JUDGMENT

V.S. Sirpurkar, J. —

1. This judgment will dispose of 62 Civil Appeals mentioned above.

2. We had, by earlier orders, directed the remand of all these matters to the High Court and now we proceed to give reasons in support of our orders.

3. All these appeals have been filed by the Union of India. The main contesting respondents in all these appeals are the members of the Border Security Force. The respondents in all the matters succeeded before the High Court, which took the view that the orders passed against them by the Summary Security Force Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘SSFC’ for short) and the appellate authority were bad and illegal, as there were no reasons given by any of these authorities.

4. On that count, the High Court directed remand in all the matters to the appellate authority under Section 117 (2) of The Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) for rewriting the order, giving reasons in support of the conclusions reached by the same. The lead judgment was passed on 16.1.2006 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9427 of 2005 filed by one Constable Hans Raj. Relying on that judgment, all the other Writ Petitions in the above appeals before us were directed to be disposed of. The Union of India has now challenged the lead judgment, as well as other judgments, which were passed relying upon the same.

5. The common question that falls for consideration in all these appeals can be stated as under:-

Whether the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) is required to give reasons in support of its verdict? Similarly, Whether the appellate authority under Section 117 (2) is required to give reasons while considering the correctness, legality or propriety of the order passed?

6. It is a common ground that in all these appeals, no reasons were given by either the SSFC or by the authority under Section 117 of the Act, which acts as an appellate authority.

7. Before we approach this question, it must be stated in all fairness that majority of the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, agreed to have the judgment in their favour set aside, provided the matter is remanded back to the High Court for deciding the Writ Petitions on merits. This was obviously because in all these matters, the merits of the Writ Petition were not considered and all the Writ Petitions were allowed for the sole reason that the appellate authority or the SSFC had not recorded any reason in support of the verdict given by them. In fact, Shri P.P. Malhotra, Learned ASG also fairly conceded that the Writ Petitions were not decided on merits by the High Court and they were allowed on the preliminary ground that no reasons were given by the authorities under the Act. There were very little or almost no arguments led on behalf of the respondents supporting the order. However, in order to put the record straight and before acting on the request, we must consider the arguments led by the Learned ASG, who contended that there is no requirement of giving any reasons either by the SSFC or by the appellate authority under Section 117 of the Act.

8. Under the scheme of The Border Security Force Act, there are three kinds of Security Force Courts. Section 64 of the Act provides for those three kinds, they being (a) General Security Force Courts; (b) Petty Security Force Courts; and (c) Summary Security Force Courts. We are concerned here only with Summary Security Force Courts (SSFC). Section 70 provides that a SSFC may be held by the Commandant of any unit of the Force and he alone shall constitute the Court. Sub-Section (2) of Section 70 suggests that the proceedings shall be attended throughout by two other persons who shall be officers or subordinate officers or one of either, and who shall not as such, be sworn or affirmed. Section 74 speaks about the powers of a SSFC. Sub-Section (1) thereof provides that the SSFC may try any offence punishable under the Act, subject to the provisions of Sub-Secti