SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 769

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HIMA KOHLI, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
State Project Director, U.P. Education for All Project Board and Others – Appellants
Versus
Saroj Maurya and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3465 of 2023
Decided On : 21-08-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Garima Prashad, Krishnanand Pandeya, Divyanshu Sahay, Yash Kirti Kumar Bharti.
For the Respondents: Sanjoy Ghose, Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Vyom Raghuvanshi, Akanksha Rathore, Mohnish Nirwan, Ashok Kumar, Abhishek Pratap Singh, Sahil baraik, Yash Tewari, Shashank Rai, Jacob Benny, Piyush Singh, Umesh Dubey, Dushyant Parashar, P.S. Patwalia, R.K. Singh, Neeraj Singh, Tom Joseph, R. Krishnaraj, Kumar Gaurav, Arjun Singh, Ramandeep Singh.

Judicial decisions must be reasoned to uphold the rule of law and ensure transparency in the legal process.

Headnote:

Reasoning - Appeal - G.O. and Judicial Reasoning - The court emphasized the necessity of reasoned judgments, referencing procedural law and prior case law to highlight the importance of providing reasons for judicial decisions.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant-State of Uttar Pradesh challenged a Division Bench judgment that upheld a Single Judge's order without providing reasons, arguing that subsequent government orders were not considered.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the Division Bench's lack of reasoning unsustainable, reiterating the necessity for courts to provide reasons for their decisions to ensure clarity and justice.

Issues: Whether the Division Bench's judgment, which lacked reasoning, could be upheld and whether subsequent government orders were adequately considered.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that a reasoned judgment is essential for the legitimacy of judicial decisions and the proper functioning of the legal system.

Result: The impugned judgment was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh arguments.

ORDER :

1. The appellant-State of Uttar Pradesh has assailed the Judgment and Order dated 18th April, 2022 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in an intra court appeal1 [Special Appeal No. 222 of 2022] directed against the common judgment and order dated 21st December, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions. We have perused the impugned judgment and find that except for placing on record the case of the writ petitioners and the respondents followed by the findings returned by the learned Single Judge and the conclusions arrived at, on its own the Division Bench has not expressed its view on the issues raised before it. The judgment simply concludes with an observation that the Division Bench is in agreement with the approach and view of the learned Single Judge without furnishing any reasons therefor.

2. Ms. Garima Prashad, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants submits that there were various Government Orders2 [For short ‘the G.Os.’] issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh including G.O. dated 11th December, 2020 that was brought to the notice of the Division Bench but has not been dealt with at all. She states that much water has flown under the bridge by now and there are further G.Os. and Circulars issued by the appellants which ought to have been taken into consideration and without any application of mind, the impugned judgment has been passed simply upholding the order passed by the learned Single Judge without dealing with the submissions made by the either side. She further states that in the meantime, in view of the order passed by this Court on 02nd September, 2022 when notice was issued and it was directed that there shall be a stay on the impugned order as well as any directions passed in the contempt petition during the pendency of the matter, which order was subsequently made absolute on 02nd May, 2023 with a clarification that the appointments made by the appellants will be subject to final orders in the appeal, the appellant-State has made subsequent appointments of teachers and is continuing to do so.

3. We are of the opinion that in the absence of any reasoning in the impugned judgment, the same cannot be sustained. In this regard, we are benefitted by the following observations made by this Court in CCT vs. Shukla and Bros., (2010) 4 SCC 785. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted herein-below:

    “23. We are not venturing to comment upon the correctness or otherwise of the contentions of law raised before the High Court in the present petition, but it was certainly expected of the High Court to record some kind of reasons for rejecting the revision petition filed by the Department at the very threshold. A litigant has a legitimate expectation of knowing reasons for rejection of his claim/prayer. It is then alone, that a party would be in a position to challenge the order on appropriate grounds. Besides, this would be for the benefit of the higher or the appellate court. As arguments bring things hidden and obscure to the light of reasons, reasoned judgment where the law and factual matrix of the case is discussed, provides lucidity and foundation for conclusions or exercise of judicial discretion by the courts.

    24. Reason is the very life of law. When the reason of a law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases (Wharton's Law Lexicon). Such is the significance of reasoning in any rule of law. Giving reasons furthers the cause of justice as well as avoids uncertainty. As a matter of fact it helps in the observance of law of precedent. Absence of reasons on the contrary essentially introduces an element of uncertainty, dissatisfaction and give entirely different dimensions to the questions of law raised before the higher/appellate courts. In our view, the court should provide its own grounds and reasons for rejecting claim/prayer of a party whether at the very threshold i.e. at admission stage or after regu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top