I

consumer Tribunals set up under theConsumer Protection Act to decide consumerdisputes.

(3)The necessityfor quasi-judicialTribunalsto give reasons for their decision came up inseveral cases. Initially, a distinction was madebetween an 'administrative order' and 'quasi-judiciaF order" which virtually reached avanishing point.

(4) The expression 'speaking ord~r' wasfirst coined, by Lord Chancellor Earl GUms.This expression was used in relation to orderwith errors on the face of record and sucherrors were considered to be a "speakingonier" J. Orders passed by an administrativeauthority or quasi-judicial authority affectingthe right of the parties "must, speak". TheSupreme Court held that appellate Courtcannot effectively exercise its powers, ifreasons are not given in support of theorder' and it would be difficult forrevisional Courts to ascertain the grounds on

,which the' orders were passed by theTribunals' or whether the .order passed isright or wrong",

ft'

AILD] JOURNAL 61

SPEAKING ,ORDER : A CRITICAL STUDY IN THE LIGHT OF SUPREMECOURT'S'DEClSION IN KRANTI ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LTD. CASE*

By-Dr. MUKUND SARDA, Dean and Professor,

New Law College,Bharatiya Vidya Peet University,

Pune

(1) Whether the Quasi-Judicial bodies arerequired to record reasons in support oftheir, decisions have been considered in thecase under study? This question came up forconsideration when the National Consumer .

, Redressal Commission 1 gave its decision, I without reasons.

(2) The jurisdiction of the National'?,',', I,' CoCommissionpis p~videActdin SThection21 of thde" nsumer 'rotecnon . e powers an

procedure to be followed is provided inSection 22 of the Consumer Protection Act.

',: i Secti~ii 21(1)(b) of the Consu,mer'sP~tectionAct provided; for the' National Commission's

;, I revisionaltpowers over' the orders' of the,\: StateG)~s·sion. The decision-making~ i process.ofithe:National Commission is;.: provided by Sections 12, 13 and 14 of the

Consumer Protection. Act. By virtue of theSections 1~(1),'(5), (6) and (7) the National

, Commission" ~ ,vested with the powers ofCivil Court and in particular it has beenvestedw,iW'ilie powers of a Civil Courtunder tlleCode of Gvil Procedure, 1908.The 'proceedings, before the NationalCornmission'are treated as judicial proceedingswithin the::,JJ'l¢arungof Sections 193 and 228of .the.. Indian Penal Code and for the

, purP@se~i:;~t:Section195 of the Indian PenalCode, ' Nati6rial· Commission is deemed to

Jj! be a'qvil~:Xpi.ut'. No doubt it is a quasi-:; : judicial of the highest level in the hierarchy of\;~ !•.~~ !,

~Zl '":~ i

2i" I

,t Ii

:i· ,,,~

",~I

* SLPs CivilAppeal N01b428 of 2007 and 12766of 2oo8declded on' 8,92010' reponed in 2011OJ P.l33 (sq(O) in the case Kranti AssroausPriuae Ltd. and anaber 'U Masini Abmd Khan amaber:

1. Hereinafter referred to as National Commission

I ~I

37

2. A,K Krai{K1kand aben 'U Union if Irdia and abes,AIR 1970SCP.l58

3. (1878-79) VolA Appeal cases PJO at 40 of theReport

4, Hanruraym Sutfl1" M ills l"td 'U Shy:un Sun:Ier andaies, AIR 1961SCP,1669

5. Bbara: Raja 'U Union if Irdia and aben, AIR 1967SC 1606 (In this case the Supreme Courtexpressed the difficulty under Article 136 ofthe, Constitution to ascertain the grounds onwhich the orders were passed by quasi-judicialbod}),

6. Ws. lY.7r:x:1anb!rs (i Irdia Ltd 'U Wa:i CodenWCl'ke/S Union and araber, AIR 1973 SC P2758.

20 12-AllD March

;-~.\.t;

62 JOURNAL [2012

(5) The Supreme Court in Krani AsscciaJ;ePnuae Ltd. case', summarized and laid downthe following principles relating to 'speakingorder'.

