VISHNU DEV SHARMA versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 1111 · Decided: 23-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 1S.C.R.1111 
A 
VISHNU DEV SHARMA 
• 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 619 of 2008) 
B 
JANUARY 23, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
c 
Article 226 - Writ petition - Dismissal of, in summary 
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 -
E Powers thereunder are special and extraordinary and object 
is to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice. 
Administration of Justice: 
Justice delivery system - Right to reason in judgment! 
F 
order - Held: Is indispensable part of sound judicial system -
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 c 
its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The 
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 
--,.. 
2. Any judicial power has to be judiciously exercised 
.J'. 
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 1 OJ 
[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 In

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