Denial of reasons for verdict is denial of justice, says Supreme Court

It seems the Supreme Court (SC) wants to stop high courts and subordinate courts from giving cryptic judgments — in other words not giving good reasons for the decision arrived at.

Last week, in one such case, the top court ruled that failure to justify a judgment amounts to ‘denial of justice’.

A bench of P Sathasivam and AK Ganguly quashed a Gujarat high court judgment on the ground that judges didn’t offer reasons for rejecting an appeal in a criminal case.

After aggrieved party Rafikbhai Ibrahimbhai Khokhar approached the court, judges referred the case back to HC, requesting that it be re-considered “in accordance with law”, within four months.
Khokhar had challenged the lower court judgment saying judges didn’t give reasons for their findings.

Accepting Khokhar’s plea, the apex court said giving reasons should be seen as a fundamental of good administration and failure to do so as denial of justice.

“Right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system and reasons at least indicate an application of mind to the matter before the court,’’ the bench said.

Earlier, the apex court had observed reasons are “live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.” 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 courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision.

Another piece of logic is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of justice is spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, a speaking-out.

The “inscrutable face of the sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance, the court said.