Administrative Action Of Public Authority Cannot Be Invalidated Merely For Not Recording Reasons When It Had No Duty To Do So: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that an administrative action of a public authority cannot be struck down merely for not 'recording' reasons when there was no duty on its part to do so.The court may, when there is no duty to record reasons, support an administrative decision, with reference to the pleadings aided by materials, the bench of Justices KM Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat observed. The bench said that, reasons may, in certain situations, have to be recorded in the order. But in other contexts, it would suffice that the reasons are to be found in the files.The court also clarified that 'even if there is no duty to record reasons or support an order with reasons, there must be a reason'. In its judgment setting aside the Patna High Court judgment which directed the National Highway Authority of India to shift the toll plaza on Patna-Bakhtiyarpur four-lane road (NH-30) from Karmalichak near Deedarganj, the court elaborately examined [Para 40- ] the 'duty of administrative authorities to give reasons'.Referring to various authorities (Indian and foreign), Justice KM Joseph, who authored the judgment, observed that there is no general duty, when an administrative decision is taken, to give reasons. A Statute may, however, explicitly provide that the Executive Authority must provide reasons and it must be recorded in writing.Spectrum of Administrative DecisionsThe court then noted that administrative decisions are made in a wide spectrum of situations and contexts. In this regard, the court said:"Undoubtedly, in India, every state action must be fair, failing which, it will fall foul of the mandate of Article 14. It is, at this juncture, we may also notice that the duty to give reasons, would arise even in the case of administrative action, where legal rights are at stake and the administrative action adversely affects legal rights. There may be something in the nature or the context, under which, the administrative action is taken, which may necessitate the authority being forthcoming with rational reasons. There are other decisions, which essentially belong more to the realm of executive policy-making, which ordinarily may not require the furnishing of reasons." (Para 60)Advantages of introducing a reasons driven regimeThe court then listed the advantages of introducing a reasons driven regime (Para 61):Persons, who may have a right or an interest, would know, what are the reasons which impelled the Administrator to take a particular decision.Judicial review, in India, which encompasses the wide contours of public interest litigation as well, would receive immeasurable assistance, if the reasons for particular decisions, are articulated to the extent possible.The giving of reasons also has a disciplining effect on the Administrator. This is for the reason that the reasons would capture the thought process, which culminated in the decision and it would help the Administrator steer clear of the vices of illegality, irrationality and also disproportionality.Reasons could help establish application of mind. Conversely, the absence of reasons may unerringly point to non-application of mind. The duty to act fairly, may require reasons to be recorded but the said duty, though there is a general duty on all state players to act fairly, may have its underpinnings, ultimately in legal rights.For every decision, there would be and there must be, a reasonThe court said that though there should be reasons which persuaded the Administrator to take a particular decision, but that does not mean that the reasons must always be incorporated in a decision.It is one thing to say that there should be reasons, which persuaded the Administrator to take a particular decision and a different thing to find that the reasons must be incorporated in a decision. The question, relating to duty to communicate such a decision, would arise to be considered in different situations, having regard to the impact, which it, in law, produces. In fact, the second proviso to Rule 17 of the Rules, provides not only for there being reasons, but the reasons for refusal to permit barricades, must be communicated. If the law provides for a duty to record reasons in writing, undoubtedly, it must be followed and it would amount to the violation of the Statute, if it were not followed. Even if, there is no duty to record reasons or support an order with reasons, there cannot be any doubt that, for every decision, there would be and there must be, a reason. (Para 62)Thus, the court said that in the the absence of the duty to record reasons, administrative action cannot be invalidated merely because no reasons are to be found recorded.The Constitution does not contemplate any Public Authority, exercising power with caprice or without any rationale. But here again, in the absence of the duty to record reasons, the court is not to be clothed with power to strike down administrative action for the mere reason that no reasons are to be found recorded. (Para...

Administrative Action Of Public Authority Cannot Be Invalidated Merely For Not Recording Reasons When It Had No Duty To Do So: Supreme Court

Ashok KM

Tags