The principles of natural justice developed over a period of time, and have become quintessential for the working of an efficient judiciary. These principles as developed are as follows:
- Rule against Bias, i.e. nemo judex in causa sua;
- Opportunity of being heard to the concerned party, i.e. audi alteram partem; and
- Procedural Fairness.
To these principles another principle is added, which is of recent origin. The principle is that it is the duty of the Court to give reasons in support of its decision, namely, passing of a ‘reasoned order’.
Recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice.
Reasons introduce clarity in an order. Contradictory reasons are equal to lack of reasons. 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.
The administrative authority and tribunals are obliged to give reasons, absence whereof could render the order liable to judicial chastisement. Thus, it will not be far from absolute principle of law that the Courts should record reasons for its conclusions to enable the appellate or higher Courts to exercise their jurisdiction appropriately and in accordance with law. It is the reasoning alone, that can enable a higher or an appellate court to appreciate the controversy in issue in its correct perspective and to hold whether the reasoning recorded by the Court whose order is impugned, is sustainable in law and whether it has adopted the correct legal approach.
The order of an administrative authority may not provide reasons like a judgment but the order must be supported by the reasons of rationality. The distinction between orders by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority and a judicial order by a Judge has practically extinguished and both are required to pass reasoned orders.
Lord Denning, M.R. In Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union observed:
“The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.”
In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree it was observed:
“Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice.”
A rationale behind delivering a reasoned order is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. Often it is said that absence of reasoning may ipso facto indicate whimsical exercise of judicial discretion.
Another facet of providing reasoning is to give it a value of precedent which can help in reduction of frivolous litigation.
Hence, it can be said that the Reasons are really linchpin to administration of justice.
Reasoned Order is thoroughly encapsulated by the Indian Procedural Law. For Instance, Order XIV Rule 2 read with Order XX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that, the Court should record findings on each issue and such findings which obviously should be reasoned would form part of the judgment, which in turn would be the basis for writing a decree of the Court.
The expression `speaking order’ was first coined by Lord Chancellor Earl Cairns in a rather strange context. The Lord Chancellor, while explaining the ambit of Writ of Certiorari, referred to orders with errors on the face of the record and pointed out that an order with errors on its face, is a speaking order.
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.
The absence of reason makes an order unsustainable. One of the most important aspects for insisting to record reason is that it substitutes the subjectivity with objectivity.