CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR

SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE

SESSION: - 2015-2020

TOPIC: REASONS DECISIONS

UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF:

Dr. Pawan Kumar Mishra

SUBMITTED BY:
Name: KUMARI MONIKA
Programme: B.Sc. LLB (H)
Semester: VI
Enrolment No.-CUSB1513115024
Subject: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1
Sr No. Title Page No.

1. Table of cases 3

2. Abstract 4

3. Introduction 5

4. Meaning and importance of reasons decisions 6

5. Need to give reason 7

6. Reasons decisions in different countries 8-9

7. Reasons decisions in India 10-12

8. Essentials of reasons decision 12-13

9. Adequate reasons, non-speaking orders 14

10. Constitutional Provisions & Forms for recording of 15

reasons decision

11. Relevant case laws 16-18

12. Conclusion 19

13. Bibliography 20

TABLE OF CASES

2
1. M/S Swarn Kumar And Company v. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors, On 23 August
2017
2. Buddhraj v. State of UP and 4 others, on 17 Jan 2017
3. State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Prasad Jain, (2008)15 SSC 711
4. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. S.T.O, (2008) 9 SCC 407.
5. Union of India v. E. G. Nambudiri, AIR 1991 SC 1216
6. Glaxo Laboratories v. A. V. Venkateswaran, AIR 1959 Bom. 372
7. Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisharies and Food, [1968] AC 997
8. Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. V. Crabtree, [1974] ICR 120
9. R v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex parte Lonrho, [1989] 1 W. L.R. 525
10. Pure Spring Co. Ltd v. Minister of National Revenue, [1947] 1 DLR. 501
11. Germeny v. Commission (24/62) [1963 E. C. R. 63]
12. M. J. Shivani v. State of Karnataka, (1995) 6 SCC 289
13. Mir Mohammad Bahauddin v. Mujee Bunnisa Begam, AIR 1952 Mad. 276 at 280
14. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp. SCC 87
15. Siemens Engineering v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785
16. V K Balrama Chetty v. State of Madaras, AIR 1958 Mad. 93 at 97.
17. Jagannath v. Union of India, AIR 1958 Mad. 21 at 124
18. P. J. Joseph v. Supdt. Of Post Offices, AIR 1961 Ker. 197 at 199
19. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
20. S. N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984
21. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Admn,1980 AIR 1579 1980 SCR (2) 557 1980 SCC (3) 488
22. Mahabir Prasad v. State of U.P, 1970 1 SCC 764
23. High School & I. E. Board v. Bagleshwar, AIR 1966 SC 875
24. Rangnath v. Daulatrao, AIR 1975 SC 2146
25. Madhusudhan Paswan v. State, AIR 1989 Pat. 106
26. Som Datt Datta v. India, AIR 1969 SC 414
27. S. N. Mishra v India, AIR 1980 SC 1984
28. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. V. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala and others, AIR 1961 SC
1669
29. Bhagat Raja v. Union of India & ors, AIR 1967 SC 1606
30. M/s. Woolcombers of India Ltd. V. Woolcombers Workers Union and another, AIR
1961 SC 1669
31. Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab and ors, (1979) 2 SCC 368
32. Shri Swamiji of Shri Admar Mutt etc. etc. v. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Dept. and Ors, AIR 1980 SC 1
33. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K. S.
Gandhi & ors, (1991) 2 SCC 716
34. M. L. Jaggi v. Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Ltd. & ors, (1996) 3 SCC 119

35. Chairman Rani Laxmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney & ors,
(2009) 4 SCC 240
ABSTRACT

3
ABOUT THE PROJECT

‘Natural justice’ is a concept which compel the administrative authorities to act fairly and
within their domain. It is a kind of tool given in the hand of superior court to control or regulate
the exercise of quasi-judicial and administrative power. Basically, two principles (i) nemo
judex in causa sua and (ii) audi alteram partem are recognised for natural justice but recently a
specific kind of principle i.e. ‘reasons decisions’ are developed as third principle of natural
justice. Until a few years back, it was trend that the requirement by adjudicatory body to give
reason for their decisions was not a part of natural justice but since the time changing, some
change has come in this situation also.

