2008 JTR(SC) 110
2008 65 AIC 224 ; 2008 Supp AIR(SC) 1416 ; 2008 AIR(SCW) 794 ; 2008 2 AllLJ 746 ; 2008 2 AllMR(SC) 755 ; 2008 2 AWC 1473 ; 2008 2 BBCJ(SC) 329 ; 2007 Supp DNJ 83 ; 2008 116 FLR 835 ; 2008 Supp2 KLT 1015 ; 2008 2 MLJ 1097 ; 2008 1 Scale 655 ; 2008 3 SCC 172 ; 2008 1 SCC(L&S) 596 ; 2008 1 SCR 1111 ; 2008 1 Supreme 696
2008(1) Supreme 696
Supreme Court of india
(From Allahabad High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Vishnu Dev Sharma — Petitioner
versus
State of U.P. & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 619 of 2008
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12576 of 2004)
Decided on : 23-01-2008
important point
Dismissal of writ petition in summary manner without indicating any reason is indefensible.
Powers of the Supreme Court u/Art. 136 of the Constitution cannot be equated with powers of High Court u/Art. 226.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136, Art.226
(A) The appeal is framed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a summary dismissal of a civil writ petition by the High Court, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court and the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 to ensure that judicial and administrative action is not arbitrary. The reference to Article 136 underscores that special leave to appeal lies only to correct a genuine miscarriage of justice and does not confer a right of appeal, whereas a writ petition before the High Court ordinarily requires reasoned orders to permit meaningful judicial review and compliance with principles of natural justice.
(B) The core legal principles are that administrative and judicial orders must be reasoned, and the denial of justice occurs when reasons are not recorded; the duty to record reasons is a fundamental attribute of sound judicial administration and the principles of natural justice; and summary disposal without indicating the application of mind renders the order unsustainable, especially where the order is open to challenge.
Facts of the case:
A writ petition challenging the final seniority list was dismissed summarily by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court without recording reasons, on the ground that seniority ought to have been determined from the date of confirmation, and the appellant challenged this dismissal before this Court on the basis that issues of importance, including the applicable norms for fixation of seniority, were not considered.
Findings of Court:
The High Courts order was found to be devoid of any stated reasons, which was characterized as a clear indefensibility that defeats the ends of justice and nullifies the appellate or supervisory function of the higher forum; the court emphasized that reasons are essential to distinguish judicial decision-making from whimsical administrative action.
Issues:
Whether a writ petition can be dismissed in a summary manner without indicating reasons; whether the failure to record reasons amounts to denial of justice and undermines the principles of natural justice; and whether such an order is sustainable on appeal or review.
Ratio Decidendi:
An order disposing of a substantial legal challenge, especially one touching upon seniority and important rights, must be reasoned to demonstrate the application of mind, ensure transparency, enable meaningful judicial review, and comply with the dictates of natural justice; without reasons, the order lacks legitimacy and must be set aside.
Result:
The impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law with a direction to record reasons, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
(A) The appeal is framed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a summary dismissal of a civil writ petition by the High Court, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court and the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 to ensure that judicial and administrative action is not arbitrary. The reference to Article 136 underscores that special leave to appeal lies only to correct a genuine miscarriage of justice and does not confer a right of appeal, whereas a writ petition before the High Court ordinarily requires reasoned orders to permit meaningful judicial review and compliance with principles of natural justice.
(B) The core legal principles are that administrative and judicial orders must be reasoned, and the denial of justice occurs when reasons are not recorded; the duty to record reasons is a fundamental attribute of sound judicial administration and the principles of natural justice; and summary disposal without indicating the application of mind renders the order unsustainable, especially where the order is open to challenge.
Facts of the case:
A writ petition challenging the final seniority list was dismissed summarily by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court without recording reasons, on the ground that seniority ought to have been determined from the date of confirmation, and the appellant challenged this dismissal before this Court on the basis that issues of importance, including the applicable norms for fixation of seniority, were not considered.
Findings of Court:
The High Courts order was found to be devoid of any stated reasons, which was characterized as a clear indefensibility that defeats the ends of justice and nullifies the appellate or supervisory function of the higher forum; the court emphasized that reasons are essential to distinguish judicial decision-making from whimsical administrative action.
Issues:
Whether a writ petition can be dismissed in a summary manner without indicating reasons; whether the failure to record reasons amounts to denial of justice and undermines the principles of natural justice; and whether such an order is sustainable on appeal or review.
Ratio Decidendi:
An order disposing of a substantial legal challenge, especially one touching upon seniority and important rights, must be reasoned to demonstrate the application of mind, ensure transparency, enable meaningful judicial review, and comply with the dictates of natural justice; without reasons, the order lacks legitimacy and must be set aside.
Result:
The impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law with a direction to record reasons, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
judgment
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. –
1.Leave granted.
2.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 18497 of 1994. The dispute related to fixation of seniority.
3.It is not necessary to go into the factual aspects in detail as the writ petition was disposed of in a summary manner observing as follows:
“This is a writ petition challenging the final seniority list.
We have heard counsel for the parties. The seniority has been given from the date of confirmation. We see no illegality. The writ petition is dismissed.”
4.In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that such summary dismissal of writ petition was not warranted as several issues of considerable importance were involved, more particularly whether the norms for fixing seniority in the background facts of the case were to be considered.
5.Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that in the seniority list he was placed below juniors which was impermissible. That aspect was not considered by the High Court.
6.Learned counsel for the respondent-State and its functionaries supported the order of the High Court.
7.As the quoted portion of the order goes to show that practically no reason was indicated. The dismissal of the writ petition in such summary manner without indicating any reason is clearly indefensible.
8.Reasons introduce clarity in an order. 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. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Courts judgment not sustainable.
9.Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union,1 (1971 (1) All E.R. 1148) observed “The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration”. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree,2 (1974 LCR 120) it was observed:
“Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at”. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. 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. 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. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The “inscrutable face of a sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.
10.This Court in State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar,3 (2004 (5) SCC 568) has while reiterating the view expressed in the earlier cases for the past two decades emphasised the necessity, duty and obligation of the High Court to record reasons in disposing of such cases. The hallmark of a judgment/order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose the reasons for its decision and giving of reasons has been always insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration justice-delivery system, to make known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of principles of natural justice. Any judicial power has to be judiciously exercised and the mere fact that discretion is vested with the court/forum to exercise the same either way does not constitute any license to exercise it at whims or fancies and arbitrarily as used to be conveyed by the well-known saying: “varying according to the Chancellors foot”. Arbitrariness has been always held to be the anathema of judicial exercise of any power, all the more so when such orders are amenable to challenge further before higher forums. Such ritualistic observations and summary disposal which has the effect of, at times, cannot be said to be a proper and judicial manner of disposing of judiciously the claim before the courts. The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the court concerned had really applied its mind.
11.The attempt to draw an analogy on the power of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution) and the practice of rejecting appeals at the SLP stage invariably without assigning reasons with the one to be exercised while dealing with a writ petition has no meaning and is illogical. First of all, the High Court is not the final court in the hierarchy and its orders are amenable to challenge before this Court, unlike the obvious position that there is no scope for any further appeal from the order made declining to grant special leave to appeal. It has been on more than one occasion reiterated that Article 136 of the Constitution does not confer any right of appeal in favour of any party as such and it is not that any and every error is envisaged to be corrected in exercising powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The powers of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution are special and extraordinary and the main object is to ensure that there has been no miscarriage of justice. That cannot be said to be the same with a writ petition. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside.
12.In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh disposal in accordance with law by a reasoned order. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.
***********