Courts' Legitimacy Must Be Established On Reasons: J&K High Court Recommends Refresher Course For Judicial Officer Over Unreasoned Order
Reasserting the fundamental principle that judicial legitimacy flows from reasoned decision-making, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has come down heavily on a trial court judge for passing a cryptic, unreasoned order under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul not only set aside the impugned order but also directed that the concerned...
Reasserting the fundamental principle that judicial legitimacy flows from reasoned decision-making, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has come down heavily on a trial court judge for passing a cryptic, unreasoned order under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul not only set aside the impugned order but also directed that the concerned Presiding Officer be deputed for a refreshment course through the J&K Judicial Academy.
The Court emphasized that judges are "heroes of reason-giving" and that courts derive their democratic legitimacy by articulating their decisions through deliberate and transparent reasoning.
Settling aside the order impugned passed by the trial court Justice Koul reasoned,
“The Trial Court while giving his opinion in the impugned order has said “Heard and perused the record. For the reasons stated in the order of the application IA/3, the application also lacks merit and is therefore dismissed. Disposed of and made part of the main file.” These expressions cannot be, in view of well settled legal position, said to be reasons given by the Trial Court but can be said to be cryptic inasmuch as Trial Court has not discussed what provisions of Section 151 CPC provide for… and why and what are the reasons to dismiss the application”
The case originated from a property dispute in Umarabad, HMT, Srinagar, where the petitioners sought relief under Section 151 CPC for restoration of an iron gate that had allegedly existed since before 2009. They claimed that the gate, situated at the entrance of their private common pathway, was unlawfully and forcefully demolished by the staff of the Srinagar Municipal Corporation (SMC), allegedly at the behest of local land mafia, despite an interim restraining order dated 24 October 2024.
However, their application was dismissed by the Municipal Magistrate (1st Civil Subordinate Judge), Srinagar, through a terse one-line order.
Justice Koul opened his analysis by reproducing Section 151 CPC, emphasizing that it is a saving clause intended to preserve the court's inherent powers to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of its process. He described it as a legislative recognition of the time-honored principle that courts possess the authority to act ex debito justitiae, as a matter of debt to justice.
Underscoring the philosophical and functional imperative for reasoned judgments, Justice Koul observed that courts must not only appear fair but must speak in a language that reveals their judicial thought process. He remarked,
“It is a common knowledge that judges are heroes of reason-giving and the courts are portrayed as deliberative institutions. Courts' legitimacy must be established on reasons.”
Quoting legal philosophers and scholars such as Henry S. Richardson (Democratic Autonomy) and Amy Gutmann & Dennis F. Thompson (Democracy and Disagreement), the Court emphasized that judicial opinions serve as vehicles of democratic legitimacy. Public articulation of judicial reasoning fosters transparency, accountability, and lawful obedience among citizens.
Justice Koul stressed that even a brief but reasoned order is sufficient to meet constitutional expectations. However, a non-speaking or cryptic order that fails to engage with facts, evidence, or law is antithetical to the rule of law, he emphasised and observed that orders which mechanically invoke statutory provisions without any substantive analysis fail the test of fair judicial exercise.
Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Union of India [(1998) 2 SCC 242], Justice Koul elaborated on the significance of reasoned judgments from the perspective of litigants, legal professionals, and the judiciary itself. Quoting from Justice Michael Kirby's reflections on judicial writing, he noted that litigants deserve to understand why they lost, and that judicial discipline and reputation are built through well-articulated judgments.
He further relied on M/s Shree Mahavir Carbon Ltd v. Om Prakash Jalan [2013 AIR SCW 6209] to underscore that the court must resolve conflicts with workable and practical decisions based on clear reasoning. The Court warned that without justification, a judicial order loses its legal validity.
Refrencing Union Public Service Commission v. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi [AIR 2021 SC 2396], wherein the Supreme Court had lamented the growing trend of orders that are “a veneer of judicial reasoning, bereft of the substance.” Justice Koul echoed this concern stating,
“Crisp reasoning is perhaps the answer. The quality of justice brings legitimacy to the judiciary… Reasons constitute the soul of a judicial decision. Without them one is left with a shell.”
Turning to the facts of the case, the Court held that the trial court had completely failed to disclose any application of mind. The impugned order merely stated that the application was dismissed “for the reasons stated in IA/3” without elaborating on what those reasons were, what the petitioners pleaded, or why the relief sought was being denied, the bench underlined.
He concluded that the trial court's order was legally unsustainable and set it aside. Directing that the matter be considered afresh, Justice Koul ordered the trial court to invite objections from the respondents and pass a reasoned order after hearing both parties.
In an extraordinary move, the Court also made an administrative recommendation,
“The Presiding Officer, who has passed order impugned, needs to be sent/deputed to J&K Judicial Academy for refreshment course.”
The Registry was directed to place a copy of the judgment before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate action in this regard.
Case Title: Hakim Nazir Ahmad Vs Commissioner SMC
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 146
![[S. 498a IPC] Cruelty Not Dependent On Suicide Or Self-Harm, Causing Grave Mental Or Physical Injury Sufficient To Attract Offence: J&K High Court](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2025/03/18/500x300_591845-justice-sanjay-dhar-and-jammu-kashmir-high-court.webp "[S. 498a IPC] Cruelty Not Dependent On Suicide Or Self-Harm, Causing Grave Mental Or Physical Injury Sufficient To Attract Offence: J&K High Court")
