SC slams courts for passing judgments without giving reasons

The Supreme Court on Thursday reminded all the courts, including high courts...

The Supreme Court on Thursday reminded all the courts, including high courts, that they cannot pass an order in a case without giving adequate reasons. Deprecating the practice of some judges to deliver verdicts without giving adequate reasoning or reserving the reasoning to another date, a Bench comprising Justices C K Thakker and D K Jain asked judges not to act in haste while passing their final orders.

“If the final order is without reason, several questions may arise and it will be difficult for the parties to the proceedings as well as the superior court to decide the matter one way or the other. This court, therefore, deprecate the practice of pronouncing final order without recording reasons in support of such order,” said the Bench.

The court’s remarks came on an appeal filed by one Mangat Ram challenging an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had dismissed his case without even specifying the reasons for it.

Story continues below this ad

The apex court was pained to know how the matter, despite being shown in the “motion petitions” (meaning not placed for regular hearing) was taken up for final hearing the same day by the high court. Not just this, an advocate was appointed as the amicus curiae (for assisting the court), she was heard and the matter was disposed of the very same day. Adding to the curiosity, the high court passed a one-liner order, stating: “Heard. Dismissed, reasons to follow.”

Expressing its displeasure, the apex court recalled several judgments of the past to emphasise the necessity behind recording reasons while passing a final order.

Recalling a 1984 ruling (State of Punjab vs Jagdev Singh Talwandi), the Bench said: “If the object of passing such orders is to ensure speedy compliance with them, that object is more often defeated by the aggrieved party filing a Special Leave Petition in this court against the order passed by the high court. That places this court in a predicament because, without the benefit of the reasoning, it is difficult for this court to allow order to be implemented.” The result inevitably is that operation of the high court’s order has to be stayed pending delivery of the reasoned judgment. The most recent instance was the 1993 Mumbai blasts case, where the special TADA judge had pronounced his verdict much earlier than the detailed verdict with reasons.

As the court sent back the present case (Mangat Ram’s case) to the high court, it once again reminded all the courts to keep in mind the principles laid down by it in this regard.