This paper makes a critical analysis of the present status of the third principle of natural justice
i.e. reason decision and what was the journey travelled by this doctrine in our country till now.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this project is to secure an understanding of the law relating to Reasons Decision
and its scope in India. This aim is achieved by looking into past decisions of Indian Judiciary
as well as foreign judgement on the subject matter and also the existing statutes and their
operations within our nation as well as foreign.

SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

The scope of this project is limited by various case laws, precedents and observations given by
various intellectuals and jurist. The existence of Reasons Decision in India has been examined
in the light of judicial decisions given by them in various pronouncements. Also, various
foreign provisions and statutes relating to this provision are discussed in the project by judicial
way.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research methodology of this project is basically Doctrinal and analytical.

SOURCES & MODE OF CITATION

Sources include basically books on Administrative law, Constitutional law, case law reporters,
case law journals and some internet sites also. And ILI mode of citation style is adopted
throughout the project.

INTRODUCTION

4
The concept of natural justice compels the administrative authorities to act fairly. It is an
important tool in the hand of superior courts to control the exercise of judicial and quasi-
judicial and administrative powers. Natural justice is the name given to certain fundamental
rules which are so necessary to the proper exercise of power that they are projected from the
judicial to administrative sphere. Natural law is a concept of common law and it is counterpart
of the American “procedural due process”. English law recognises two principles of natural
justice, i.e. (i) a man may not be judge in his own cause; and (ii) a man should not be condemned
unheard. The Roman placed them in two maxims, i.e. (i) nemo judex in causa sua; and (ii) audi
alteram partem1. Besides there is third principle of natural justice, i.e., a party is entitled to
know the reasons for the decision. The third principle of natural justice i.e. reasoned decision
also known as ‘speaking orders’. Natural justice generally comprises three elements, i.e.
absence of bias, fair hearing and reasoned order. This concept is used to preventing abuse of
power by administrative authorities and in this regard an appreciable development has been the
requirement of recording of reason for an adverse order.

“Reason is heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity and without the same, it becomes
lifeless”.2 Transparency is a quality of any good administrative body and a trait preserved by a
democratic country like India. The ongoing practice in all nations governed by rule of law and
constitutional governance is to give reasons for its decision and is the life blood of any judicial
action. But the most pertinent question is about the legal provision when there is no statutory
obligation to give reasons. “Does the principle of public law require that reasons should be
given for administrative action?

The principle of giving a reasoned decision has slowly taken its root as one of the principles of
natural justice. The doctrine of giving reasons has been incorporated in our judiciary in the
Code of Civil Procedure. But the same principle is yet to be codified in case of decision given
by Administrative bodies and other such tribunals. The 14th Law Commission has
recommended for a statutory provision for giving reasons in judicial and quasi- judicial acts of
administration but the Parliament still to act on it. It is also realised that for good governance
reasons need to be given and omission might lead to injustice.

MEANING AND IMPORTANCE OF REASONS DECISIONS

1
C K Takwani, Lectures on Administrative Law 185 (Eastern Book Company, Lukhnow, 5 th edn., 2012).
2
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. S.T.O, (2008) 9 SCC 407.

5
Reason decision may be taken to mean a decision which contains reason in its support where
the adjudicators bodies give reason in support of their decisions. Thus, a decision supported by
reasons is called reasoned decision which is also known as ‘speaking order’ i.e. the order speaks
for itself or the order tells its own story3. Giving reasons is also a self-disciplining exercise.
Reasons provide a check on arbitrary decision making. A reasoned decision will not only
reduce the burden of the court but also fulfil the reason for its establishment i.e. imparting
justice. They avoid allegations of maladministration4.

