Imp. Rulings - Reasoned or Speaking Order (Doctrine of Audi Alteram Partem)
Index;
- SCI (2026.07.15) in Lakshmi vs Gopi & Ors. [2026 INSC 709, C.A.No…/2026 @ SLP(C)No.9510 of 2023]
SCI (2020.04.15) in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing Kota Vs. Shukla and Brothers.(SLP (C) NO. 16466 OF 2009), 2010 4 SCC 785]
-------------------------------------------------
1). SCI (2026.07.15) in Lakshmi vs Gopi & Ors. [2026 INSC 709, C.A.No…/2026 @ SLP(C)No.9510 of 2023] held that;
# 6. That being the position, the importance of determination by the First Appellate Court is underscored. Order 41 rule 31 of CPC provides for the particulars that ought to be present in the judgment that challenges a decree. It reads as under:
“Order 41 Rule 31. Contents, date and signature of judgment.— The judgment of the Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state—
(a) the points for determination;
(b) the decision thereon;
(c) the reasons for the decision; and
(d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled; and shall at the time that it is pronounced be signed and dated by the Judge or by the Judges concurring therein.”
The scope of the first appeal and its essentials have time and again engaged the attention of this Court. From a perusal of those judgments, the following principles/aspects can be deduced:
(i) First appeals must be decided in accordance with the provisions of CPC;
(ii) In a first appeal, which is a valuable right of the party, it is open for the whole case to be re-heard, on both facts and law. Anything less than this, has been stated to be unjust to the litigant;
(iii) The judgment of the Court must - (a) reflect application of mind; and (b) support its conclusion by reasons.
(iv) When the Court agrees with the judgment impugned in appeal, the entire factual matrix need not be laboriously restated and general agreement nonetheless accompanied by some reasons thereto, shall suffice. However, this cannot overshadow the duty of the Court itself. It cannot therefore pass a cryptic order in either situation.
(v) In a case of reversal, the Court must give due consideration to the appraisal of evidence by the Trial Court, and on its own evaluation, should it arrive at a different conclusion, reasons therefor must be stated;
(vi) The First Appellate Court is a final Court of facts. In a sense, it is also the final Court of law also, unless the question presented on second appeal is a substantial question of law;
(vii) The First Appellate Court must deal with all the issues and evidence led by parties in arriving at its findings; and
(viii) In ordinary circumstances, the First Appellate Court shall frame points for determination. However, not doing so will not vitiate the judgment itself so long as reasons are recorded.
[See: Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari7; Madhukar v. Sangram; H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith; B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy; SBI v. Emmsons International Ltd.; SBI v. Emmsons International Ltd.; K. Karuppuraj v. M. Ganesan; Kurian Chacko v. Varkey Ouseph; Somakka v. K.P. Basavaraj; Mahender Pal Chabra v. Subhash Aggrawal; Kiranmal Zumerlal Borana Marwadi v. Dnyanoba Bajirao Khot; Laliteshwar Prasad Singh v. S.P. Srivastava]
XXXXX
7.6 In Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan this Court after considering a number of judicial pronouncements culled out the following principles whereby it has been underscored that both judicial and quasi-judicial authorities must give reasons in their orders:
“47. Summarising 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 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. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37] .)
(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 Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)] , wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the 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”.
--------------------------------------------------
2). SCI (2020.04.15) in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing Kota Vs. Shukla and Brothers (SLP (C) NO. 16466 OF 2009), 2010 4 SCC 785]. has held that order passed by the administrative body and tribunals must contain a reason. In paragraph 9 to 11 of the judgment, following has been laid down:
“# 9. The increasing institution of cases in all Courts in India and its resultant burden upon the Courts has invited attention of all concerned in the justice administration system. Despite heavy quantum of cases in Courts, in our view, it would neither be permissible nor possible to state as a principle of law, that while exercising power of judicial review on administrative action and more particularly judgment of courts in appeal before the higher Court, providing of reasons can never be dispensed with. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials. Firstly, a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard. Secondly, the concerned authority should provide a fair and transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order. This has been uniformly applied by courts in India and abroad.
# 10. The Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India [JT 1990 (3) SC 630: 1990 (4) SCC 594], while referring to the practice adopted and insistence placed by the Courts in United States, emphasized the importance of recording of reasons for decisions by the administrative authorities and tribunals. It said ‘administrative process will best be vindicated by clarity in its exercise’. To enable the Courts to exercise the power of review in consonance with settled principles, the authorities are advised of the considerations underlining the action under review. This Court with approval stated:
“……the orderly functioning of the process of review requires that the grounds upon which the administrative agency acted be clearly disclosed and adequately sustained.”
# 11. In exercise of the power of judicial review, the concept of reasoned orders/actions has been enforced equally by the foreign courts as by the courts in India. The administrative authority and tribunals are obliged to give reasons, absence whereof could render the order liable to judicial chastise. Thus, it will not be far from absolute principle of law that the Courts should record reasons for its conclusions to enable the appellate or higher Courts to exercise their jurisdiction appropriately and in accordance with law. It is the reasoning alone, that can enable a higher or an appellate court to appreciate the controversy in issue in its correct perspective and to hold whether the reasoning recorded by the Court whose order is impugned, is sustainable in law and whether it has adopted the correct legal approach. To sub-serve the purpose of justice delivery system, therefore, it is essential that the Courts should record reasons for its conclusions, whether disposing of the case at admission stage or after regular hearing.”
----------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment