The Art of Writing of Judgments As you know, section 2(9) of the Civil Procedure Code, 9!

" defines the term #Judgment$ to me%n &The st%tement given 'y the Judge of the grounds of % decree or order() *n +%ls'ury$s ,%ws of -ngl%nd, .th -dition, /olume 20 P) 20!, it h%s 'een s%id &A 1udgment or order in its fin%l sh%2e usu%lly cont%ins in %ddition to form%l 2%rts34 (i) A 2relimin%ry or introductory 2%rt, showing the form of the %22lic%tion u2on which it w%s m%de, the m%nner in which %nd the 2l%ce %t which, the writ or other origin%ting 2rocess w%s served, the 2%rties %22e%ring %ny consent, w%ivers, undert%kings or %dmissions given or m%de, so 2l%ced %s to indic%te whether they rel%te to the whole 1udgment or order or only 2%rt of it, %nd % reference to the evidence u2on which the 1udgment or order is '%sed %nd (ii) % su'st%ntive or m%nd%tory 2%rt, cont%ining the order m%de 'y the court) 5efore we 2roceed to underst%nd the me%ning of % &Judgment( * consider it necess%ry to mention th%t in the *ncome6t%7 A22ell%te Tri'un%l our decisions %re termed %s &8rders() *n Civil l%w there is % distinction 'etween &%n order( %nd &% Judgment() Though strictly s2e%king the order of the Tri'un%l m%y not 'e construed %s &Judgments( within the me%ning of section 2(9) of the C)P)C) (9 of 9!"), yet our orders 'eing o2en to 1udici%l scrutiny, in my view must cont%in %ll the essenti%ls of % good 1udgment) Therefore wherever reference is m%de of % 1udgment it will %2tly %22ly to the order of the Tri'un%l) -ssenti%l fe%tures With this 2relude * 2roceed to de%l with some of the essenti%l fe%tures of Judgment Writing) To 2ut it 2l%inly * com2%re the writing of 1udgment with construction of % house 2ro2erty) :or construction of house 2ro2erty, you re;uire % 2l%n then m%teri%l %nd l%stly e7ecution< i)e), construction of the 2ro2erty) =imil%rly, for writing of 1udgment we need % 2l%n in res2ect of which we h%ve to collect m%teri%l %nd then 2ut it to e7ecution) The 2l%n for writing of 1udgment would 'e the issue which is to 'e decided) The m%teri%l for the 1udgment would 'e 2rovided 'y the record, the %rguments of the 2%rties %nd the relev%nt c%se l%w) Putting th%t m%teri%l in right 2l%ce would result in % 1udgment) *t would 'e relev%nt to refer to section 29.( ) of the *)T) Act, 90 ) The section em2owers the Tri'un%l to 2%ss %n order %s it thinks fit) *t m%y thus %22e%r th%t Tri'un%l m%y %cce2t one view or the other from the 2%rties without %ssigning %ny re%sons) =o, however, it is not so) *n the c%se of >nion of *ndi% vs) ?),) @%2oor A*A 9B. =C "B, their ,ordshi2s of =u2reme Court o'served %s under C &*f the st%tute re;uires recording of re%sons, then it is the st%tutory re;uirement %nd, therefore, there is no sco2e for further in;uiry) 5ut even when the st%tute does not im2ose such %n o'lig%tion it is necess%ry for the ;u%si6 1udici%l %uthorities to

record re%son %s it is only visi'le s%fegu%rd %g%inst 2ossi'le in1ustice %nd %r'itr%riness %nd %ffords 2rotection to the 2erson %dversely %ffected) Ae%sonss %re the links 'etween the m%teri%l on which cert%in conclusions %re '%sed %nd the %ctu%l conclusions) They disclose how the mind is %22lied to the su'1ect6m%tter for % decision, whether it is 2urely %dministr%tive or ;u%si61udici%l) They should reve%l r%tion%l ne7us 'etween the f%cts considered %nd the conclusion re%ched) 8nly in this w%y c%n o2inions or decisions recorded 'e shown to 'e m%nifestly 1ust %nd re%son%'le)( The following views e72ressed 'y +on$'le Justice =) =) ?ukher1i, C)J) %re %lso 2ertinent in this conte7t 34 &Decisions from m%ny %dministr%tive Tri'un%ls come u2 for fin%l %d1udic%tion 'efore the highest courts) These highest courts in delivering 1udgments h%ve to 'e%r in mind th%t their decisions %re intended to guide %dministr%tors) /ery often long %nd el%'or%te 1udgments of voluminous ch%r%cter f%il to offer th%t effective guide to the %dministr%tors in doing 2r%ctic%l 1ustice in the light of such 1udgments) ?%ny of the modern decisions of these higher courts on l%'our, income t%7, customs, co2y6rights, tr%dem%rks %re set out in old tr%dition%l 2%tterns of 1udgments in % m%nner which %re confusing to l%'our %dministr%tors or the income t%7 %dministr%tors or other %dministr%tors who %re to %ct %ccording to such 1udgments) They %re com2letely lost in the forest of discussions cont%ined in the 1udgments 'y these courts) -l%'or%te 1udgments %nd even se2%r%te 1udgments 'y individu%l 1udges of the s%me 5ench delivering the decision, often m%ke the 2osition difficult from the 2oint of view of their ultim%te utility %nd 2r%ctic%l %22lic%tion) -ven inter2ret%tion of wh%t these courts intended to s%y 'ecomes the su'1ect of gre%t %nd lengthy %rguments %nd % good de%l of time is w%sted in finding out wh%t these 1udgments intended ultim%tely to l%y down) *t is suggested th%t % new 2%ttern of 1udgment is c%lled for in modern 1uris2rudence s2eci%lly in these cl%sses of c%ses which %re intended to guide %dministr%tors like the *ncome T%7 8fficers, l%'our officers, the *ndustri%l Tri'un%ls, the custom officers %nd other %dministr%tive %gencies including cor2or%tions, munici2%lities %nd 2u'lic %uthorities) Judgments in these cl%sses of c%ses must h%ve % different 2%ttern) They must 'e short, direct, 2r%ctic%l %nd to the 2oint, em2h%siEing the directives %nd %voiding 2%rleys %nd %'struse dissert%tions() Thus, it is necess%ry for us to 2%ss % re%soned order which will meet the test of % 1udici%l decision) The re;uisites of % 1udici%l decision were l%id down 'y the =u2reme Court in 5h%r%t 5%nk ,td, Delhi vs) -m2loyees of 5h%r%t 5%nk ,td), Delhi A*A 99! =C "") Their ,ordshi2s ;uoted with %22rov%l following 2%ss%ge from Coo2er vs) Wilson, 9FB, 2@5 F!9 %t 2%ge F.!34 &A true 1udici%l decision 2resu22ose %n e7isting dis2ute 'etween two or more 2%rties %nd then four re;uisites 34 (i) the 2resent%tion (not necess%rily or%lly) of their c%se 'y the 2%rties to the dis2ute (ii) if the dis2ute 'etween them is % ;uestion of f%ct, the %scert%inment of the %ct 'y me%ns of evidence %dduced 'y the 2%rties to the dis2ute %nd often with the %ssist%nce of %rguments 'y or on 'eh%lf of the 2%rties on the evidence (iii) if the dis2ute 'etween them is % ;uestion of l%w, the su'missions on the leg%l %rguments 'y the 2%rties %nd (iv) % decision which dis2oses of the whole

