'Judgment Cannot Be Sustained In Absence Of Reasoning' : Supreme Court Remands Matter To High Court To Decide Afresh

Observing that no decision could be legally sustainable in the absence of a reasoning, the Supreme Court recently set aside the High Court's Division Bench order which was rendered casually without furnishing any reasons therefor.

In the present case, while upholding the single-judge decision, the Division Bench of the High Court didn't express its view on the issues and rather concluded that the Division Bench was in agreement with the approach and view of the learned Single Judge without furnishing any reasons therefor.

Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. Adv. appearing for the State of UP submitted that the Division Bench committed an error in upholding the decision of the Single Bench without assigning any reasons and not considering the Government Orders and Circulars issued by the appellants which ought to have been taken into consideration while providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the Appellants/State of UP.

Taking a cue from the judgment of CCT v. Shukla & Bros. (2010), the bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta opined that in the absence of any reasoning in the impugned judgment, the same cannot be sustained.

In the cited case, the Court underscored the importance of a reasoned judgment and how it can assuage the public confidence in the judicial proceedings.

“By practice adopted in all courts and by virtue of judge-made law, the concept of reasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of basic rule of law and, in fact, is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law. Clarity of thoughts leads to clarity of vision and proper reasoning is the foundation of a just and fair decision…Reasons are the real live links to the administration of justice. With respect we will contribute to this view. There is a rationale, logic and purpose behind a reasoned judgment. A reasoned judgment is primarily written to clarify own thoughts; communicate the reasons for the decision to the concerned and to provide and ensure that such reasons can be appropriately considered by the appellate/higher court. Absence of reasons thus would lead to frustrate the very object stated hereinabove.”, the Court observed in CCT v. Shukla & Bros.

Given the aforesaid, the matter was directed to be remanded back to the Division Bench for the parties to appear and address arguments afresh.

“Liberty is granted to the parties to place on record the subsequent developments in the matter so that the Division Bench is apprised of the larger perspective in the case and take an objective view in the matter. Liberty is granted to both sides to address arguments on law as also on facts afresh by additionally referring to the subsequent developments, if any besides the issues raised before the Division Bench in the light of the common judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.”, the Court said.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant in the High Court is restored to its original position., the court concluded.

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Krishnanand Pandeya, AOR Mr. Divyanshu Sahay, Adv. Mr. Yash Kirti Kumar Bharti, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Adv. Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, AOR Mr. Vyom Raghuvanshi, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Rathore, Adv. Mr. Mohnish Nirwan, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Sahil baraik, Adv. Mr. Yash Tewari, Adv. Mr. Shashank rai, Adv. Mr. Jacob benny, Adv. Mr. Piyush Singh, Adv. Mr. Umesh Dubey, AOR Mr. Dushyant Parashar, AOR Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. R.k. Singh, Adv. Mrs. Neeraj Singh, Adv. Mr. Tom Joseph, AOR Mr. R. Krishnaraj, Adv. Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv. Mr. Arjun Singh, Adv. Mr. Ramandeep Singh, Adv.

Case Title: STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR, UP EDUCATION FOR ALL PROJECT BOARD & ORS. VERSUS SAROJ MAURYA & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3465 OF 2023

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 647

Click here to read/download the order