@ Recording of reasons in support of adecision. ensures that the decision isnot a result of Caprice, whim or fancybut 4 decision arrived at is just andbased on consideration of the relevantlaw;

(ll). When the order passed is subi~1t toappeal, then the necessity to recordreasons is even greater;

(ill) Mere giving an opportunity of hearingis not enough;

(iv) Reasons for decision beiqg. given isrequired for two grounds'b:' .

(a) That the aggrieved person gets theopportunity to demonstrate that thereasons are erroneous; and

(b) Obligation to record reasonsoperates as an effective deterrentagainst possible arbitrary action. The,requirement of reasons is to-preventunfairness or arbitrarinessin reachingconclusions and reasoned and justconclusions will also have theappearance of justice. In the absenceof reasons, it would be difficult to'know whether the decision is rightor wrong.

(v) Reasons should not be a mere 'rubberstamp reasons' and they must disclose",

7. Supra8. Mabaur Prasad Samab Kiarur u State if UP. ani

WX?IS, AIR 1970 SC P,.1302

9. Ibid '10. Mis, Tnnarare Rayrs Ltd. v Urun if Irdia anl

c:th?s,AIR 1971 SC P,862 (para 11 of P.865-866)11. Urdin if Irdia 'U Mchan Lal Capror ani WX?IS, AIR

1974 SC p.87 (para 28 at Page 98); Gundial Sirrt·Fijji'U StateifPHnjab, (1978) 2 SCCPJ68, Para 18PJ77. '.

;' (a) How the mind was .applied to thesubject-matter for a decision(irrespective of the fact that it ispurely administrative or quasi-judicial);

(b) The link between materials whichare considered and the conclusionswhich are reached and it shouldprovide a national nexus betweenthe two;

(Vl) Requirement of 'reasons' in supportof the order is as basic as theadherence 'to the principles of naturaljustice".

Principles of natural justice providesthat it must be observed in proper spiritand a mere pretence of compliancewould not satisfy the requirements oflaw.

(viI) When an action taken deprives orrestricts fundamental right, theauthorities must see that justice is notonly done but manifestly appears tobe done as well as this mandates the.disclosures of reasons for the decision"

(vill) Refusal to give reasons is an exerciseof an exceptional nature and to bedone sparingly and it should be fullyjustified by the exigencies of anuncommon situation". It should notbe a mere motive to keep the reasonamy from judicial scrutiny".

(ix) As observed by Justice Krsbm ip,'natural justice requires reasons to bewritten for the conclusionsreached'"

12. Seimrs E~ ani ManufaawirTg OJ if IrdiaLtd. 'U Unuri if Irdia ani aben, AIR 1976 SCP.1785 Para 6 Page 1789.

13. Sm. Menaka Gardbi 'U Uruot if Irdia ani abes,AIR 1978 SC P597 Para 34 Page 312.

H. Ibid. See observation of Justice ClJan:lrathl¥1IS. Ibid - P .61316. Per Krishm Iyr, J" in Rams Vamu Bbanuban

Tbarrpumm 'U State if Kmda ani abers, AIR 1979. SCPJ918 Para 14 Page 1922

38 2012-AILO March

.':~f

1

, -".

II,I

~D] JOURNAL 63

(x) Reasons being given for the principleenunciated in Ces-santa Ratione Legiscessat ipsm Lex (Reason for anyparticular law ceases, So does the lawitself) and reason is considered as thesoul of the law",

(Xl) Faith of the people in administrativeTribunals can be sustained only, if theTribunal acts fairly and dispose of thematter before them by well-consideredorders 18.

(xli)The expression 'consider' means notto act mechanically but du1y apply itsmind 'and give reasons for thedecision",

:-!i'

(xill)Disclosure of reasons provide for anopportunity for an objective .reviewboth by superior administrative headsand for judicial process".

