. Delameter (1847) 3 AMY 18. With these observations the episode comas to an end.

However, I desire to lay few words about the necessity of giving a reasoned order while disposing an application for bail or anticipatory bail. Of late I notice that the learned Magistrates and the learned Sessions Judges dispose of applications for bail by slip-shod orders. This has become a regular feature.

One must realise that the majority of the accused are poor and they supplicate for their liberty and justice. They claim freedom and liberty and crave for "judicial justice". But in turn they receive cryptic orders. It is high time for the judicial officers to bear in mind that they must dispense "judicial justice" while disposing applications for bail or pre-arrest bail. The Court has jurisdiction to grant or refuse bail. In other words, it is the obligation of the Court to give reasons while rejecting applications for bail. An order rejecting the application for bail or pre-arrest bail without furnishing reasons is a "purported order" and not a "real order" sad amounts to refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in the court by law, I enumerate here in below some of the reasons why a reasoned order is necessary for disposal of such applications:

(a) Duty to give reasons is the elementary requirement of a Judicial process. The Supreme Court has outlined that the elementary requirements must be complied even by the quasi-judicial authorities vide Sardar Govindrao and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, and Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Vs. Walchand and Co. Private Ltd.,

(b) The Judiciary has a general duty, rather obligation to act "fairly". Indeed, the fairness founded on reasons is the essence of the guarantees epitomised in Article 14 of the Constitution.

(c) Under the Constitution and the law the parties are entitled to know the reasons for the decisions. They are entitled to know why their applications for bail have been rejected;

(d) The observance of the principles of natural justice is implicit in the "rule of law" and "the rule of law" itself commands "reasoned decisions". The requirement of the rule of law demands that one ought not to be deprived of his right without the authority of law, In Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, it has been held that the duty to give reasons is the minimum requirement of the rule of law.

(e) If the courts are permitted to render orders without reasons, apart from arbitrariness there will be a potent danger of non-consideration of facts which would encourage mechanical exercise of the power or rubber stamps exercise of the power. Duty to give reasons is a safety valve that protects arbitrary deprivation of the right of a litigant.

(f) Reasons, however brief, dispel all doubts about arbitrariness of the Court. Unless the law provides that reasons for the orders are to be withheld, there is a "general duty" of the Court to give reasons. The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicate that the order rejecting an application for bail need be based on objective satisfaction required to be stated in the order.

(g) The Court is bound to give reasons where the correctness or validity of the decision is challengeable by the accused before higher courts.

(h) Even discretionary powers coupled with duties call for reasons to be stated. The judicial officers are under legal obligation or duty to determine the merits of the application one way or the other by giving reasons for the decision.

(i) When a right of revision is provided by the law the Court is bound to act fairly and is obligated to state reasons in support of the decision.

(j) When there is a duty to dispose of an application according to law on the basis of relevant consideration it is imperative for the court to state reasons for its decision. It is the fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done in the proceeding. It is not a case of denial of the privilege but it amounts to deprivation of his right, and, therefore, reasons must be stated in the order of the courts below.

3A. These are just a few grounds why it is imperative for the courts to give reasons while disposing an original application. It must be remembered by the Courts below that even where the High Court exercises power under Article 226 of the Constitution and dismisses an application in limine the High Court most set forth a brief statement of reasons for its order instead of disposing it by a single order "Dismissed", vide M.P. Mittal v. State of Harayana U.J. (S.C.) 1985 page 22. It is thus seen that a summary rejection of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution without giving reasons is bad. Non-furnishing of reasons multiply litigations as the parties come to the higher Court and compel the court to draw the records for ascertaining as to whether the orders rendered by the courts below were justified or not. If a reasoned order is given the party may not go to higher courts on being satisfied with the reasons. If a reasoned order is given application may be summarily dismissed by higher court without calling for the records and waiting public money and time.

I am of the firm opinion that it is the duty and obligation of the courts below to give reasons while rejecting an application for bail and/or anticipatory bail, unless non-furnishing of the grounds ensures to the benefit of the party, say, when giving of reasons might cause prejudice to the accused. To safeguard the interest of the accused reasons may not be furnished but the reasons for not giving a reasoned order should be clearly set forth in the order.

With these observations and direction the case is disposed of.

Send copies of the order to all the Sessions Judges within the jurisdiction of this Court for circulation to the Judicial Officers and the Director, North Eastern Judicial Officers'' Training Institute, Ulabari, Gauhati.