m%tter 'y % finding u2on the f%cts in dis2ute %nd %22lic%tion of the l%w of the l%nd to the f%cts so found, including wherever re;uired % ruling u2on %ny dis2uted ;uestion of l%w)( These 2rinci2les were reiter%ted 'y their ,ordshi2s of the =u2reme Court in the c%se of ?%;'ool +us%in vs) =t%te of 5om'%y, A*A 99F =C F29) With reference to the orders 2%ssed 'y the *ncome6t%7 A22ell%te Tri'un%l the +on$'le =u2reme Court in the c%se of 8m%r =%l%y ?oh%med =%it vs) C*T FB *TA 9 (=C), l%id down the following 2rinci2les for 1udgment writing36 &The *ncome6t%7 A22ell%te Tri'un%l is % f%ct finding Tri'un%l %nd if it %rrives %t its own conclusions %fter due consider%tion of the evidence 'efore it the court will not interfere) *t is necess%ry, however, th%t every f%ct for %nd %g%inst the %ssessee must h%ve 'een considered with due c%re %nd the Tri'un%l must h%ve given its finding in % m%nner which would cle%rly indic%te wh%t were the ;uestions which %rose for determin%tion, wh%t w%s the evidence 2ro %nd contr% in reg%rd to e%ch one of them %nd wh%t were the findings re%ched on the evidence on record 'efore it) The conclusions re%ched 'y the Tri'un%l should not 'e coloured 'y %ny irrelev%nt consider%tions or m%tters of 2re1udice %nd if there %re %ny circumst%nces which re;uire to 'e e72l%ined 'y the %ssessee, the %ssessee should 'e given %n o22ortunity of doing so) 8n no %ccount wh%tever should the Tri'un%l '%se its findings on sus2icions, con1unctures, or surmises< nor should it %ct on no evidence %t %ll or on im2ro2er re1ection of m%teri%l %nd relev%nt evidence or 2%rtly on evidence %nd 2%rtly on sus2icions, con1unctures or surmises)( 8rder to cont%in re%sons Aecording of re%sons h%s 'een re%d %s %n integr%l 2%rt of % 1udgment) Aecording of re%sons is considered to 'e % 2%rt of n%tur%l 1ustice %nd every 1udici%l %uthority) Gu%si6Judici%l Authority including Administr%tive Tri'un%l is 'ound to record re%sons in su22ort of the orders 2%ssed 'y it) Judgment is the most im2ort%nt document for the 2%rties %s well %s the Judge) =o f%r %s the 2%rties %re concerned, wh%t is im2ort%nt is the ultim%te decision %nd not the re%sons for the decision) Ae%sons %ssume im2ort%nce only when %n %22e%l or revision is filed %g%inst the 1udgment) 5ut so f%r %s the Judge is concerned, the re%sons %re very im2ort%nt) They indic%te the working of his mind, his %22ro%ch, his gr%s2 of the ;uestions of f%ct %nd l%w involved in the c%se %nd the de2th of his knowledge of l%w) *n short, the 1udgment reflects the 2erson%lity of the Judge %nd, therefore, it is necess%ry th%t it should 'e written with c%re %nd %fter m%ture reflection) *t will 'e useful to ;uote the following o'serv%tions of +on$'le Justice ?ukh%r1i34 &The su2reme re;uirement of % good 1udgment is re%son) Judgment is of v%lue on the strength of its re%sons) The weight of % 1udgment, its 'inding ch%r%cter or its 2ersu%sive ch%r%cter de2ends on the 2resent%tion %nd %rticul%tion of re%sons) Ae%son, therefore, is the soul %nd s2irit of % good 1udgment)( *n the c%se of ?%nek% H%ndhi vs) >nion of *ndi% A*A 9B" =u2reme Court 99B their ,ordshi2s of the =u2reme Court l%id down the following 2rinci2le) The Courts insists

u2on disclosure of re%sons in su22ort of the order on three grounds 3 ( ) the 2%rty %ggrieved h%s the o22ortunity to demonstr%te 'efore the %22ell%te or revision%l court th%t the re%sons which 2ersu%ded the %uthority to re1ect his c%se were erroneous < (2) the o'lig%tion to record re%sons o2er%tes %s % deterrent %g%inst 2ossi'le %r'itr%ry %ction 'y e7ecutive %uthority invested with 1udici%l 2ower< %nd (F) it gives s%tisf%ction to the 2%rty %g%inst whom the order is m%de) The 2ower to refuse to disclose re%sons in su22ort of the order is &e7ce2tion%l in n%ture %nd it ought to 'e e7ercised f%irly, s2%ringly %nd only when fully 1ustified 'y the e7igencies of %n uncommon situ%tion() =imil%r view h%s 'een e72ressed in =)I) ?ukher1ee vs) >nion of *ndi% A*A 99! =u2reme Court 9".) *n the c%se of C*T vs) W%lch%nd A*A 90B =u2reme Court .F9 +on$'le =u2reme Court held) &the 2r%ctice of recording of decisions without re%sons in su22ort c%nnot 'ut 'e de2rec%ted)( *n the c%se of C*T vs) /ik%s Chemi Hum *ndi%, 2B0 *TA F2, the Pun1%' J +%ry%n% +igh Court em2h%siEed the necessity of giving re%sons in ;u%si61udici%l orders) * ;uote from the 1udgment 34 &The re;uirement of recording of re%sons %nd communic%tion thereof h%s 'een re%d %s %n integr%l 2%rt of the conce2t of f%ir 2rocedure) The necessity of giving re%sons flows from the conce2t of rule of l%w which constitutes one of the corner stones of our constitution%l set u2) The %dministr%tive %uthorities ch%rged with the duty to %ct 1udici%lly c%nnot decide the m%tters on consider%tions of 2olicy or e72ediency) The re;uirement of recording of re%sons 'y such %uthorities is %n im2ort%nt s%fegu%rd to ensure o'serv%nce of the rule of l%w) *t introduces cl%rity, checks the introduction of e7tr%neous or irrelev%nt consider%tions %nd minimiEes %r'itr%riness in the decision m%king 2rocess) Another re%son which m%kes it im2er%tive for the ;u%si61udici%l %uthorities to give re%sons is th%t their orders %re not only su'1ect to the right of the %ggrieved 2ersons to ch%llenge the s%me 'y filing st%tutory %22e%l %nd revision 'ut %lso 'y filing writ 2etition under Article 220 of the Constitution) =uch decisions c%n %lso 'e ch%llenged 'y w%y of %22e%l under Article F0 of the Constitution of *ndi%) The +igh Courts h%ve the 2ower to issue writ of certior%ri to ;u%sh the orders 2%ssed 'y % ;u%si61udici%l %uthorityKTri'un%l) ,ikewise, in %22e%l, the =u2reme Court c%n nullify such orderKdecision) These 2owers c%n 'e effectively e7ercised 'y the su2erior courts only if the order under ch%llenge cont%ins re%sons)( *n the c%se of Anus%y%'en A) Doshi J 8thers vs Joint C*T J 8rs, 290 *TA 0"9, the +on$'le 5om'%y +igh Court o'served %s under 34 &*t is needless to em2h%siEe th%t the order or 1udgment should 'e self e72l%n%tory) *t should not kee2 the higher Court guessing for re%sons) Ae%sons 2rovide % live link 'etween conclusions %nd evidence) Th%t vit%l link is the s%fegu%rd %g%inst %r'itr%riness, 2%ssion %nd 2re1udice) Ae%son is % m%nifest%tion of the mind of the Court or Tri'un%l) *t is % tool for 1udging the v%lidity of the order) *t gives %n o22ortunity to the higher Court to see whether the im2ugned order is '%sed on re%sons %nd th%t the re%sons %re '%sed on %de;u%te leg%l %nd relev%nt m%teri%l) Hiving re%sons is %n essenti%l element of %dministr%tion of 1ustice) A right to re%sons

is, therefore, %n indis2ens%'le 2%rt of % sound system of 1udici%l review) Ae%soned decision is not only for the 2ur2ose of showing th%t the citiEen is receiving 1ustice, 'ut %lso % v%lid disci2line for the %uthority itself) Therefore, st%ting of re%sons is one of the essenti%ls of 1ustice)( *n the le%ding c%se of ?)P) *ndustries vs) >nion of *ndi%, A*A 900 (=u2reme Court) 0B +on$'le Justice =u''%r%o o'served %s under 3 &*n the conte7t of % welf%re st%te, %dministr%tive Tri'un%ls h%ve come to st%y) *ndeed, they %re the necess%ry concomit%nts of % welf%re =t%te) 5ut %r'itr%riness in their functioning destroys the conce2t of % welf%re st%te itself) =elf6disci2line %nd su2ervision e7clude or %t %ny r%te minimiEe %r'itr%riness) The le%st % Tri'un%l c%n do is to disclose its mind) The com2ulsion of disclosure gu%r%ntees consider%tion) The condition to give re%sons introduces cl%rity %nd e7cludes or %t %ny r%te minimiEes %r'itr%riness< it gives s%tisf%ction to the 2%rty %g%inst whom the order is m%de< %nd it %lso en%'les %n %22ell%te or su2ervisory Court to kee2 the Tri'un%ls within 'ounds) A re%soned order is the desir%'le condition of 1udici%l dis2os%l() ,%ngu%ge Writing of 1udgment is %n %rt) To some, it is % n%tur%l gift while for m%ny it needs to 'e cultiv%ted) The first re;uisite is % good comm%nd over the l%ngu%ge in which the 1udgment is written) +owsoever, correct % 1udgment m%y 'e on l%w %nd f%cts, it does not m%ke % good im2ression while it is couched in 2oor l%ngu%ge) 8n the contr%ry, % 2oor 1udgment written in im2ressive l%ngu%ge is l%uded 'y m%ny of course 'y 2eo2le who do not underst%nd l%w) ,%ngu%ge is % medium for conveying one$s thoughts %nd it is essenti%l th%t they should 'e conveyed in % m%nner which is lucid %s well %s im2ressive) The l%ngu%ge should, however, 'e sim2le) 5om'%stic or flowery words %nd e72ressions, even though liter%ry should 'e %voided) The test is th%t % 2erson well6versed in l%w should not ordin%rily 'e re;uired to consult % diction%ry) Judgment is not % 2iece of liter%ture to 'e written in the style of =h%kes2e%re or ?ilton) *t is %n ess%y or % com2osition intended to convey to % l%wyer of %ver%ge %'ility the re%sons of the Judge for %rriving %t cert%in conclusions of f%cts %nd l%w %nd the 2rinci2les underlying the relev%nt st%tutory 2rovisions or the 1udici%l decisions on which the decision is '%sed) *n short, the l%ngu%ge should 'e sim2le, yet eleg%nt, cont%ining 2hr%ses %nd e72ressions which convey with lucidity the leg%l ide%s to the re%der) The leg%l terms, e72ressions %nd ,%tin m%7ims which %re well6 known m%y, however, 'e freely used 'ec%use the 2rim%ry o'1ect of the 1udgment is to indic%te cle%rly the mind of the Judge 'oth on l%w %nd f%cts) The l%ngu%ge should not 'e e;uivoc%l, v%gue or susce2ti'le of diverse inter2ret%tions) *f we c%re to re%d the 1udgments of the Privy Council %nd the +ouse of ,ords, we would 'e im2ressed 'y the method in which difficult %nd com2le7 leg%l 2ro'lems %re de%lt with in sim2le l%ngu%ge) Judgments %re not novels or dr%m%tic works so %s to 'ring out the v%rious %s2ects of hum%n 2sychology in minute det%ils le%ding to %n emotion%l clim%7) They should 'e 1ust cut %nd dried st%tements of f%cts %nd l%w, interwoven in logic, in order to get %t the truth, 'ut no m%teri%l f%ct should 'e omitted) There m%y 'e % gener%liE%tion here or there with % liter%ry flourish 'ut th%t is %ll) Judgment dem%nds disci2line in the

use of words %nd e72ressions< one should not s%y either more or less th%n wh%t is strictly necess%ry %nd th%t too with 2recision) 5revity C =oul of Hood Judgment *t is necess%ry to %void re2etition of f%cts %nd l%w in the 1udgment) 5revity is the soul of % good 1udgment while 2roli7ity is % vice) 5ut 'revity must not 'e %t the cost of cl%rity) A good 1udgment should not cont%in unnecess%ry cit%tions of 2recedents) -ven long ;uot%tions from the 2recedents should 'e %voided) 8nly the relev%nt %nd most striking 2%ss%ges from % 2recedent should 'e 2icked u2 in order to su22ort the 2oint for decision) Iorm%lly the 1udgment should notice every %rgument %t the 5%r 'ut % 5ench is not 'ound to notice e%ch %nd every %rgument if it is entirely irrelev%nt %nd 'eside the 2oint) =uch %rguments m%y 'e 'riefly mentioned %nd summ%rily re1ected %s either irrelev%nt or not in 2oint) A%tio Decidendi3 5inding Precedents As the 1udgments of the su2erior courts %re 'inding on the su'ordin%te courts, their r%tio should 'e cle%rly indic%ted %nd where % 2%rticul%r 2oint merits el%'or%te discussion of v%rious %uthorities the conclusion of the 5ench should 'e indic%ted %t the end in very 2recise terms) *n the c%se of C*T vs) =un -ngineering Works P) ,td ( 992) 9" *TA 29B L299 the +on$'le =u2reme Court l%id down the following 2rinci2le of l%w3 &*t is neither desir%'le nor 2ermissi'le to 2ick out % word or % sentence from the 1udgment of the =u2reme Court divorced from the conte7t of the ;uestion under consider%tion %nd tre%ted to 'e the com2lete l%w decl%red 'y the Court) The 1udgment must 'e re%d %s % whole %nd the o'serv%tions from the 1udgment h%ve to 'e considered in the light of the ;uestions which were 'efore the Court) A decision of the =u2reme Court t%kes its colour from the ;uestions involved in the c%se in which it is rendered %nd while %22lying the decision to % l%ter c%se, courts must c%refully try to %scert%in the true 2rinci2le l%id down 'y the decision)( *n the c%se of C*T vs) Th%ne -lectricity =u22ly ,td), 2!0 *TA B2B, their ,ordshi2 of the 5om'%y +igh Court l%id down the following gener%l 2rinci2les with reg%rd to 2recedents3 The l%w decl%red 'y the =u2reme Court 'eing 'inding on %ll courts in *ndi%, the decisions of the =u2reme Court %re 'inding on %ll courts, e7ce2t, however, the =u2reme Court itself which is free to review the s%me %nd de2%rt from its e%rlier o2inion if the situ%tion so w%rr%nts) Wh%t is 'inding is, of course, the r%tio of the decision %nd not every e72ression found therein) The decisions of the +igh Court %re 'inding on the su'ordin%te courts %nd %uthorities or Tri'un%ls under its su2erintendence throughout the territories in rel%tion to which it e7ercises 1urisdiction) *t does not e7tend 'eyond its territori%l 1urisdiction)

The 2osition in reg%rd to the 'inding n%ture of the decisions of % +igh Court on different 5enches of the s%me court, m%y 'e summed u2 %s follows3 A single 1udge of % +igh Court is 'ound 'y the decision of %nother single 1udge or % Division 5ench of the s%me +igh Court) *t would 'e 1udici%l im2ro2riety to ignore th%t decision, 1udici%l comity dem%nds th%t % 'inding decision to which his %ttention h%d 'een dr%wn should neither 'e ignored nor overlooked) A Division 5ench of % +igh Court should follow the decision of %nother Division 5ench of e;u%l strength or % :ull 5ench of the s%me +igh Court) *f one Division 5ench differs from %nother Division 5ench of the s%me +igh Court, it should refer the c%se to % l%rger 5ench) (i) Where there %re conflicting decisions of courts of co6ordin%te 1urisdiction, the l%ter decision is to 'e 2referred if re%ched %fter full consider%tion of the e%rlier decisions) (%) The decision of one +igh Court is neither 'inding 2recedent for %nother +igh Court nor for courts or Tri'un%l outside its territori%l 1urisdiction) *n the c%se of @un%h%y%mmed J 8thers vs) =t%te of @er%l% %nd Another, (2!!!) 2.9 *TA F0!, their ,ordshi2s of the =u2reme Court l%id down the following 2rinci2le of l%w rel%ting to the 2recedents) &The 1urisdiction conferred 'y Article F0 is divisi'le into two st%ges< the first st%ge is u2 to the dis2os%l of the 2r%yer for s2eci%l le%ve to %22e%l< the second st%ge commences if %nd when the le%ve to %22e%l is gr%nted %nd the 2etition for s2eci%l le%ve to %22e%l is converted into %n %22e%l)( While he%ring the 2etition for s2eci%l le%ve to %22e%l, the =u2reme Court is c%lled u2on to see whether the 2etitioner should 'e gr%nted such le%ve or not) While he%ring such 2etition, the =u2reme Court does not e7ercise its %22ell%te 1urisdiction< it merely e7ercises its discretion%ry 1urisdiction to gr%nt or not to gr%nt le%ve to %22e%l) *f the 2etition seeking gr%nt of s2eci%l le%ve is dismissed, it is %n e72ression of o2inion 'y the =u2reme Court th%t % c%se for invoking the %22ell%te 1urisdiction of the court w%s not m%de out) An order refusing s2eci%l le%ve to %22e%l m%y 'e 'y % non6s2e%king order or 'y % s2e%king order) *n either c%se, it does not %ttr%ct the doctrine of merger) An order refusing s2eci%l le%ve to %22e%l does not st%nd su'stituted in the 2l%ce of the order under ch%llenge) All th%t it me%ns is th%t the =u2reme Court w%s not inclined to e7ercise its discretion so %s to %llow the %22e%l 'eing filed) Wh%tever 'e the 2hr%seology em2loyed in the order of dismiss%l, if it is % non6s2e%king order< i)e), it does not %ssign re%son for dismissing the s2eci%l le%ve 2etition, it would neither %ttr%ct the doctrine or merger so %s to st%nd su'stituted in the 2l%ce of the order 2ut in issue 'efore it, nor 'e % decl%r%tion of l%w 'y the =u2reme Court under Article . of the Constitution for there is no l%w which h%s 'een decl%red) *f the order refusing s2eci%l le%ve to %22e%l is % s2e%king order< i)e), it gives re%sons for refusing the gr%nt of le%ve, then the order h%s two im2lic%tions) :irstly, the

st%tement of l%w cont%ined in the order is % decl%r%tion of l%w 'y the =u2reme Court within the me%ning of Article . which will o'viously 'e 'inding on %ll Courts %nd Tri'un%ls in *ndi% %nd cert%inly the 2%rties thereto) =econdly, other th%n the decl%r%tion of l%w, wh%tever is st%ted in the order or the findings recorded 'y the =u2reme Court which would 'e 'inding on the 2%rties %nd the Court, Tri'un%l or %uthority whose order w%s under ch%llenge, in %ny 2roceedings su'se;uent thereto on the 2rinci2le of 1udici%l disci2line, the =u2reme Court 'eing the A2e7 Court of the country) The decl%r%tion of l%w will 'e governed 'y Article . 'ut the c%se not 'eing one, where le%ve is gr%nted, the doctrine of merger does not %22ly) The =u2reme Court m%y %22ly its mind to the meritworthiness of the 2etitioner$s 2r%yer seeking le%ve to %22e%l %nd h%ving formed %n o2inion m%y s%y &dismissed on the merits() =uch %n order m%y 'e 2%ssed even in the %'sence of the o22osite 2%rty) The dismiss%l would rem%in % dismiss%l 'y % non6s2e%king order where no re%sons h%ve 'een %ssigned %nd no l%w h%s 'een decl%red 'y the =u2reme Court) The dismiss%l is not of the %22e%l 'ut of the 2etition for s2eci%l le%ve to %22e%l) -ven if the merits h%ve 'een gone into, they %re the merits of the s2eci%l le%ve 2etition only) Ieither the doctrine of merger nor Article . is %ttr%cted to such %n order)( *n the c%se of CJT vs) Arun% 5%i +%rgovind A)=) P%tel (2!!F) B9 CTA .2! (Hu1) it w%s held < &*f views of =u2reme Court e72ressed in e%rlier decision %re e72l%ined in % su'se;uent decision, the e72l%n%tion in su'se;uent decision will h%ve to 'e followed even if su'se;uent decision is rendered 'y % sm%ller 5ench of the =u2reme Court)( Iot following e%rlier orders of Co6ordin%te 5enches The 5om'%y +igh Court in the c%se of *C*C* vs) D) D) Au2%reli% (2!!!) 99 Com) C%ses " L "9 held th%t to 'e % r%tio decidendi %mongst others, the minimum re;uirements %re34 Th%t the m%tter w%s directly in issue) Th%t the issue needs to h%ve 'een decided, %nd Th%t the m%tter h%s 'een decided 'y giving re%sons) *n the c%se of 5lue =t%r ,td vs) C*T, 2 B *TA 9 . %t 2%ge 92!, their ,ordshi2s of 5om'%y +igh Court held, &Though ?r) ?istri h%s relied u2on 1udgments referred to %'ove, %s o'served 'y the -%rl of +%ls'ury , C in the c%se of Guimm vs) ,e%them ( 9! ) AC .99 (+,) every 1udgment must 'e re%d %s %22lic%'le to the 2%rticul%r f%cts 2roved or %ssumed to 'e 2roved, since the gener%lity of the e72ression which m%y 'e found there or not intended to 'e e762ositioned of the whole l%w, 'ut governed %nd ;u%lified 'y the 2%rticul%r f%cts of the c%se in which such e72ressions %re found %nd % c%se is only %n %uthority for wh%t is %ctu%lly decides)( *n Am'ik% Pr%s%d ?ishr% vs) =t%te of >)P) A*A 9"! (=C) B02, the =u2reme Court held< &-very new discovery or %rgument%tive novelty, c%nnot undue or com2el consider%tion of % 'inding 2recedent) A decision does not lose its %uthority merely

'ec%use it w%s '%dly %rgued, in%de;u%tely considered or f%ll%ciously decided)( *n the c%se of -kn%th ?ukk%w%r vs) =t%te of ?%h%r%shtr% A*A 9BB (=C) BB, the =u2reme Court held th%t it is o2en to the su'se;uent Division 5ench to differ from the decision of the e%rlier 5ench 'ut in th%t c%se the only 1udici%l %ltern%tive is to refer to % l%rger 5ench %nd not to dis2ose of the m%tter 'y t%king % contr%ry view) P%ssion Although logic is %n im2ort%nt 2%rt of % good 1udgment, 2%ssion c%nnot sometimes 'e wholly e7cluded 'ut it must 'e the 1udici%l 2%ssion with % cle%r fl%me %nd with %s little smoke %s 2ossi'le) =tructures =ome Judges while reversing the 1udgments of the su'ordin%te court re%dily %ssume th%t the Judge %cted under im2ro2er motives %nd 2%ss strictures on him) This is not f%ir) *n c%ses where evidence is evenly '%l%nced, different Judges m%y 'e inclined to come to different conclusion on %22reci%tion of the entire evidence) 5ut merely 'ec%use the finding of % su'ordin%te court does not %22e%r to 'e correct to % su2erior court or its %22ro%ch %22e%rs to 'e erroneous, it would not 'e 2ro2er to im2ute im2ro2er motives to the Judge of the su'ordin%te court while reversing his decision) A Judge does not mind if his decision is u2set 'y % su2erior court 'ut he feels distressed if his motives %re ;uestioned %nd it is %lso not in the interests of %dministr%tion of 1ustice 'ec%use it is likely to sh%ke the confidence of the litig%nt 2u'lic in the im2%rti%lity of the Judge) *t would 'e 2ertinent in this connection to refer to the following o'serv%tions of their ,ordshi2s of the =u2reme Court in *shw%ri Pr%s%d ?isr% vs) ?oh%mm%d *s%, A*A 90F =C B2" ( BF0) while reversing the decision of the +igh Court which h%d 2%ssed severe strictures %g%inst the Judge of the lower court 34 &We %re constr%ined to o'serve th%t the +igh Court w%s not 1ustified in 2%ssing these strictures %g%inst the tri%l Judge in de%ling with the 2resent c%se) Judici%l e72erience shows th%t in %d1udic%ting u2on the riv%l cl%ims 'rought 'efore the courts it is not %lw%ys e%sy to decide where truth lies) -vidence is %dduced 'y the res2ective 2%rties in su22ort of their conflicting contentions %nd circumst%nces %re simil%rly 2ressed into service) *n such % c%se, it is no dou't the duty of the Judge to consider the evidence o'1ectively %nd dis2%ssion%tely, e7%mine it in the light of 2ro'%'ilities %nd decide which w%y the truth lies) The im2ression formed 'y the Judge %'out the ch%r%cter of the evidence will ultim%tely determine the conclusion which he re%ches) 5ut it would 'e uns%fe to overlook the f%ct th%t %ll 1udici%l minds m%y not re%ct in the s%me w%y to the s%id evidence %nd it is not unusu%l th%t evidence which %22e%rs to 'e res2ect%'le %nd trustworthy to one Judge m%y not %22e%r to 'e res2ect%'le %nd trustworthy to %nother Judge) Th%t e72l%ins why in some c%ses courts of %22e%l reverse conclusions of f%cts recorded 'y the tri%l Court on its %22reci%tion of or%l evidence) The knowledge th%t %nother view is 2ossi'le on the evidence %dduced in % c%se, %cts %s % so'ering f%ctor %nd le%ds to the use of tem2er%te l%ngu%ge in recording 1udici%l conclusions) Judici%l %22ro%ch in such c%ses should %lw%ys 'e '%sed on the consciousness th%t one m%y m%ke % mist%ke< th%t is why the use of unduly strong words in e72ressing conclusions or the %do2tion of unduly strong