A decision backed by reason is a reflection of application of mind and reduces the possibility
of mindless and arbitrary action by the administrative authority. The only requirement of this
principle is that the order must entail a reason which should be adequate and rational. If there
is an error on the face of the decision but it backed by reason, it will be challenged and corrected
by the appellate authority. The appellate authority, then on the basis of reason given, will be
able to adjudicate the matter in a better manner than when there were no reasons because they
will be able to identify the lis and correct in a better manner.

The mandate of giving reason is not a part of natural justice but it is a safeguard against
arbitrariness. If an arbitrator is obliged to give his reason for conclusions, it will make it
necessary for him to consider the matter carefully. The burden to giving reasons introduced
clarity in order and minimizes chances of irrelevant considerations from entering a decisional
process. In fact, recording of reasons ensure that authority has applied its mind to the case and
reason compelled the authority to take a decision in question and limited the scope of power
vested in the authority5. Therefore, in the absence of a speaking order, courts would not be able
to understand the application of the mind to the facts and raised in the case.

NEED TO GIVE REASONS

3
C K Takwani, Lectures on Administrative Law 217 (Eastern Book Company, Lukhnow, 5 th edn., 2012).
4
I. P. MASSEY, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (Eastern Book Company, 8th ed. 2012).
5
S P Sathe, Administrative Law, (Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur7 th ed. Reprint 2012).

6
Reasons are essential requirement of the rule of law. It works as a link between the fact and
decision, guard against non- application of mind, arbitrariness and maintain public
confidence in judicial and administrative authorities6. Any decision of administrative
authority affected the rights of people without assigning any reason is violation of principle
of natural justice. The requirement of stating the reasons serves the following purpose7: -

1. It ensures that the administrative authority will apply its mind and objectively look at
the facts and evidence of the case.
2. It ensures that all the relevant factors have been considered and irrelevant factors are
avoided.
3. It satisfies the aggrieved parties views have been examined prior to reaching a
conclusion and avoid arbitrariness.
4. The appellate authorities and court are in better position to consider the appeals on the
question of law.
In Union of India v. E. G. Nambudiri8, the court held that “right to reason is an
indispensable part of a sound system of judicial review. Under our constitution an
administrative decision is subject to judicial review if it affects the right of the citizen.
In case of Glaxo Laboratories v. A. V. Venkateswaran9, the High Court of Bombay
held that, ‘when a law confers a right to appeal, the legislature intends that right
should be an effective right and that right can only be an effective right if the officer
or authority from whose order an appeal lies give reasons for his decision. It is only
then the appellate court can properly discharge its function.
5. To demonstrate good practice and compliance with International standards.
So, we can say that reasons reveal the rational nexus between the facts considered and
conclusion reached. However mere recording of reasons serves no purpose unless the
same are communicated either orally or in writing to the parties. Thus, mere
communication of reason has no meaning unless the corrective machinery is in place
6. To ascertain applicable law- the judgement must be based on correct applicable law
7. To communicate the reasons for the decision to the public.

6
I. P. MASSEY, Administrative Law, (Eastern Book Company, 8th edn,2012).
7
https;// www.scribd .com, visited at 30 March 2018.
8
AIR 1991 SC 1216
9
AIR 1959 Bom. 372

7
REASONED DECISION IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES

ENGLAND

In England, the responsibility to recognised importance of reasoned decision was assigned to

Frank Committee. They submitted their report for statutory implementation of duty to give
reason. This recommendation was enacted in the Tribunal and Inquiry Act 195810, which
require the tribunals listed in the Act to give a statement, written or oral, of the reasons for the
decision. Along with this act other primary and secondary legislation imposes duty to give
reason in specific conditions.

In Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture11, Fisheries and Food (1968) the house of Lord held
that in the absence of reasons could raise an inference of no good reason opening the decision
up to judicial review. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. V. Crabtree12, Sir John
Donaldson observed that, “Failure to give reasons amount to a denial of justice.

But in R v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex parte Lonrho (1989)13 the
limitation of this principle was given as the absence of reasons for a decision where there is no
duty to give them cannot of itself provides any support for suggested irrationality of the
decision. But, it has been seen in England that there is a duty to give reason where a right to
appeal is provided. A reasoned is essential remedy if right of person prejudicially affected by
the decision of the court.

