High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/16616/2022disposed of

Shivraj Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

2023-10-12Mr. Justice Deepak Manchanda7 pages

! "#$%$ & ''

(

)* (' + , (

---- , ( ' .*/

" # $

,-.

0 1 0 1

# $ )1 '- , .

% 0 1

# $

0 2 $

% %

3 4 5

- )'

0 1 ! /

''&

/% $

% /

"8$ 5 %

6 6

$$ / /

% %

% "8 % 4 '- ')( 0 2 "

$ %

2 ')

% / 1' ')

8 $ "

$ "

/ +

$ " "

/ "

% /$ %

0 1 " $ $ $ / "

$ / $

$ %

$ $ $ $

$ $

$ "8 :

,-.

% 0 2 )1 '- , .

;

#/ %

$ 0 2

0 2 $

% " $

, &.

< '- '

$ %/

+ , 7 $ /

" " %

/ $

' '

< '( '( % '- '

% 9 %% 6,%,< % ,

/ " $

/ 7

1) '-

% %% 3"

1) '-

$ % /

1) '-

/$ %

0 %

8$ = = "

/ = ; %

/ ;

'- )'

$$ $

1) '-

9 %% 6,%,< %

$ $ $ $ $

,-.

/ %

" $

+ $

'- )'

+ 6,) * +

1) '-

%% $

6, .

+ ,&

+ 6,) + ,& 6,

$% /$

, % " $ /

" % $ "

'( '

& '& )

$ $ $

/ $ %

# ,7 $

8 / 7 # ,7

6 $ 7$% 3>

1(2% ,3 & $ %% #$

% 4 ' * "' 5 &3' 6%' +7'

( % " 78" ,7 & 5 73%9

/ + .$4$:/

"xxx xxx

51. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds: 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 quasijudicial 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 life blood 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. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731%737).

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. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".

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".

xxx xxx"

7$% 3? 5 @

! "# $ %&&'% !%'$ "

"xxx xxx

3. Although the impugned order/notice has been challenged on various grounds, we are of the opinion that the same is liable to be quashed on the short ground it does not contain reasons. There can be no manner of doubt that while deciding the appeal the Higher Level Screening Committee acts as a quasi judicial authority and it is duty bond to record reasons in support of its decision. The recording of reasons and communication thereof is imperative for compliance of the principles of natural justice which must inform the proceedings of every quasi judicial body and even in the absence of a statutory provision or administrative instructions requiring recording of reasons in support of the orders, the quasi judicial authority must pass speaking orders so as to stand the test of scrutiny.

4. In (

! )

$ * +* $, - %&'./%

Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and that of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India cannot be stultified by administrative authorities by passing non%speaking orders.

5. The requirement of recording of reasons and communication thereof by quasi judicial authorities has been emphasised in several judgments of the Supreme Court including a Constitution Bench Judgment in ) 1

2 - $, - %&&.

%&34

;

6. Similar view has been expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in

) %.'6&%&&7"#

! ( "# + $ * 3 %8 %&&7

7. In view of the above legal position, we quash the rejection of the petitioner's appeal by the Higher Level Screening Committee and direct that Higher Level Screening Committee shall reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioner and pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The High Level Screening Committee is further directed to decide the appeal afresh by passing a reasoned order within a period of one month after issuing notice to the petitioner for a specific date of hearing, on receipt of a copy of this order. The registry of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to respondent No. 2.

xxx xxx"

" 7

$ " 7$

# % 8 /

3 %

/ %

., ( / ) )'

Sapna A B A B