intem2er%te, or e7tr%v%g%nt criticism, %g%inst the contr%ry view, which %re often found on % sense of inf%lli'ility should %lw%ys 'e %voided)( The +on$'le =u2reme Court in the c%se of =)@) /isw%m'%r%n vs) -) @oy% @%nu1%, A*A 9"B =C .F0 l%id down the following 2rinci2le 34 *t h%s 'een 1udici%lly recogniEed th%t in the m%tter of m%king dis2%r%ging rem%rks %g%inst 2ersons or %uthorities whose conduct comes into consider%tion 'efore court of l%w in c%ses to 'e decided 'y them, it is relev%nt to consider3 4 Whether the 2%rty whose conduct in ;uestion is 'efore the court h%s %n o22ortunity of e72l%iningKdefending himself< Whether there is evidence on record 'e%ring on th%t conduct 1ustifying rem%rks %nd< Whether it is necess%ry for the decision of the c%se %s %n integr%l 2%rt thereof, to in%dvert on th%t conduct) *t h%s %lso 'een recogniEed th%t 1udici%l 2ronouncements must 'e 1udici%l in n%ture %nd should not norm%lly de2%rt from so'riety, moder%tion %nd reserve) Judgment should 'e free from 8'stin%cy %nd 5i%s *n writing % 1udgment it is necess%ry for % JudgeK?em'er to o'serve the 2rinci2les of n%tur%l 1ustice) * m%y refer to some of the relev%nt 2rinci2les of n%tur%l 1ustice for writing % 1udgment) Princi2les of n%tur%l 1ustice Princi2les of n%tur%l 1ustice %re sole of %n %dministr%tion of 1ustice %nd need to 'e %dhered to in order to m%ke the order 1ust %nd f%ir) I%tur%l 1ustice is %n im2ort%nt conce2t in %dministr%tive l%w) *n the words of ?eg%rry J) in the c%se of John vs) Aees ( 909) 2 (A**) -A 2B., &it is 1ustice th%t is sim2le %nd element%ry, %s distinct from 1ustice th%t is com2le7, so2histic%ted %nd technic%l)( The 2rinci2les of n%tur%l 1ustice or fund%ment%l rules of 2rocedure for %dministr%tive %ction %re neither fi7ed nor 2rescri'ed in %ny code) They %re 'etter known th%n descri'ed %nd e%rlier 2rocl%imed th%n defined) I%tur%l 1ustice h%s me%nt m%ny things to m%ny writers, l%wyers %nd systems of l%w) *t h%s m%ny colours %nd sh%des %nd m%ny forms %nd sh%2es) According to D- =mith in 1udici%l review of %dministr%tive %ction 999 P FB" the term n%tur%l 1ustice e72resses the close rel%tionshi2 'etween the common l%w %nd mor%l 2rinci2les %nd it h%s %n im2ressive %ncestry) *t is %lso known %s su'st%nti%l 1ustice, fund%ment%l 1ustice, univers%l 1ustice or f%ir 2l%y in %ction) *t is % gre%t hum%niEing 2rinci2les intended to invest l%w with f%irness to secure 1ustice %nd to 2revent misc%rri%ge of 1ustice) *n Wisemen vs) /) /ornem%n ( 9B ) AC 29B, it is o'served34 &The conce2tion of n%tur%l 1ustice should %t %ll st%ges guide those who disch%rge 1udici%l function is not merely %n %cce2t%'le 'ut is %n essenti%l 2%rt of the 2hiloso2hy of the l%w)( *t w%s held in the c%se of A) @) @%r%i2%k vs) >nion of *ndi% A*A 9B! =C 9! th%t the 2rinci2le of n%tur%l 1ustice is '%sed on three m%7ims %s under34 i) Io m%n sh%ll 'e %