Thus, we can say that in England, there is no automatic duty on the tribunal to give reasons:
this obligation only arises when party affected to it demands for the reason.

CANADA

10
Tribunal and Inquiry Act, 1958, s. 12(1), C K Takwani, Lectures on Administrative Law 222 (Eastern Book
Company, Lukhnow, 6th edn., 2017).
11
[1968] AC 997
12
[1974] ICR 120
13
[1989] 1 W. L.R. 525

8
Statutory Powers and Procedure Act, 1980 provides that “a tribunal shall give its final decision,
if any, in any proceeding in writing and shall give reasons in writing therefore if requested by
a party. This existing provision of Canada is similar to England.

In Pure Spring Co. Ltd v. Minister of National Revenue14, it was held that when a Minister
makes a decision in his discretion he is not required by law to give any reason for such decision.

AUSTRALIA

Section 13 of Commonwealth Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review ) Act, 1977 provides

a person who is entitled to apply for review of the decision before the Federal Court to request
the decision maker to furnish him with a statement in writing setting out the findings on
material questions of fact, referring to the evidence or other material on which those finding
were based and giving reasons for the decision and the decision maker has to prepare the
statement and handover the person who demands it within 28 days. This duty is also similar
with section 28 and 37 of the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, 1975.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The Federal Administrative Procedure Act, 1946 prescribes for the basic procedural principles
which are to govern formal administrative procedure (Section 8(b)) to the effect that all
decisions shall indicate a statement of findings and conclusions as well as reasons. This
principle is also incorporated in section 557(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

In European Commission (EC) law there is a duty to give reasons based on article 253 EC.
Under this law the extent to which reasons have to be give depends upon the nature of the
relevant act and the context within which it was made15. This duty to give reason is assigned
to the agents of the community.

REASONS DECISION IN INDIA

14
[1947] 1 DLR. 501
15
Germeny v. Commission (24/62)[1963 E. C. R. 63], https://www.scribd.com visited on 26th March 2018

9
In India, this provision was first time discussed by Law Commission. They had opinion that
“In the case of administrative decisions provisions should be made that they should be
accompanied by the reasons. The reasons will make it possible to test the validity of these
decisions by the machinery of appropriate writs”16. Thus, in India, in the absence of any
particular statutory provision, there is no general provision for administrative agency to give
reason for their decision. But, if statute under which administrative authority functioning
requires reasoned decision, then it is mandatory for administrative agency to give reason. Such
reason may not be only the “rubber-stamp” reason but a brief, clear statement, providing the
link between fact on which certain conclusion are based and actual conclusion17. In M. J.
Shivani v. State of Karnataka18, the court held that when the rules direct recording of reasons,
it is a sine qua non and the condition precedent for a valid order.

In 1952, Subba Rao J. judge of Madras High Court said19:

“From the standpoint of fair name of tribunals and also in the interest if the public, they should
be expected to give reasons when they set aside an order of an inferior tribunal. If reasons for
an order are given, there will be less scope for arbitrary exercise of powers and the order ‘ex
facie’ will indicate whether extraneous circumstances were taken into consideration by the
tribunal in passing the order. The public should not be depriving of this only safeguard unless
the legislature expressed otherwise. The order of tribunal exercising judicial functions should
ex facie show reasons in a succinct form for setting aside the orders of the subordinate
tribunals20.

