In The Absence Of Any Reasoning In Judgment, It Cannot Be Sustained: SC Directs Allahabad HC To Rehear Intra Court Appeal
|The Supreme Court set aside a judgment by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court stating that the impugned judgment simply agreed with the view of the Single Bench without furnishing any reasoning.
The Court remanded the matter back to the Division Bench for the parties to appear and address arguments afresh. The Court observed that in the absence of any reasoning in the impugned judgment, the same could not be sustained.
A Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “The judgment simply concludes with an observation that the Division Bench is in agreement with the approach and view of the learned Single Judge without furnishing any reasons therefor…We are of the opinion that in the absence of any reasoning in the impugned judgment, the same cannot be sustained.”
Senior AAG Garima Prashad represented the appellants, while Senior Advocates Sanjoy Ghose and P.S. Patwalia appeared for the respondents.
An appeal was filed by the State Project Director, Uttar Pradesh Education for All Project Board, challenging the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in the context of government teacher appointments which upheld the earlier decision of the Single Bench.
The appellant argued that the Division Bench did not consider several Government Orders (G.O.s) issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh. However, the Division Bench simply upheld the decision of the Single Bench without dealing with the submissions made by either side and without any application of mind.
The Supreme Court noted that the Division Bench’s impugned judgment, could not be sustained in the absence of any reasoning. The Division Bench's judgment merely echoed the conclusions of the Single Judge without elaborating on the rationale behind its agreement.
The Bench referred to its decision in CCT v. Shukla & Bros (2010), wherein the Apex Court held, “Reason is the very life of law. When the reason of a law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases…By practice adopted in all courts and by virtue of judge-made law, the concept of reasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of basic rule of law and, in fact, is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law.”
Consequently, the Court held that “the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant in the High Court is restored to its original position. The parties are directed to appear before the Roster Bench on 20th September, 2024. The interim orders passed by this Court shall continue to operate till the appeal is disposed of by the Division Bench.”
The Court further ordered, “Liberty is granted to the parties to place on record the subsequent developments in the matter so that the Division Bench is apprised of the larger perspective in the case and take an objective view in the matter. Liberty is granted to both sides to address arguments on law as also on facts afresh by additionally referring to the subsequent developments, if any besides the issues raised before the Division Bench in the light of the common judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal.
Cause Title: State Project Director, UP Education For All Project Board & Ors. v. Saroj Maurya & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 677)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior AAG Garima Prashad; AOR Krishnanand Pandeya; Advocates Divyanshu Sahay and Yash Kirti Kumar Bharti
Respondents: Senior Advocates Sanjoy Ghose and P.S. Patwalia; AOR Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Umesh Dubey, Dushyant Parashar and Tom Joseph; Advocates Vyom Raghuvanshi, Akanksha Rathore, Mohnish Nirwan, Ashok Kumar, Abhishek Pratap Singh, Sahil Baraik, Yash Tewari, Shashank Rai, Jacob Benny, Piyush Singh, R.K. Singh, Neeraj Singh, R. Krishnaraj, Kumar Gaurav, Arjun Singh and Ramandeep Singh