Judge of his own c%use) Deciding %uthority should 'e im2%rti%l %nd without 'i%s) ii) Justice should not only 'e done 'ut m%nifestly %nd undou'tedly 'e seen to 'e done, %nd iii) Judges like C%es%r$s wife should 'e %'ove sus2icion) Audi Alter%m P%rtem 34 Io m%n should 'e condemned unhe%rd) 5oth sides must 'e he%rd) There must 'e f%irness on the 2%rt of the deciding %uthority) There %re three ty2es of 'i%s 34 i) Pecuni%ry 'i%s ii) Person%l 'i%s %nd iii) 8ffici%l 'i%s or 'i%s to su'1ect m%tter) Pecuni%ry 'i%s 4 *t is well settled th%t %s reg%rd 2ecuni%ry interest the le%st 2ecuni%ry interest in the su'1ect m%tter of litig%tion will dis;u%lify %ny 2erson from %cting %s % Judge) A 2ecuni%ry interest however slight will dis;u%lify even though it is not 2roved th%t the decision in %ny w%y %ffected) Person%l 'i%s 4 The second ty2e of 'i%s is % 2erson%l one) A num'er of circumst%nces m%y give rise to 2erson%l 'i%s) +ere % Judge m%y 'e % rel%tive< % friend or 'usiness %ssoci%te of % 2%rty) +e m%y h%ve some 2erson%l grudge, enmity or griev%nces or 2rofession%l riv%lry %g%inst such 2%rty) *n view of these f%ctors, there is every likelihood th%t the Judge m%y 'e 'i%s tow%rds one 2%rty or 2re1udiced tow%rds the other) 8fici%l 'i%s 4 The third ty2e 'i%s is offici%l 'i%s or 'i%s %s to the su'1ect m%tter) This %rise when the Judge h%s % gener%l interest in the su'1ect m%tter) *n the c%se of ?%n%k ,%l vs Dr) Prem Ch%nd A*A 99B =C .29, the +on$'le =u2reme Court l%id down the test of 'i%s in the following words 34 &*n such c%ses the test is not whether in f%ct % 'i%s is %ffect the 1udgment< the test %lw%ys is %nd must 'e whether % litig%nt could re%son%'ly %22rehend th%t % 'i%s %ttri'ut%'le to % mem'er of % Tri'un%l might h%ve o2er%ted %g%inst him in the fin%l decision of the Tri'un%l)( *n the c%se of A%n1it Th%kur vs >nion of *ndi% ( 9"B) . =CC 0 , the +on$'le =u2reme Court l%id down the following test rel%ting to the 'i%s34 &As to the test of likelihood of 'i%s, wh%t is relev%nt is re%son%'leness of the %22rehension in th%t reg%rd in the mind of the 2%rty) The correct %22ro%ch for the Judge is not to look %t his own mind %nd %sk himself, however honestly &Am * 'i%sM( 'ut to look %t the mind of the 2%rty 'efore him)( *t is well understood th%t the '%sic ingredient of 1ustice is th%t it must m%nifestly %nd undou'tedly 'e seen to 'e done) *n the c%se of A1it @um%r =engu2t%, their ,ordshi2s of the =u2reme Court h%d to remind us of this 2rinci2le once %g%in34 &Whether 1udici%l o'stin%cy c%n 'e tre%ted %s % form of 'i%s N))( At the outset one m%y out6 rightly feel th%t &o'stin%cy( %nd &'i%s( must rem%in out of the 1udici%l minds %nd if the two h%22en to go together, one c%n e72ect only 1udici%l %n%rchy)(

Their ,ordshi2s further o'served3 &8ne of the re;uirements of I%tur%l Justice is th%t the he%ring should 'e done 'y % 1udge with %n un'i%sed mind) &5i%s( m%y 'e defined %s % 2re6conceived o2inion or % 2re6dis2osition or 2re6determin%tion to decide % c%se or %n issue in % 2%rticul%r m%nner, so much so th%t such 2re6dis2osition does not le%ve the mind o2en to conviction)( Thus, 'i%s is % condition of mind, which sw%ys 1udgments %nd renders the 1udge un%'le to e7ercise im2%rti%lity in % 2%rticul%r c%se) *t c%n 'e % 2ecuni%ry 'i%s, 2erson%l 'i%s, 'i%s %s to su'1ect m%tter in dis2ute, or 2olicy 'i%s) ?%y 'e it is for this re%son some 1udges who h%il from the old school of thought still 2refer th%t % 1udge should shun news2%2ers 'efore coming to the court where he m%y h%ve to de%l with % c%se %lre%dy %22e%red in the morning he%dlines) *t m%y 2re1udice his mind or to s%y it m%y c%use 2re1udging the issue) *n either of the c%ses, the he%ring m%y 'e &'i%sed( not necess%rily %g%inst the %ccused) Th%t m%y 'e the re%son th%t 2u'lic%tion of stories rel%ted to the ongoing leg%l 2roceedings %re termed %s &tri%l( 'y medi%) *t is not suggested th%t the 1udici%l mind is ever influenced 'y such re2orts 'ut nevertheless it h%s 'een m%de % ground for shunning the 2ress out of the courts) 5ut in the inst%nt c%se of A1it @um%r =engu2t%, the court de%lt with wh%t it descri'ed %s &% new form of 'i%s, n%mely 'i%s on %ccount of 1udici%l o'stin%cy)( Admittedly, 1udges %re not inf%lli'le) As hum%n 'eings they c%n commit mist%kes) -ven the 'est of their 1udgments reflect their h%rd work, im2%rti%l thinking %nd o'1ective %ssessment) Then there is %n en%'ling mech%nism through which, it is 'elieved, % mist%ke committed in % 1udici%l order is corrected through revision 'y % l%rger 'ench) 5ut, if % 1udgment is overruled 'y the higher court, the 1udici%l disci2line re;uires th%t the 1udge whose 1udgment is overruled must su'mit to th%t verdict) +e c%nnot, in the s%me 2roceedings or in % coll%ter%l 2roceedings 'etween the s%me 2%rties, rewrite the overruled 1udgment) The 1udge m%y h%ve his occ%sion to reiter%te his dogm%tic views on % 2%rticul%r ;uestion of l%w 'ut not in the s%me c%se) &*f it is done, it would 'e e7hi'itive of his 'i%s in his own f%vour to s%tisfy his egoistic 1udici%l o'stin%cy(, the 1udges h%ve stressed) *n other words, 1udici%l disci2line dem%nds th%t % 1udge must 'e im2%rti%l %nd neutr%l %nd 'e in % 2osition to %22ly his mind o'1ectively to the f%cts in the c%se 'efore him) *f he is 2re6dis2osed or suffers from 2re1udices or h%s % 'i%sed mind, he dis;u%lifies himself from %cting %s % 1udge, the 1udgment %dds) The 1udgment is e;u%lly good for %ny org%n of the st%te which is not inf%lli'le in ch%r%cter) *n order to m%ke % good 1udgment, it is necess%ry to kee2 in mind th%t one h%s to 'e o2en minded, decisive, 'right %nd intelligent, re%ding 2%2ers in %dv%nce, 2icking u2

