Delhi High Court
Jugal Kishore vs Lieutenant Governer, Delhi & Anr on 25 August, 2015
Author: Siddharth Mridul
#24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 25.08.2015
W.P.(CRL) 1828/2015
JUGAL KISHORE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon, Advocate
versus
LIEUTENANT GOVERNER, DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, ASC (Criminal) with
SI S.P. Hudda, PS- Krishna Nagar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
CRL.M.A.12278/2015 (Exemption)
Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.
The application is disposed of accordingly.
W.P.(CRL) 1828/2015 & CRL.M.A.12277/2015 (Stay)
1. The present is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of
India read with section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 assailing the order dated
01.07.2015 passed by the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi in Case No.91/2015
whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 51 of the Delhi
Police Act, 1978 against the order dated 26.05.2015 passed by the Additional
Deputy Commissioner of Police, District East, Delhi Police under sections
47/50 of Delhi Police Act, 1978 was dismissed and the petitioner was
externed beyond the National Capital Territory of Delhi for a period of two
years.
2. Notice.
3. Mr. Lao, learned Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) accepts
notice.
4. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for
hearing and disposed of by this order.
5. Mr. Tandon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
invites my attention to the impugned order dated 01.07.2015 to urge that it is
a non-speaking order and no reasons for accepting the contentions made on
behalf of the police and rejecting the submissions made on behalf of the
petitioner are recorded in the impugned order.
6. A perusal of the order impugned herein reveals that after hearing the
parties and perusing the documents on record, without assigning any reasons
whatsoever for arriving at the decision impugned herein, the Lieutenant
Governor rejected the petitioner's appeal.
7. In Kranti Associates Private Limited vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and
Others reported as (2010) 9 SCC 496 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed
as under:-
"47. 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 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 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: Ruiz Torija v. Spain, (1994) 19 EHRR 553,
at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of
Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA), 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"."
8. It is trite to say that the law of the land requires any quasi judicial
authority to assign reasons for arriving at a conclusion in every case
adjudicated by it. The impugned order, I regretfully states does not comply
with that basic requirement.
9. In view of the foregoing and the decision of the Supreme Court in
Kranti Associates (supra) the present petition is allowed. The order dated
01.07.2015 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Court of the
Lieutenant Governor, Delhi to decide the petitioner's appeal under section 51
of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 de novo after affording the parties a reasonable
opportunity of being heard in accordance with law.
10. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
11. The parties or their counsel shall appear before the Lieutenant
Governor, Delhi at the first instance on 02.09.2015 at 3.00 p.m. for further
proceedings in accordance with law.
12. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of Court
Master to counsel for the parties.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
AUGUST 25, 2015
dn
