The court underscored the fundamental principle that any administrative or quasi-judicial order must be supported by clear, detailed, and cogent reasons. This requirement is essential to uphold the principles of natural justice, transparency, and accountability in decision-making processes. Orders that lack reasons are considered non-speaking and are therefore not sustainable, as they do not demonstrate that the decision was based on relevant considerations or that the authority exercised its discretion properly (!) (!) (!) .

The court clarified that, with the exception of specific proceedings such as those confirming Court Martial orders—which are not mandated to provide reasons—most quasi-judicial and administrative decisions must be reasoned. This is to ensure that the decision is fair, just, and open to meaningful judicial review. The absence of reasons can lead to a presumption of arbitrariness or bias, undermining confidence in the administrative process (!) (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the court directed that the cases be remanded back to the respective forums—such as the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and State Commissions—for fresh consideration. These forums are instructed to pass reasoned orders, explicitly stating the grounds for their conclusions. The court emphasized the importance of timely decisions, preferably within a specified period, to avoid unnecessary delays and to uphold the principles of justice (!) (!) .

Additionally, the court highlighted the right of parties to be heard independently and the necessity for authorities to consider each case on its merits with proper reasoning. This ensures that each party's case is fairly evaluated, and decisions are not made on the basis of collusion or without proper application of mind (!) (!) .

In summary, the court reaffirmed that reasoned decisions are integral to the integrity of judicial and quasi-judicial processes, serving the twin purposes of fairness and facilitating effective judicial review. Orders lacking reasons are inherently flawed and must be set aside and reconsidered with proper reasoning to maintain the rule of law and public confidence in administrative justice.