Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nihal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 March, 2022
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP No. 5297 of 2022
(NIHAL SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Gwalior, Dated : 09-03-2022
Shri S.N. Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Devendra Chobbey, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the present petition under
Article 226/227 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order
dated 31.08.2021 which is an order passed in appeal by the Additional
Collector, District Vidisha, whereby, an application under Section 6 of the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens, Act, 2007 (in brevity
the "Act 2007") has been allowed without assigning any cogent reason and
without following the due procedure laid down in Section 16 of the Act,
2007. Thus, the order is illegal and arbitrary. He has placed reliance upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kranti
Associates Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and
Ors. reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has
laid down certain principles with regard to necessity of passing the
reasoned/speaking order, which reads as under:-
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 (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".
3. From bare perusal of the order (Annexure P/1) it is evident that it is
a non speaking order so far as it does not assign any reason in support of its
conclusion. It is a settled principle of law that reasons in support of decision
must be cogent, clear and succinct since the requirement to record reasons
emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making and is
virtually a part of 'Due Process', therefore, in light of judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates (Supra), the matter is
remanded back to the Additional Collector, District Vidisha for adjudication
of the matter afresh and pass a reasonable and speaking order.
4. With the aforesaid observations, present petition is disposed off.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
(LJ*)
LOKENDRA JAIN
2022.03.10
10:01:27 +05'30'
