HC sets aside trial court order for lack of reasoned judgment

Srinagar, Apr 10: Underscoring that the right to know the reasons for decisions made by the Judges is an indispensable right of a litigant, the High Court of J&K and Ladakh has said a judicial order has to be reasoned one, where the mind of the court needs to be revealed.

“It is well settled that judicial order necessarily has to be a reasoned one, where the mind of the Court needs to be revealed and cogent and convincing reasons need to be stated,” a bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul said.

The court said this while setting aside an order by a Srinagar trial court passed under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

The court observed that the trial court’s order it went through, reflected total non-application of mind on the part of the Presiding Officer.

Referring to the trial court’s order, the bench said: “The trial court while giving his opinion in the impugned order has said Heard and perused the record. For the reasons stated in the order of the application IA/3, the application also lacks merit and is therefore dismissed. Disposed of and made part of the main file.”

The bench held that these expressions could not be in view of well settled legal position said to be reasons given by the trial court but could be said to be cryptic inasmuch as the trial court has not discussed what provisions of Section 151 CPC provide for, what petitioners plead in their application, what they seek for on the basis of the case set up in the application and why and what are the reasons to dismiss the application.

While the bench noted that recording of reasons in support of conclusions arrived at in a judgment or order by the Courts in the judicial system has been recognised since the very inception of the system, it said, “Right to know the reasons for decisions made by the Judges is an indispensable right of a litigant”.

Even a brief recording of reasoned opinion justifying the decision made would suffice to withstand the test of a reasoned order or judgment.”

Moreover, the bench said that a non-speaking, unreasoned or cryptic order passed or judgment delivered without taking into account the relevant facts, evidence available and the law attracted thereto has always been looked at negatively and judicially de-recognised by the courts.

“Mere use of words or the language of a provision in an order or judgment without any mention of the relevant facts and the evidence available thereon has always been treated by the superior courts as an order incapable of withstanding the test of an order passed judicially,” it said.

The bench said: “Ours is a judicial system inherited from the British legacy wherein objectivity in judgments and orders over subjectivity has always been given precedence.”

The court said, “It has been judicially recognised perception in our system that the subjectivity preferred by the Judge in place of objectivity in a judgment or order destroys the quality of the judgment or order and an un-reasoned order does not sub-serve the doctrine of fair play.”