Although there is no statutory provision in the Indian Constitution like South Africa (chapter
2 of the Constitution of Republic of South Africa incorporate Bill of Rights and Article 33(2)
provides that ‘everyone whose rights have been affected by administrative action has the right
to be given written reasons’), but by the Supreme court of India in its landmark judgement of
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India21,the court deduced citizen’s right to know and the right to obtain
information from the constitutional guarantee of free speech and from the concept of open

16
Law Commission of India, Fourteenth Report on Reform on Judicial Administration, vol. II. P. 694
17
I. P. MASSEY, Administrative Law,233, (Eastern Book Company, 8th edn,2012).
18
(1995) 6 SCC 289
19
Justice Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee, Judicial Control of Administrative Action, 482 (Lexis Nexis Butterworth
Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2nd edn., 2012).
20
Mir Mohammad Bahauddin v. Mujee Bunnisa Begam, AIR 1952 Mad. 276 at 280
21
1981 Supp. SCC 87

10
government inherent in a democratic system. Therefore, it is the constitutional obligation of
authorities and adjudicators to disclose reasons for their decision.

In India also, till very recently it was not accepted that giving decision incorporated with reason
is one of the basic principle of natural justice. But a lord Denning says, “the giving reason ids
one of the fundamentals of good administration”. The process of recording reasons introduce
clarity and excludes arbitrariness and satisfies the party claim. Although the court did not
clearly declare reason decision as one of the basic principle of natural justice but they remark
it as, “Even if a statute does not in terms enjoin on the officer to give reasons for his order, it
is implicit in the exercise of judicial and quasi- judicial power that the person or tribunal
exercising that power should give reasons, that is, should act judicially…22”

The Delhi High Court has however taken a view in this matter. It stated:

“It will not be very far-fetched to say that the right of a party to know the reasons, for the
decisions, be it judicial or quasi- judicial, is one of the basic principle of natural justice.23”

After study many Indian and foreign cases on the matter, Chief Justice Ansari drawn the
conclusion that, “It follows that where the order by administrative authorities be quasi-judicial,
it must be ‘speaking order’, and absence of reasons in it would be fatal to its legality”.24

The Supreme court in Siemens Engineering v. Union of India25, held that the rule requiring
reasons to be recorded by the quasi- judicial authorities in the support of the order passed by
them is a basic principle of natural justice. The same view was hold by the Supreme Court in
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India26, where Bhagwati J. observed that, “the central
government was wholly unjustified in withholding the reasons for impounding the passport of
the petitioner”.

In S. N. Mukherjee v. Union of India27, the Supreme Court held that “the object underlying
the rule of natural juice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure fair play in action. The
requirement of recording reason for its decisions by administrative authority achieved this
object by avoiding arbitrariness.

22
V K Balrama Chetty v. State of Madaras, AIR 1958 Mad. 93 at 97.
23
Jagannath v. Union of India, AIR 1958 Mad. 21 at 124
24
P. J. Joseph v. Supdt. Of Post Offices, AIR 1961 Ker. 197 at 199.
25
AIR 1976 SC 1785
26
AIR 1978 SC 597
27
AIR 1990 SC 1984

11
Wade has also expressed the view that “natural justice may provide the best rubric for it, since
the giving reasons is required by the ordinary man’s sense of justice28.”

Jacob also in this favour says that, “the Indian Court must incorporate in its broad concept of
natural justice of giving reason. The legislature must also provide for the same29”.

In the view of the above discussion it may be safely concluded that the requirement to record
reasons are one of the basic principles of natural justice.

ESSENTIALS OF REASON DECISION

1. Reasons may be mandated by the constitution

Reason may be mandate by the constitution because reasons are the connecting links
between the order and the mind of maker. “Reasoned decision also involves a
question of procedural fairness”. Any law which allows the administrative authority to
take a decision which affected rights of people without assigning the reason is unjust,
unfair unreasonable and hence violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India. The reason must be appropriate because it is a part of natural justice.
In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Admn30., the Supreme court held that in section 56 of the
Prisons Act, 1894 an implied duty on jail Superintendent to give reasons for putting
fetters on a prisoner. It may be emphasised that the implied requirement of “reasons”
is the foundation on which whole scheme of judicial review is based. Article
32,136,226 and 227 provides for judicial review in administrative actions.
2. Reasons may be mandated by law
As reasons are mandate by law which means, it is considered as mandatory reasons
for an administrative action. For example, section 31 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 mandate reasons by the arbitrators for san award. If such
reasons are not mandate by law, it would violate administrative action.

