Bunty vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8361 MP

                                       1                                    CRR-961-2021
          The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                    CRR No. 961 of 2021
                        (BUNTY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


Indore, Dated : 07-12-2021
      Shri Gopal Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Aditya Garg, learned counsel for the respondent/state.

With the consent, heard finally.

The applicant preferred an application for superdagi of a vehicle and a mobile. The said application preferred under section 451 and 457 of the

Cr.P.C was partly allowed by the Court below vide order dated 07.01.2021.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by impugned order, although the vehicle was handed over to the petitioner but without assigning any reason, supurdagi of mobile was declined.

No other point is pressed by the parties. A careful reading of order dated 07.01.2021 shows that the court below has recorded the rival contentions of the parties and thereafter reached to a "conclusion" that the application for supurdagi of mobile was rejected whereas the application for supurdagi of vehicle was accepted with the

condition.

It is seen that the Court below has not assigned a single reason as to why mobile could not have been handed over to the petitioner.

It is the minimum expectation from a judicial forum that if the parties have taken rival or diametrically opposite stand in relation to a claim before it, it will assign reasons as to why claim is accepted or rejected. The reasons are held to be heard beat of the conclusion.

In Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan , (2010) 9

SCC 496, it was emphasized the need of assigning reasons in following words:-

“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.

2 CRR-961-2021

(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 decisionsâ€​.

(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 processâ€​.

If is impugned order is tested on the anvil of the said principles, the order cannot stand judicial scrutiny to the extent Supurdagi of mobile was declined.

To this extent, the matter is remitted back to the Court below to decide 3 CRR-961-2021 the claim of Supurdagi of mobile by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law.

It is expected that the Court below will take a decision in this regard within 15 days from the date of production of this order.

With the aforesaid, the present revision stands disposed off.

(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE

Sourabh Digitally signed by SOURABH YADAV Date: 2021.12.07 17:37:34 +05'30'