Reasoned Decisions

In one line

An authority deciding a matter affecting a person must say why it decided as it did.

In the words a student can write in an exam: the requirement of a reasoned decision, also called a speaking order, is now treated as the third principle of natural justice in India. An administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decision, except where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication; the reasons need not be as elaborate as those of a court, but must be clear and explicit enough to show that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy.

What a speaking order is

An order speaks when it discloses on its face the reasons that led to it. Its opposite is an order that states only the conclusion: "the application is rejected", "the licence is cancelled", "the representation is not accepted".

The distinction matters because a conclusion without reasons cannot be tested. Nobody, including a court, can tell whether the authority considered the right things, applied the right test, or considered anything at all.

Why reasons are required: four arguments

Each is worth a sentence in an answer, because an examiner is testing whether you understand the purpose rather than the rule.

1. They discipline the decision maker. Somebody who must write down why is forced to work out why. The obligation to give reasons improves the decision before anybody challenges it, which is the green light argument: [Red Light and Green Light Theories].

2. They make review possible. Without reasons, a court asked whether the authority took irrelevant considerations into account has nothing to look at. Reasons are what convert a right of appeal or review from a formality into a reality.

3. They satisfy the person affected. A decision explained is a decision that can be accepted, or answered. A bare rejection invites the suspicion that no reason existed.

4. They exclude arbitrariness. An order without reasons cannot be distinguished from a whim, and Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.

The leading Indian case

Facts. S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984, was decided by a Constitution Bench. The appellant, an army officer officiating as a Major, took over as Officer Commanding a supply company attached to a Military Hospital. In his absence another officer submitted a contingent bill for Rs.16,280 for the winter liveries of depot civilian chowkidars and sweepers, which was returned by the Controller of Defence Accounts with objections; the appellant then submitted a fresh contingent bill for Rs.7,029.57. In view of the wide difference between the two bills the Controller reported the matter for investigation, a Court of Enquiry blamed the appellant for certain lapses, and disciplinary proceedings followed. His post-confirmation petition to the Central Government under section 164 of the Army Act 1950 was rejected without reasons, and the question was whether the Central Government was bound to give reasons.