INTRODUCTION
Today, I will talk about the case of Brijmani
Devi v. Pappu Kumar & Another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1280, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed about the duty to accord reasons for a decision
arrived at by a court or an authority.
In this case, the Court discussed the Latin Maxim,
“cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex” meaning “reason is
the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does
the law itself.”
IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES
Basically, the Court cited the case of Kranti
Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496,
wherein the relevant principles that explain the duty of a court or an
authority to accord reasons for a decision were discussed. The pertinent ones
are as follows: -
“(a) 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.
(b) Recording of reasons also operates as a
valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and
quasi-judicial or even administrative power.
(c) Reasons reassure that discretion has
been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding
extraneous considerations.
(d) 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.
(e) 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.
(f) 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.
(g) Insistence on reason is a requirement
for both judicial accountability and transparency.
(h) 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.
(i) 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.
(j) 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.
(k) 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”.”
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Thus, we see that while considering any
application or petition that involves rights and liberties of individuals such
as Bail Applications, the decision of any court or authority “must be
supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital
facts of the case brought on record.”
Therefore, I hope that the importance of reasons
in a decision or a judgment is clear by now.
No comments:
Post a Comment