Reasoned Decision

It ensure fairness in the actions of the authorities and guards

against non-application of mind.
In absence of any statutory requirement the Courts in India are
not pressing for the reasoned decisions.
Law Commission of India 14th Report Vol. II, 1958
recommended general law providing reasons for quasi-judicial
and administrative decisions.
If it is provided in the statute then Court reads reasoned
decision as condition essential, and if not followed the
administrative action taken will be vitiated. M. J. Sivani v. St.
of Karnataka (1995) 6 SCC 289
Providing reasons shall not be mere formality, the
reasons should be genuine.
Global Energy Ltd v. Central Electricity Regulatory
Commission (2009) 15 SCC 570
Reasons given for rejecting licence for was that the
applicant is involved in legal proceeding which may
adversely affect the interest of the electricity
department or consumers.
The court struck down rejection of licence, because
this reason was not valid.
Reasoned decision may be required
because it is mandated;
1. By the Constitution
2. By an Act
3. To comply with Natural Justice
4. By the nature of the functions
1. Mandate of the reasoning according to Constitution
It is not well settled proposition that if the administrative
authority exercising discretionary power is required to
give reasons in absence of legal requirement.
Anumati Sadhukhan v. A. K. Chatterji AIR 1951 Cal 90
The question was cancellation of the licence to run rice
mill.
The W. B. Rice Mills Control Order 1949 did not required
the authorities granting, renewing or refusing licence
to disclose reasons. Neither the parent Act mandates it
The High Court of Calcutta held that, this power is putting
restrictions on the right under Art 19 (1) (g) and as per
Art 19 (6) the restriction must be reasonable and hence
the authorities require to give reasons for cancellation of
licence.
Few High Courts followed path of Calcutta High Court.
But the Supreme Court in Kishan Chandra Arora v.
Comm…of Police AIR 1969 SC 706 took a opposite
position that Commissioner of Police is not required to
disclose reasons for refusing to grant licence to eating
house or entertainment house. Though it violates FR.
The SC in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration
held that if the jail authorities are putting
fetters on the limited liberties of the prisoners
then they shall give the reason for it. Otherwise
such fetters would be struck down.
This holding by the SC is indirect dilution of the
proposition in Kishan Chandra Arora case.
And there are many such cases especially
under PIL like Rudul Shah, Hussainara
Khatoon, etc…
 2. Mandate of the reasoning by Law
e.g. Section 127 (1) of Income Tax empowers Income Tax Board to
transfer a case to another Board but with reasons.
Non-compliance with this requirement vitiates the action Ajanta
Industries v. Central Board Direct Taxes AIR 1976 SC 437
Mandate of reasoning may be parent Act or the delegated legislation
thereunder.
Union of India v. M. L. Capoor AIR 1974 SC 87
Regulation 5 (5) of Police Service (Appointment by Promotion)
Regulation 1955 provided that the Selection Committee shall
record the reasons for suppression of any officer for such
selection.
The Committee gave uniform reason for all the rejected
candidates i.e. “ on an average assessment of their records
these officers are not such as to justify their promotion.”
The Court observed that, this is clear case of non application
of mind.
3. Mandate of reason to comply with principles of Natural
Justice
Some time law may be silent for communication of reasons for
an action but if non communication of reasons results into
heavy loss which may be personal of proprietary, the
authorities should give reasons for such action.
 Dev Dutta v. Union of India (2008) 8 SCC 725
Communication of bad remark in the Annual
Confidential Report was the mandate of the Service
Rule.
For promotion it was required to have “very good”
remark consecutively for five years.
The Appellant had 4 times “very good” remarks and
once it was “good” therefore his candidature was
rejected for promotion and his juniors were
promoted.
Begin aggrieved by it he challenged it. The High Court held
that the Service Rule mandates communication of
remark “bad” only and remark “good” is not an adverse
remark and hence need not be communicated. He
appealed before Supreme Court
Appellant contended that had remark “good”
communicated to him he would have made
representation against it and asked senior authorities to
reconsider it for “very good”. Would have asked for the
reasons for remark “good” and would have claimed
remark “very good” by supporting it with relevant
material.
Because it was not communicated and
therefore he could not get promoted to
senior grade.
The Supreme Court directed that the
“good” remark be communicated to the
appellant within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of the
copy of this judgment.
On being communicated, the appellant may make the
representation, if he so chooses, against the said entry
within two months thereafter and the said
representation will be decided within two months
thereafter.
If his entry is upgraded the appellant shall be considered
for promotion retrospectively by the Departmental
Promotion Committee (DPC) within three months
thereafter and if the appellant gets selected for
promotion retrospectively,
Appellant should be given higher pension with
arrears of pay and interest @ 8% per annum
till the date of payment.
The Supreme Court further observed that
transparency and good-governance have been
added as new dimensions of Natural Justice
which includes duty to give reasons.
4. Disclosure of reason may be mandated by the
nature of functions performed by the
authorities.
Following are the typical functions which needs
to be performed by giving reasons, whether it
is mandated by law or not.
1. Quasi-judicial functions
2. Disciplinary Actions
 S. N. Mukharji v. U o I (1990) 4 SCC 594
The Supreme Court held that unless giving of reason
are barred expressly the authorities performing
quasi-judicial functions are bound to disclose the
reasons for its actions.
It severs as a deterrent against the misuse of power.
What purpose reasoned decision serves?
It gives opportunity to the higher authorities
(including the Courts) to reconsider the action
taken by the lower authorities.
While exercising appellate or revisional powers the
higher authorities may adopt any of the following
options;
1. It may conform the order/action of the lower
authority
2. It may reverse the order/action of the lower
authority
3. It may vary the order/action of the lower
authority.
If the appellate or revisional authorities choose
2nd or 3rd option then they must give reasons
for it, it is a settled position.
But what should be the course for choosing 1st
options?
Whether higher authorities are bound to give
reasons if they choose 1st option or can they
simply rely on the same reasoning adopted by
the lower authorities.
For long it was not settled that higher authorities should give
reasons or not in some cases separate reasons were given
and in some other cases reasons were said to be the same as
that of the lower authorities. { M. P. Industries Ltd v. UoI
1966, Tara Chand Khatri v. MCD 1977}
Finally in Divisional Forest Officer v. Madhusudan Rao (2008)
3 SCC 469
SC held that the higher authorities are not required to give
detail reasons for confirming the action/decision of the
lower authorities but some brief reasons must be given, it
will guard against non-application of mind.
In disciplinary proceedings a full hearing is given to the person
and a detailed report providing reasons is prepared by the
inquiry officer.
In such situation if disciplinary authority concurs with the
report, shall it be binding on them to provide separate
reasons?
Will it not be mere duplication of the process?
The SC in Tara Chand Khatri v. MCD AIR 1977 SC 567 held
that it will be too broad a principle if Disciplinary authority
has to again given the reasons for concurring with the
report of the inquiry officer.
Prof. M. P. Singh observed that to maintain and
uphold Rule of Law it is necessary that in all
administrative and quasi-judicial actions the
requirement of reasoned decision must be implied
unless expressly excluded. (1979) 21 JILI 45.
Thus, the SC in Rajesh Kumar v. CIT (2007) 2 SCC
181 held that providing reasons is implicit in the
administrative process unless its requirement
results in “useless formality” and “no-prejudice
doctrine”