3. Reasons may be mandated by the principle of natural justice

Reasons may be mandate by the principles of natural justice when an authority’s
action causes serious problem. This problem generally arises when there is no express

28
H. W. R. Wade, Administrative Law 548 (6 th ed. 1988)
29
Alice Jacob, 8 J.I. L.I. 54 at 62(1996)
30
1980 AIR 1579 1980 SCR (2) 557 1980 SCC (3) 488

12
 provision of law and person suffered with a serious prejudice. Therefore judicial,
quasi-judicial and administrative decisions must be supported by reason concerned
with principle of natural justice. It will serve as wider principle of administrative law
that explained that it is not enough that the justice be done but it must also be seen to
be done31. In Dev Dutta case32, the supreme court held that besides two known
principles of natural justice, the third principle is transparency and good governance;
which make mandatory to give reason when a person suffers from prejudice. Thus, in
case of legislative silence, “reasoned” may be mandatory by the principle of natural
justice.
4. Reasons may be mandates by the nature of functions which an administrative
authority exercise
Reasons may be mandates a rule of fairness apply by the administrative and quasi-
judicial functions, or where there is a provision of appeal or revision against the
decision of the authority, it may be give reason for its decision. In case of Mahabir
Prasad v. State of U.P.33. court held that if a quasi-judicial order is subject to appeal
or revision, authority must give reasons even though not mandate by the statute.
Similarly, in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union34 of India held that unless giving of reason is
barred by law, either expressly or by necessary implication in public interest,
authority exercising judicial powers, subject to appeal or revision must give reason for
decision as without reason appellate or revisional powers cannot be exercised.

ADEQUATE REASON

31
Karanti Associates (P) LTD. V. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496
32
(2008) 8 SCC 725
33
1970 1 SCC 764
34
1990 4 SCC594

13
The reason recorded must be adequate and mere pretence of it would not satisfy the requirement
of law. A mere repetition of statutory language in orders will not amount the order as reasoned
order. The requirement in the circumstances is that the decision should indicate application of
mind by the concerned administrative authority. In High School & I. E. Board v.
Bagleshwar35, it was held that the enquiry did not write an elaborate report which did not mean
that it did not consider all the relevant material before coming to conclusion that the student
had used unfair means. The nature and elaboration of reasons depends upon fact of the case.
The Supreme Court held that it is not necessary for authority to “write out a judgement as court
of law” but at least “outline of process” of reasoning must be given.

NON-SPEAKING ORDER
The expression ‘speaking order’ was first given by Lord Chancellor Earl Cairns. The Lord
Chancellor, while explaining the ambit of writ of Certiorari, said to orders with errors on the
face of the record and pointed out that an order with errors on its face is a speaking order. This
principle of speaking order is heart and soul of every judicial and administrative orders so that
the party should know the reason. Under ordinary conditions a non- speaking order given by
tribunal should be declared as null and void as it violates the principle of natural justice. But in
various cases we can see court avoid to declare a non-speaking order invalid. Like in Tripathi
case36, even the reasons were not stated, the Supreme court sustained the order of dismissal of
the employee. Also, in case of Rangnath v. Daulatrao37, court refuse to intervene where the
authority passed by order adversely affecting the individuals on the matter of fact and law.

But finally, in Madhusudan38, the court taking a different view quashes a non-speaking order
cancelling the examination of a candidate.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

35
AIR 1966 SC 875
36
AIR 1984 SC 274
37
AIR 1975 SC 2146
38
Madhusudhan Paswan v. State, AIR 1989 Pat. 106

14
Under Article 311(2) (b), when a person is being dismissed without an enquiry, reasons are to
be recorded by the disciplinary authority for not holding the enquiry and if such reasons are
not recorded then the order of dismissal would be void. But communication of such reasons is
not obligatory. However, such reasons must in the context of Article 14 of the constitution
which is a protection against arbitrary action. Other constitutional safeguards like right to
information and right to be informed about reason within domain of Article 19(1) read with
Article 21 also protects the necessity of giving reasoned decision held by Apex court in Ravi
S Naik Sanjay Bandekar v. Union of India39. Reason is the foundation on which judicial
review is based and Article 32,136,226 and 227 provides for judicial review in administrative
actions.

