VISHNU DEV SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

                         [2008] 1S.C.R.1111


A                     VISHNU DEV SHARMA                             •
                                  v.
                     STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 619 of 2008)
                        JANUARY 23, 2008
B
       [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

         Constitution of India, 1950:
         Article 226 - Writ petition - Dismissal of, in summary
c manner - Without indicating any reason - Held: Is not
    warranted - Service Jaw - Seniority.
        Articles 136 and 226 - While deciding writ petition, High
  Court is required to assign reasons as its order is amenable
D to challenge before this Court - There is no meaning in
  drawing an analogy on powers exercised under Art. 136 while
  rejecting appeals at SLP stage without assigning reasons with
  the power exercised while dealing with writ petition - Art. 136
  does not confer any right of appeal in favour of any party -
  Powers thereunder are special and extraordinary and object
E
  is to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice.
         Administration of Justice:
       Justice delivery system - Right to reason in judgment!
  order - Held: Is indispensable part of sound judicial system -
F Reasons are necessary to indicate an application of mind to
  the matter by court - Principle of natural justice - Speaking
  order - Judgment/order.
       The appellant filed writ petition challenging the
G seniority list. High Court disposed of the writ petition in a
  summary manner. In appeal to this Court, appellant
  contended that in the seniority list, he was placed below
                                                                        ..   "




  the juniors, which was not permissible and that such
  summary dismissal of writ petition was not warranted as
H                                1111
         VISHNU DEV SHARMA v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.          1112

 .>
        several issues of considerable importance were involved A
        which were not considered by the High Court.
           . Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High
        Court, the Court
             HELD: 1.1. The dismissal of the writ petition in B
        summary manner without indicating any reason is clearly
  ~     indefensible. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On
        plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to
        have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order
        indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when
        its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The
                                                                     c
        absence of reasons has rendered the High Court's
        judgment not sustainable. [Paras 7,8] [1115-A, B, C]
             Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971) 1 All
        E.R. 1148; Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree D
        (1974) LCR 120 - referred to.
             1.2. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity.
        The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision
        reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its
        silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to E
        perform their appellate function or exercise the power of
        judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision.
        Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial
        system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an
        application of mind to the matter before Court. Another F
        rationale is that the affected party can know why the
        decision has gone against him. One of the salutary
        requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for
        the order made, in other words, a speaking out. [Para 9]
        [1115-E, F, G]                                               G
--,..
 .J'.
              2. Any judicial power has to be judiciously exercised
        and the mere fact that discretion is vested with the court/
        forum to exercise the same either way does not constitute
        any license to exercise it at whims or fancies and arbitrarily
        as used to be conveyed by the well-known saying: H
    1113       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2008] 1 S.C.R.


A "varying according to the Chancellor's foot". Arbitrariness         <(

  has been always held to be the anathema of judicial
  exercise of any power, all the more so when such orders
  are amenable to challenge further before higher forums.
  Such ritualistic observations and summary disposal
B which has the effect of, at times, cannot be said to be a
  proper and judicial manner of disposing of judiciously
  the claim before the courts. The giving of reasons for a
  decision is an essential attribute of judicial and
  judicious disposal of a matter before courts, and which
c is the only indication to know about the manner and
  quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the
  court concerned had really applied its mind. [Para 1OJ
  [1116-C, D, E]
           State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar (2004) 5 SCC 568 -
D referred to.
          3. The attempt to draw an analogy on the power of
    this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India,
    1950 and the practice of rejecting appeals at the SLP stage
    invariably without assigning reasons with the one to be
E   exercised while dealing with a writ petition has no meaning
    and is illogical. First of all, the High Court is not the final
    court in the hierarchy and its orders are amenable to
    challenge before this Court, unlike the obvious position
    that there is no scope for any further appeal from the order
F   made declining to grant special leave to appeal. It has been
    on more than one occasion reiterated that Article 136 of
    the Constitution does not confer any right of appeal in
    favour of any pa-rty as such and it is not that any and every
    error is envisaged to be corrected in exercising powers
G   under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The powers
    of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution are                .,._
                                                                             I
    special and extraordinary and the main object is to ensure
    that there has been no miscarriage of justice. That cannot
    be said to be the same with a writ petition. [Para 11]
H   [1116-F-G; 1117-A, 8]
         VISHNU DEV SHARMA v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.                    1114
                        [PASAYAT, J.]

