Today, I will talk about the case of Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar & Another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1280, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed about the duty to accord reasons for a decision arrived at by a court or an authority.
Today, I will talk about the case of Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar & Another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1280, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed about the duty to accord reasons for a decision arrived at by a court or an authority.
To know more about the present post, please visit https://www.desikanoon.co.in/2022/01/importance-of-reason-in-judicial-quasi.html
Telegram: https://t.me/Legal_Talks_by_DesiKanoon
YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMmVCFV7-Kfo_6S42kPhz2w
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-talks-by-desikanoon/id1510617120
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3KdnziPc4I73VfEcFJa59X?si=vYgrOEraQD-NjcoXA2a7Lg&dl_branch=1&nd=1
Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS84ZTZTcGREcw?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuz4ifzpLxAhVklGMGHb4HAdwQ9sEGegQIARAD
Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/4b89fb71-1836-414e-86f6-1116324dd7bc/Legal-Talks-by-Desikanoon
Please subscribe and follow us on YouTube, Instagram, iTunes, Twitter, LinkedIn, Discord, Telegram and Facebook.
Credits:
Music by Wataboi from Pixabay
Thank you for listening!
Hi everyone.
I am Suyash and today, I will talk about the case of Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar & Another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1280, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed about the duty to accord reasons for a decision arrived at by a court or an authority.
In this case, the Court discussed the Latin Maxim, “cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex” meaning “reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself.”
Basically, the Court cited the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, wherein the relevant principles that explain the duty of a court or an authority to accord reasons for a decision were discussed. The pertinent ones are as follows: -
“(a) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.
(b) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.
(c) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
(d) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
(e) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
(f) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants’ faith in the justice delivery system.
(g) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.
(h) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
(i) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.
(j) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny.
(k) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “due process”.”
Thus, we see that while considering any application or petition that involves rights and liberties of individuals such as Bail Applications, the decision of any court or authority “must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record.”
Therefore, I hope that the importance of reasons in a decision or a judgment is clear by now.
Hence, I hope you enjoyed listening to the show.
Thank you for listening.
Please do not forget to like, subscribe and comment.
See you next time, till then stay tuned.