FORMS FOR RECORDING REASONS

There is no particular form of recording reasons is necessary as such. However, it is enough if
the adjudicating authority records reasons which is proper, relevant, germane, intelligible and
deals with the arguments advanced, points raised and the conclusions recorded in support of
the order or action taken.

RELEVANT CASE LAWS

39
AIR 1994 SC 1558

15
In Som Datt Datta v. India40, it was held that “provisions of sections 164 and 165 of the
Army Act do not require an order confirming proceeding of Court Martial to be supported by
reasons. Apart from any requirement imposed by the statute either expressly or by necessary
implication, there is no legal obligation to give reason for its decision to the tribunal. The court
further held that an order confirming such proceeding does not become illegal if it does not
record the reasons.

In S. N. Mishra v India.41, a landmark case the Supreme Court stated again the importance of
giving reason. It was as “the requirement that the reasons be recorded should govern the
decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi– judicial functions irrespective of the
fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review”.

However, in Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. V. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala and others42,
held that requirement of recording reasons are necessary in exercising appellate powers the
central government acted as a tribunal in exercising judicial power of the state and such
exercise is subject to Article 136 jurisdiction of court.

In Bhagat Raja v. Union of India & ors43., the Supreme court held that such an order of
cancellation is quasi – judicial and must be speaking order. The court further held that merely
giving an opportunity of hearing is not enough and if the order is subject to appeal, the
recording of reasons is necessary.

In M/s. Woolcombers of India Ltd. V. Woolcombers Workers Union and another44, the
court held that under section 11 of Industrial Disputes Act insisted on recording of reason while
dealing with case. The main aim of giving reason is to prevent unfairness or arbitrariness in
reaching conclusion, and the decision must be appearing to be done.

In Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. V. Union of India and
another45, held that the rule requiring reasons to be recorded by quasi–judicial authorities in
support of the order passed by them is a basic principle of natural justice.

40
AIR 1969 SC 414
41
AIR 1980 SC 1984
42
AIR 1961 SC 1669
43
AIR 1967 SC 1606
44
AIR 1961 SC 1669
45
AIR 1976 SC 1785

16
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India46, the authorities under section 10(5) of the Passport
Act need to record reasons and provide a copy of same to the concerned party but the Act only
authorised the Government to do so if it was necessary ‘in the interest of the general public’
and same was applied on her. The said order was challenged on the grounds that47

1. Section 10 (3) (c) was violative of Article 14 as conferring an arbitrary power because
it does not provide an opportunity of hearing before the passport was confiscated.
2. Section 10(3) (c) was violative of Article 21, since it does not prescribe ‘procedure’
within the meaning of Article 21.
3. Section 10(3) (c) was violative of Article 19 (1) (a) and (g) since it permitted imposition
of restrictions not provided in clause (2) or (6) of the Article 19.

Bhagwati, J. stated that “giving of reasons is a healthy check against abuse and misuse of
power as the order confiscating the passport can be quashed if the reason is irrelevant. The
court would be very slow in accepting the claim of the passport authority that it would not
be in public interest to disclose the reasons. The authority must have to satisfied the court
if they did not disclose the reason as it would be clearly against the interest of general
public. If court is not satisfied then the authority has to disclose the reasons. Maneka thus
represents the high landmark of judicial responsibility on adjudicatory authorities to give
reasons for their decisions.”

In Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab and ors.48, the court relying upon Capoor case49,
held that “rubber-stamp reason” is not enough and virtually quoted that reasons “are the links
between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and such conclusions are actual
conclusion”.

In Shri Swamiji of Shri Admar Mutt etc. v. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Dept. and Ors.50 the court refer to a Legal Maxims “Ces-sante
Ratione Legis Cessat Ipsa Lex” which means “reason is the soul of the law, and when the
reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself.”