(xiv) Distinction.has to be-made betweenfacts which are not in dispute anddisputed facts. In the former case, non-recording of reasons may not violatethe principles of natural justice but inthe latter case, it wou1d be a violationof natural justice".

(xv) Mandatory for reasons to be given inthe. award affecting public interest as itwould facilitate the High Courts toreview the validity of the award",

! [I.

r \

1 •

. 1

17, .Br~om;s legal nlaximuS (1939 Edition P.97)quoted in Swmiji if Shri Adrmr Mutt uCorrnssiaer far Hindu Religjats am C1JaritalieErdoumms Dept an:1 aben, AIR 1980 SC P.1Para 29, Page II.

18. Mis. Barb:ry Q1Irdustrie At. L td. u Unun if Indiaard abos, AIR 1984 SCP.I60 .

19. Ramharrler v Umot if India ani aben, AIR 1986SC P.1173, Para 4, Page 1176

20. Mis. Star Erseprse ani abers u Oty ard IrdsstnalDeukptrent. Capoiaun ifMalxuaslxra Ltd. ard WX!IS,

, (1990) 3Sex::;p.286 Para 10, Pages 284 and 285.21. Maharashcra State Board if Sexrdary & Hilfrr

Sexrdary E dsauioi v K S, Garrihi an:1aben, (1991)2 S<X:P.716Para 22, Page 738-739.

'22,ML Jam v MaJ:wrsrr Tdephcn Nigun Ltd. ardabes, (1996) 3 Sex::;P.119.

- J, ,

(XVl) Statutes like the Consumer ProtectionAct which is a benevolent piece of

. legislation intended to. protect largebody of consumers' from exploitationand for consumer justice by summarytrials must give conclusions based onreasons". . .

(xvli) In COurt-martial cases, the Supreme-Court held":

(i) They do not belong to the judicialbranch of the Government

(n) Court-martial are sui generis innature and are dealt with differentlyby the Constitution itself.

(6) Thus, i~ is not necessary in such casesto record reasons by the authorities.

(xvill)Even in '-cases2S-where the Courts actin their discretion, there is a very strongreason in favour of disclosing ofreasons. There is now increasingrecognition towards the duty of theCourt to give reasons in U.K.

(xix) Unless the parties become aware ofthe reasons as to why one has wonand the others has lost, justice will notbe done"

(xx) Decisions being supported by reasonsimposes discipline contributing to thedecisions being considered with care,the decisions rendered encourages

. transparency, and helps the Courts in£; .,23, Cmran SirgJ u H~ Taeb Hapuals an:1 abes.

AIR 2000 SCp.3138, Para 11 Page 314I.

24. S.N. Mukberjre u Urun if Irrlia, AIR 1990 SCP.1984; See also Article 33, 136(2) and 227(4) ofthe Constitution of India.

25. Per Lord Dauldsoi; Master of Rolls in R v CirilSenice Appeal Board Ex p:zrte~· (1991) 4All ER P.310. This decision is very importantfor the reason that English law does not imposean obligation on public authorities to givereasons for the decision. (See for details JusticeReport, 'Administration under Law (1971) P.23

26. In E rrJish u E mry Reinbdd ani S trUk L td., (2002)1 WI..R P .2409. .

39 2012-AllD March

,It\..,1

64 JOURNAL [2012"

performing their supervisory functionand judicial review proceedings" and

(XXI) Considerations underlying the actionsunder review need a thorough 'scrutinyof the recorded reasons" and also setup precedents for future adjudications.

(J) The ratio in Krantbi Associates PrivateLid., case an? the guidelines serve as a

reference for all administrative and judicial(including quasi-judicial authorities) to exercisetheir powers of decision-making judiciously- judicial application of mind and the decisionsrendered may receive public appreciation. Itis suggested that the copy of the judgmentmay. be circulated to all ..decision-makingauthorities which may ultimately contribute totransparency in all spheres of administration.

.,Ii.I ·.fi .