SC sets aside HC’s “non-speaking” orders, says duty cast upon court to pass reasoned order

PTI, Mar 28, 2022, 6:33 PM IST

The Supreme Court Monday did not appreciate the manner in which the Bombay High Court had dealt with and disposed of some petitions without passing any “reasoned order” and said it was the duty cast upon the court to deal with the issues raised and thereafter pass a reasoned order.

The apex court set aside the “cryptic” and “non-­speaking” orders passed by the high court on some pleas challenging the reopening of assessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.

“When the Constitution confers on the high courts the power to give relief it becomes the duty of the courts to give such relief in appropriate cases and the courts would be failing to perform their duty if relief is refused without adequate reasons,” a bench of Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna said.

The top court delivered its judgement on a batch of appeals against the January this year orders of the high court which had dismissed the petitions.

“We have gone through the respective orders passed by the high court dismissing the writ petitions. Having gone through the orders passed by the high court dismissing the writ petitions, it can be seen that the said orders are cryptic, non­-speaking and non­-reasoned orders,” the bench said.

It said when a number of issues or grounds were raised in the writ petitions, it was the duty cast upon the court to deal with the same and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order. The bench said the manner in which the high court has dealt with and disposed of the writ petitions without passing any reasoned order is “not appreciated” by this court. It said none of the grounds raised in the petitions were dealt with or considered by the high court on merits. “The division bench of the high court has dismissed the writ petitions in a most casual manner which is unsustainable. Except stating that ‘we are not inclined to entertain writ petition’, nothing further has been stated by the high court giving reasons for the disinclination to entertain the writ petitions,” the apex court said.

It said the high court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, was required to have independently considered whether the question of reopening of the assessment could be raised in a writ petition and if so, whether it was justified or not. While referring to an earlier decision of the apex court, the bench noted that while emphasising the reasons to be given by the high court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, it was observed and held that the reasons constitute the soul of judicial decision and how judges communicate in their judgment is a defining characteristic of judicial process since quality of justice brings legitimacy to the judiciary.

“Since we cannot countenance the manner in which the orders have been passed by the high court which has compelled us to remand the matter to the high court for deciding the writ petitions afresh on merits, we do so in light of the aforesaid observations,” the bench said, while allowing the appeals.

The top court set aside the high court orders and remanded the matters back to the division bench of the high court for deciding the writ petitions afresh in accordance with law.