UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus BIBHU PRASAD SARANGI AND OTHERS

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 13 · Decided: 05-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
13
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
v.
     BIBHU PRASAD SARANGI AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 821 of 2021)
MARCH 05, 2021
    [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Constitution of India -– Art.226 – Exercise of power under –
Necessity of independent application of mind – ‘Cut-copy-paste’ not a
substitute for substantive reasoning – Issue whether first respondent
was correctly denied selection having regard to the fact that a
disciplinary penalty had been imposed upon him – Appellant moved
before High Court in proceedings u/Art.226 for challenging order of
the Tribunal – High Court extracted portions of the judgment of the
Tribunal and declined to interfere stating that the Tribunal had not
committed any jurisdictional error – Held: There was no independent
application of mind to the controversy by the High Court – Technology
enables speed, efficiency and accuracy to judicial work – But prolific
use of ‘cut-copy-paste’ function should not become a substitute for
substantive reasoning which, in the ultimate analysis, is the defining
feature of the judicial process – Reasons constitute the soul of a judicial
decision – It was necessary for the High Court to express an opinion on
the merits of the rival submissions since it was seized of proceedings u/
Art.226 – High Court having not carried out the exercise, the judgment
of High Court is set aside – Writ petition restored to High Court –
Judgment / Order – Practice and Procedure – Service Law.
Remitting the matter to the High Court, the Court
HELD:1. There has been no independent application of
mind to the controversy by the High Court.  [Para 6][15-D-E]
2. Cutting, copying and pasting from the judgment of the
Tribunal, which is placed in issue before the High Court, may add
to the volume of the judgment. The size of judicial output does not
necessarily correlate to a reasoned analysis of the core issues in a
case. Technology enables judges to bring speed, efficiency and
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 13
13
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
accuracy to judicial work.  But a prolific use of the ‘cut-copy-
paste’ function should not become a substitute for substantive
reasoning which, in the ultimate analysis, is the defining feature
of the judicial process. Doing what the High Court has done in
the present case presents a veneer of  judicial reasoning, bereft
of the substance which constitutes the heart of the judicial
process. Reasons constitute the soul of a judicial decision. Without
them one is left with a shell which provides neither solace nor
satisfaction to the litigant. While it is important to keep an eye
on the statistics on disposal, the quality of justice brings legitimacy
to the judiciary. [Para 7][15-E-H; 16-A-B]
3.  It was necessary for the High Court to express an opinion
on the merits of the rival submissions since it was seized of
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.  The High Court
having not carried out the exercise, the impugned judgment and
order of the High Court is set aside. The writ petition shall stand
restored to the file of the High Court.  [Para 9][16-D-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 821 of
2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2019 of the High Court
of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P.(C) 13029 of 2019
Mrs. Lalita Kaushik, Adv. for the appellant.
Shubhranshu Padhi, Ashish Yadav, Rakshit Jain, Vishal Banshal,
Advs. for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal arises from a judgment and order of a Division
Bench of the High Court of Orissa dated 21 November 2019.
4. The appellant moved before the High Court in proceedings under
Article 226 of the Constitution for challenging an order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench1 dated 13 March 2019.  The
1 “Tribunal”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
15
Tribunal had directed the appellant to reconsider the case of the first
respondent for promotion to the IAS in accordance with the vacancies
for 2015 by reconvening a meeting of the Selection Committee and
thereafter, to reconsider the first respondent similarly for 2016 and 2017
if the first respondent was found unsuitable for promotion in the year
2015.  Consequential benefits were directed to be released in the event
that the Review Selection Committee found the first respondent suitable.
5. For the purpose of the present appeal, it is not necessary for
the Court to consider the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.