Administrative And Quasi-Judicial Authorities Must Mention At Least Brief Reasons In Their Orders: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently reiterated the importance of reasoned orders by authorities performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions and observed that it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that some reasons at least in brief must be disclosed in the order.

The Division Bench consisting of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P. G. Ajithkumar observed,

The recording of reasons by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. it would apply equally to all decisions made by such authority and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. At the same time, it is not the requirement that, the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of law. What is necessary is that, the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that, some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in the order passed by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority. 

The Division Bench made the observation while considering a petition filed by a mother seeking permanent custody of two minor children and other consequential relief. The Family Court had directed the production of the children before the Chief Ministerial Officer and thereupon had granted interim custody of the children to their paternal grandmother without any reasoning.

The Court retracing the various Apex Court decision in this regard from Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union to Chairman and Managing Director, United Commerical Bank v. P. C. Kakkar observed that the Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system and that the emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the 'inscrutable face of the sphinx' it can by its silence render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. 

The Court further added that another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The 'inscrutable face of a sphinx' is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance, the Court observed. 

Therefore the Court observed that it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that, some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in the order passed by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority.

On fact, the Court relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in aforesaid decisions concluded that the direction contained in the impugned order to the extent of granting interim custody of the minor child to the paternal grandmother cannot be sustained in law in absence of reasons.

Thereby, the Court directed the petitioner and the 2nd respondent to appear before the Family Court along with the child and directed the Family Court to decide as to the interim custody taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in Yashuta Sanu v. State of Rajasthan.

Advocates B. Dipu Sach Deev, Arun Babu, Rahul S. R. and Aneeshraj R. appeared for the Petitioner. 

Advocate K R Sunil appeared for the Respondents. 

Case Title: Ambili S. Pilla v. Vinod Kumar Pilla and Anr. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 26

Click To Read/Download The Order