reasoned orders

Even High Courts are required to pass speaking reasoned orders – The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. Supreme Court NEW DELHI , SEPT 01, 2008 : STATE of Himachal Pradesh is in appeal against a judgement of the High Court dismissing the application filed by the State in terms of Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application was dismissed summarily by simply stating "Dismissed". The issue is not important but the way the High Court disposed of the case invited the displeasure of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed, "The trial Court was required to carefully appraise the entire evidence and then come to a conclusion. If the trial Court was at lapse in this regard the High Court was obliged to undertake such an exercise by entertaining the appeal. The trial Court on the facts of this case did not perform its duties, as was enjoined on it by law. The High Court ought to have in such circumstances granted leave and thereafter as a first court of appeal, re-appreciated the entire evidence on the record independently and returned its findings objectively as regards guilt or otherwise of the accused. It has failed to do so. The questions involved were not trivial. The primary ground for acquittal seems to be that the alleged eye- witnesses did not support the prosecution case and, therefore, their presence is doubtful. The High Court has not given any reasons for refusing to grant leave to file appeal against acquittal, and seems to have been completely oblivious to the fact that by such refusal, a close scrutiny of the order of acquittal, by the appellate forum, has been lost once and for all". Why a reasoned order? The Supreme Court held: 1. The manner in which appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by the High Court leaves much to be desired. 2. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. 3. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. 4. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court order not sustainable. 5. The requirement of indicating reasons in such cases has been judicially recognized as imperative. 6. Judicial discipline to abide by declaration of law by this Court, cannot be forsaken, under any pretext by any authority or Court, be it even the Highest Court in a State, oblivious to Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 7. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. 8. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. 9. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. 10. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. 11. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. 12. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. 13. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. If this is so for the High Court, it is more so for the quasi judicial authorities.

"Loved reading this piece by ca.bhupendrashah?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Join our Telegram group

Join our Whatsapp group