46
AIR 1978 SC 597
47
J N Pandey, The Constitutional Law of India 251(Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 52nd ed. 2015).
48
(1979) 2 SCC 368
49
Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor and others, AIR 1974 SC 87
50
AIR 1980 SC 1

17
In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K. S.
Gandhi & ors51., the court held that if the facts are disputed recording of reason is necessary
but not in case where fact are not disputed.

In M. L. Jaggi v. Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Ltd. & ors.52, court held that “reason must
be recorded in award if it affects public interest”. However, in Chairman Rani Laxmi Bai
Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney & ors53., the court held that “reason
must be given by the appellate or revisional authority even when affirming the impugned
decision.

RECENT JUDGEMENTS

In M/S Swarn Kumar And Company v. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors54., held that it
is a settled proposition of law that even in administrative matters, the reasons should be
recorded as it is incumbent upon the authorities to pass a speaking and reasoned order. Reasons
substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order
indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before the
higher forum. Recording of reasons is the principle of natural justice and every
judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and
fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected must know why his
application has been rejected”.55

In State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Prasad Jain56, stated that 'reason is the heartbeat of every
conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless. However, in Tapas Pandav. The State
of West Bengal & ors57, held that it is settled law that the reasons are required to be recorded
when it affect the public interest.

51
(1991) 2 SCC 716
52
(1996) 3 SCC 119
53
(2009) 4 SCC 240
54
On 23 August 2017, at https://indiankanoon.org visited on 1 April 2018
55
Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs. U.P.(1991) 1 SCC 212,same upheld in Buddhraj v. State of UP and 4 others, on 17
Jan 2017
56
(2008)15 SSC 711
57
2015

18
CONCLUSION
In the view of above discussion, it may be concluded:

Principle of natural justice are soul of an administration of justice and need to be followed in
order to make an order just and fair. According to Megaw J, “the reasons should be proper,
intelligible and adequate. If the reasons given are improper they will make some flow in the
decision-making process, which will be open to challenge on some ground other than the failure
of reasons.

Principle of Speaking order is the heart and soul of judicial and administrative decision so that
party may know the reasons. It is the basic fundamental principle that both the parties should
be heard before passing the decision and an authority must give reasons for their decisions.
Giving reasons for their decision will ensure the application of mind authority. It will check
the abuse of administrative power and ensure impartial determination of disputes by officials.
Everybody appellate or original should give reasons for their decisions irrespective of their
consideration.

In India, there is no statutory provisions which requires the authority to give reason but on the
basis of natural justice and some constitutional provisions of Article 32, 136, 226 and 227, the
court imposed general obligations to the adjudicatory authority to give reasons in the support
of their decisions. At present the requirement of giving reasons in support of decision is held
as one of the principle of natural justice as in case of Siemans Engineering & Mfg Co. v. Union
of India58 and in Maneka Gandhi case59.

58
AIR 1976 SC 1785
59
AIR 1978 SC 597

19
BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

1. I. P. MASSEY, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, (Eastern Book Company, 8th ed. 2012)

2. S P Sathe, Administrative Law, (Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 7th ed.
Reprint 2012).
3. J N Pandey, The Constitutional Law of India, (Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 52nd
ed. 2015).
4. C. K. Takwani, Lecture on Administrative Law (Eastern Book Company, Lukhnow,
6th edn., 2017).
5. Justice Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee, Judicial Control of Administrative Action, 482
(Lexis Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2nd edn., 2012).

6. H. W. R. Wade, Administrative Law 548 (6th ed. 1988)

INTERNET SOURCES

1. https://indiankanoon.org visited on 1 April 2018

2. https:// jspui/bitstream.com visited on 26 March 2018
3. https://www.scribd.com visited on 26 March 2018
4. https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in visited on 26 March
5. https://www.manupatra.com visited on 1 April 2018
6. https://articlesonlaw.wordpress.com

20