Introduction:
In a significant development that underscores the judiciary’s concern over administrative accountability and transparency, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has raised alarm over the increasing prevalence of “non-speaking” and “cryptic” orders passed by appellate and statutory authorities in the State of Haryana. The observation came from the Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri while hearing a petition filed by Mr. Bhanuj Gupta against the State of Haryana and Others, wherein the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, was alleged to be devoid of reasoning and failed to disclose any basis for the dismissal of an appeal.
The petitioner had approached the High Court challenging two orders, one of which was passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, asserting that both orders were entirely non-speaking. According to the petitioner, despite the Commissioner’s claim that she had “thoroughly examined the facts and records of the case,” her order contained no discussion of the evidence, reasoning, or legal foundation to justify the conclusion reached. The absence of recorded reasons, the petitioner argued, rendered the impugned order arbitrary, unsustainable, and violative of the principles of natural justice.
The case titled Bhanuj Gupta v. State of Haryana and Others arose out of the petitioner’s grievance against the perfunctory manner in which the Commissioner, Hisar Division, had disposed of his appeal. The petitioner’s contention centered on the argument that the order, though couched in official language, was hollow and non-reasoned, failing to reflect any application of mind. In response, the Punjab and Haryana High Court undertook a deeper examination of the systemic issue—namely, the growing tendency among appellate authorities to pass orders that lack analytical reasoning, detailed findings, or any reflection of the consideration of facts and law.
Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, while issuing notice in the case, also took cognizance of the larger administrative pattern of such non-speaking orders being passed across Haryana by officers exercising quasi-judicial or statutory powers. The Court’s sharp observations reflected its disquiet at a governance culture where statutory authorities, often tasked with adjudicating rights and obligations of citizens, issue orders in a mechanical and summary fashion without articulating the logic or rationale behind their conclusions.
Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner:
Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Prateek Garg, Advocate, argued that the impugned orders were a classic example of non-application of mind. He submitted that while the Commissioner had claimed to have “thoroughly examined the facts and the records,” there was absolutely no discussion, reference, or reasoning evident from the order to substantiate such an assertion. Counsel contended that it was an established principle of administrative and constitutional law that any authority exercising quasi-judicial or appellate jurisdiction must provide a reasoned order. The absence of reasons, he stressed, violates the fundamental tenet of natural justice—audi alteram partem—and renders the decision opaque, arbitrary, and unchallengeable on merits.
He further argued that the impugned order’s language revealed a mechanical approach. The Commissioner had merely stated that after “thoroughly studying and examining” the record, the appeal was found to be without merit. However, the order did not identify what materials were examined, what issues were framed, how the evidence was appreciated, or on what legal basis the decision was arrived at. This, the petitioner’s counsel asserted, made the order unsustainable in the eyes of law.
Citing several precedents, the petitioner’s counsel reminded the Court that the Supreme Court of India, in numerous judgments, including Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010), had emphasized that every judicial, quasi-judicial, and even administrative authority exercising decision-making power must record reasons in its orders. The recording of reasons, he argued, serves a dual purpose—it demonstrates due application of mind and provides the affected party an opportunity to understand and challenge the decision effectively.
Counsel concluded by submitting that the impugned order was not merely inadequate in form but defective in substance. It reflected a disturbing administrative practice where higher officers, entrusted with appellate functions, issue orders without deliberation, thus depriving citizens of a fair and transparent process. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for the quashing of the impugned order and for directions to the State to ensure that future appellate orders are reasoned and legally sustainable.
Arguments on Behalf of the State:
On behalf of the State, the learned State Counsel defended the impugned orders by contending that the Commissioner had indeed applied her mind to the case. It was argued that the Commissioner’s assertion of having “thoroughly examined the facts and records” indicated due diligence and a comprehensive understanding of the matter. The State’s representative maintained that just because detailed reasons were not elaborated in the text of the order did not necessarily mean that the authority failed to consider the merits of the case.
The State Counsel further submitted that the petitioner’s grievance was essentially technical in nature. He argued that a mere lack of elaboration does not automatically invalidate the order, particularly when the conclusion reached was within the authority’s competence and jurisdiction. The counsel assured the Court that the authorities in Haryana, including Commissioners and other statutory bodies, are conscious of their duties and responsibilities while exercising quasi-judicial powers.
However, during the course of the hearing, the Court observed that this was not an isolated instance but part of a larger trend across the State. Justice Puri questioned whether the State was taking sufficient steps to sensitize and train officers who hold appellate powers about the need for reasoned orders, legal reasoning, and the requirements of natural justice. The State Counsel, upon being asked, stated that he would apprise the Court on the next date of hearing about the State’s preparedness to provide training to such officers.
Court’s Observations and Judgment:
After hearing both sides, the Punjab and Haryana High Court found the petitioner’s grievance well-founded. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri observed that the impugned order was indeed devoid of reasoning and failed to satisfy the minimum standards expected of a quasi-judicial decision. The Court noted that while the Commissioner claimed to have “thoroughly studied and examined” the case record, the order contained no analysis, factual discussion, or reference to any evidence or document to demonstrate such examination.
The Bench remarked that this pattern of “non-speaking” and “cryptic” orders had become alarmingly common among statutory and appellate authorities in Haryana. It lamented that such orders, passed without articulation of reasons, defeated the very purpose of the appellate process and undermined the citizens’ faith in administrative justice. The Court observed:
“It is important to note that in a large number of cases, such kind of orders are being passed by the appellate authority while exercising statutory powers without recording any reasons.”
Emphasizing the legal necessity of recording reasons, the Court underscored that reasoned orders are the hallmark of good governance and judicial fairness. They ensure transparency, accountability, and facilitate effective appellate scrutiny. Without reasons, orders appear arbitrary and deprive the affected party of understanding why the decision went against them.
In a strongly worded direction, Justice Puri ordered the Commissioner, Hisar Division, to file a personal affidavit explaining what exactly she had “thoroughly studied and examined,” as mentioned in the impugned order. The Court sought a detailed clarification on how such examination was conducted and on what basis the appeal was dismissed without any reasoning being recorded.
The Court’s concern, however, went beyond the individual case. Recognizing the systemic issue at play, the Bench proposed a corrective measure aimed at institutional reform. It indicated that it would, on the next date of hearing, consider appointing a legal expert or authority to provide training and lectures to appellate and statutory authorities on how to draft and pass reasoned and legally sustainable orders. Such training, the Court observed, was essential to ensure that the authorities understand their quasi-judicial role and adhere to legal principles while exercising their powers.
The Court also directed the Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana to file a detailed response on or before the next date of hearing, indicating the State’s readiness to organize and facilitate such training sessions for senior officers who exercise statutory powers. The matter was then adjourned to November 18 for further consideration.
Justice Puri’s observations reflect a deeper judicial philosophy—that reasoning is not merely a procedural formality but an ethical and constitutional obligation. The absence of reasoning, the Court implied, leads to arbitrariness and erodes public trust in the administrative apparatus. The judgment resonates with the long-standing jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court, which has repeatedly emphasized that reasoned decisions are an integral part of the rule of law.
In conclusion, the Court’s approach demonstrates a blend of judicial restraint and proactive reform. Instead of merely striking down the order, it sought to initiate a systemic improvement by urging the State to train its officers. This move aligns with the judiciary’s broader effort to enhance the quality of administrative justice in India and ensure that citizens’ grievances are addressed in a fair, reasoned, and transparent manner.