             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 619 A
  _)>
        of 2008.
              From the final Judgment and Order dated 27.01.2004 of
        the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc.Writ
        Petition No. 18497 of 1994.
                                                                                 B
            . Tripurari Raja and Vishwajit Singh for the Appellant.
 __..        S.B. Upadhayay, Niranjana Singh, Vimla Sinha and Raj
        Singh Rana for the Respondents.
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                          c
             Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
              2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
        Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Civil
        Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 18497 of 1994. The dispute D
        related to fixation of seniority.
             3. It is not necessary to go into the factual aspects in detail
        as the writ petition was disposed of in a summary manner
        observing as follows:
                                                                                 E
                'This is a writ petition challenging the final seniority list.
                 We have heard counsel for the parties. The seniority
             has been given from the date of confirmation. We see no
             illegality. The writ petition is dismissed."
              4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant     F
        submitted that such summary dismissal of writ petition was not
        warranted as several issues of considerable importance were
        involved, more particularly whether the norms for fixing seniority
        in the background facts of the case were to be considered.
                                                                                 G
             5. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that in the
.....
 I      seniority list he was placed below juniors which was
        impermissible. That aspect was not considered by the High
        Court.
             6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State and its                 H
    1115      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 1 S.C.R.


A functionaries supported the order of the High Court.
           7. As the quoted portion of the order goes to show that
    practically no reason was indicated. The dismissal of the writ
    petition in such summary manner without indicating any reason
    is clearly indefensible.
B
          8. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest
    consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth
    its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an
    application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable
c   to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has
    rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable.
        9. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning
   M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1)
  All E.R. 1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of the
D fundamentals of good administration''. In Alexander Machinery
  (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed:
  "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons
  are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the
  controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived
E at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis
  on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the
  "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it
  virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate
  function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging
F the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable     ..
  part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to
  indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court.
  Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the
  decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements
  of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in
G
  other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx"       ,...
  is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial
                                                                             •
  performance.
       10. This Court in State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar (2004
H (5) sec 568) has while reiterating the view expressed in the
       VISHNU DEV SHARMA v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.                    1116
                      [PASAYAT, J.]

,,.   earlier cases for the past two decades emphasised the A
      necessity, duty and obligation of the High Court to record reasons
      in disposing of such cases. The hallmark of a judgment/order
      and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose
      the reasons for its decision and giving of reasons has been
      always insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound 8
      administration justice-delivery system, to make known that there
      had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before
+
      the Court and also as an essential requisite of principles of
      natural justice. Any judicial power has to be judiciously exercised
      and the mere fact that discretion is vested with the court/forum c
      to exercise the same either way does not constitute any license
      to exercise it at whims or fancies and arbitrarily as used to be
      conveyed by the well-known saying: "varying according to the
      Chancellor's foot". Arbitrariness has been always held to be
      the anathema of judicial exercise of any power, all the more so
                                                                          D
      when such orders are amenable to challenge further before
>·    higher forums. Such ritualistic observations and summary
      disposal which has the effect of, at times, cannot be said to be
       a proper and judicial manner of disposing of judiciously the claim
       before the courts. The· giving of reasons for a decision is an
       essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter E
       before courts, and which is the only indication to know about
       the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact
       that the court concerned had really applied its mind.

 -<
            11. The attempt to draw an analogy on the power of this F
      Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in
      short the 'Constitution') and the practice of rejecting appeals at
      the SLP stage invariably without assigning reasons with the one
      to be exercised while dealing with a writ petition has no meaning
      and is illogical. First of all, the High Court is not the final court in
                                                                               G
      the hierarchy and its orders are amenable to challenge before
-"    this Court, unlike the obvious position that there is no scope for
'     any further appeal from the order made declining to grant special
      leave to appeal. It has been on more than one occasion reiterated
      that Article 136 of the Constitution does not confer any right of
                                                                               H
   1117      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 1 S.C.R.


A appeal in favour of any party as such and it is not that any and
  every error is envisaged to be corrected in exercising powers
  under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The powers of this
  Court under Article 136 of the Constitution are special and
  extraordinary and the main object is to ensure that there has
B been no miscarriage of justice. That cannot be said to be the
  same with a writ petition. Consequently, this appeal is allowed
  and the order of the High Court is set aside.

         12. In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the impugned
  order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh
C disposal in accordance with law by a reasoned order. We make
  it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of
  the case.
   D.G.                                           Appeal allowed.