wh%t is s%id in the court very ;uickly, getting to the 'ottom of the c%se %nd 2roducing %n interesting %nd succinct 1udgment ;uickly %nd come to the gri2s of the m%tter) *t is %lso necess%ry to kee2 in mind th%t % good 1udgment is the 1oint effort of '%r %nd the 'ench) The %im of the '%r %nd 5ench is to deliver 1ustice) The '%r %nd the 'ench h%ve to work together %s two wheels of 1ustice) *f there is synchroniE%tion of the two wheels of 1ustice, there would 'e smooth run of the vehicle of 1ustice) The 1udgments %re undou'tedly the most im2ort%nt 2%rt of the %dministr%tion of 1ustice %nd deserve the highest res2ect) ?em'ers listen to %rguments everyd%y) *n my view, it is %lso necess%ry to s2%re some time to listen to %ssessment of our functioning in the mind of litig%nts) A com2liment 2%id to % good 1udgeK?em'er is when you left his court you never felt th%t in1ustice h%d 'een done %nd if you lost you never felt th%t you were che%ted) There is no gre%ter com2liment th%n this % 1udgeK?em'er c%n %s2ire for) +owever, * would h%sten to %dd here th%t do not listen to those who com2liment us only to 2le%se our ego for %22%rent re%sons) &Person%l emotions of % 1udici%l officer h%s no 2l%ce in the 1udgment he writes while de%ling with v%rious c%ses)( The Delhi +igh Court h%s l%id down cert%in guideline on this %s2ect in 1udgment writing) * ;uote 34 &-motions h%ve no 2l%ce in % 1udgment which h%s to 'e '%sed on f%cts %s 2resented 'y 2%rties %nd the evidence, or%l or document%ry) There should never 'e %ny dis2l%y of emotions or sentiments in the 1udgment,( the 'ench s%id) The court further s%id, &% 1udge neither rew%rds virtue nor ch%stises vice) +e only %dministers even6h%nded 1ustice 'etween m%n %nd m%n %nd 'etween % citiEen %nd the =t%te) This c%rdin%l 2rinci2le should %lw%ys 'e remem'ered while constructing % 1udgment or the order) The 1udgment should ordin%rily cont%in st%tement of f%cts, 2oints in dis2ute, findings on 2oints in dis2ute on the '%sis of evidence %nd documents %nd re%sons for gr%nting or refusing orderKrelief() &Anything which directly or indirectly %ggr%v%tes the emotion definitely induces %n element of 2erversity,( the 'ench s%id) The court should %'st%in from h%rsh or ungenerous criticism of me%sures t%ken in good f%ith 'y those who 'e%r the res2onsi'ility of the Hovernment, it s%id) The 'ench s%id % 1udgment must 'e c%lm %nd '%l%nced %nd neither it should show 2re1udice nor sym2%thy %nd %dvised the 1udici%l officers th%t &sheer length of 1udgment %nd its 2hysic%l weight is not the inde7 of its ;u%lity)( &The ;u%lity de2ends on the 2resent%tion of f%cts, discussion of the issues of 'oth f%cts %nd l%w %nd the ;u%lity of the re%sons(, the 'ench %dded) The 2erson%l 2hiloso2hy %nd 2erson%l 2references should not 'e 2ronounced in the 1udgment, which would invite levelling of the 1udge %s 2ro6l%ndlord or 2ro6ten%nt, 2ro6revenue or %nti6revenue, 2ro6l%'our or 2ro6m%n%gement etc), the order s%id)

&The 1udici%l officers %re hum%n 'eings %nd their f%mily '%ckground< educ%tion or environment m%y find reflection in their decision6m%king 2rocess) 5ut over % 2eriod, the 1udge must det%ch himself from these fi7%tions %nd decide c%ses strictly in %ccord%nce with l%w, e;uity %nd 1ustice,( the 'ench s%id) Aesenting the high6flown l%ngu%ge used in cert%in 1udgments, the division 'ench s%id, &The 1udgments %re '%sic%lly me%nt to 'e re%d %nd understood 'y l%ymen, not 'y schol%rs)( Advising the 1udici%l officers not to write long6winded 1udgments, the 'ench s%id, &Judgments should not 'e 2roli7 or ver'ose) The 2roli7 1udgment is % torture to write %nd % torture to re%d)( The court %lso %dvised the 1udici%l officers not to 2l%y to the g%llery 'y s%ying th%t &1udici%l officers should not %c;uire 1ourn%listic Ee%l or write something s2eci%l for the 2ress)( The 2en of the 1udges should 'e like the knife of % surgeon which 2ro'es into the flesh only %s much %s is %'solutely necess%ry for the 2ur2ose of the c%se 'efore it, the court s%id %nd %dded th%t &dis2%r%ging rem%rks which %re not w%rr%nted 'y evidence %g%inst % 2erson should never 'e m%de)( &The l%ngu%ge of 1udgment should 'e so'er, dignified, restr%ined %nd tem2er%te %nd in no c%se s%tiric%l or f%ctitious) Judici%l officers should refr%in from 'eing s%rc%stic in their 1udgments,( the 'ench s%id) A22reci%tion of evidence *t re;uires % good de%l of thought %nd m%ture consider%tion to %rrive %t % 2%rticul%r conclusion of f%ct %fter scrutiniEing the evidence of 'oth the 2%rties) -very m%teri%l document of either side should 'e considered, %nd so %lso every m%teri%l 2%rt of the evidence should 'e considered %nd 2ro2erly m%rsh%led, indic%ting wh%t v%lue the 1udgeK?em'er %tt%ches to e%ch %nd which 2%rt of the evidence he considers inconse;uenti%l or unreli%'le with re%sons therefor) :rom the e%rliest d%ys, it h%s 'een one of the very im2ort%nt res2onsi'ilities of the Judges to %scert%in the ver%city of the evidence 'y v%rious me%ns in order to get %t the truth) *t is, therefore, necess%ry for the JudgeK?em'er to 'e %lert %nd vigil%nt while %22reci%ting evidence) *n the c%se of C*T vs) Durg% Pr%s%d ?ore ( 9B ) "2 *TA 9.!, their ,ordshi2s of +on$'le =u2reme Court l%id down the following 2rinci2le of l%w 34 &=cience h%s not yet invented %ny instrument to test the reli%'ility of the evidence 2l%ced 'efore % court of Tri'un%l) Therefore, the courts %nd Tri'un%ls h%ve to 1udge the evidence 'efore them 'y %22lying the test of hum%n 2ro'%'ilities) +um%n minds m%y differ %s to the reli%'ility of % 2iece of evidence)( *n the c%se of A) vs) Dy) *ndustri%l *n1uries Commissioner, -7) P%rte ?oore ( 909)

G5 .90, the correct leg%l 2osition h%s 'een enunci%ted 'y Di2lock, J) %s under34 &The re;uirement th%t % 2erson e7ercising ;u%si61udici%l functions must '%se his decision on evidence me%ns no more th%n it must 'e '%sed u2on m%teri%l which tem2ts logic%lly to show the e7istence or non e7istence of f%cts relev%nt to the issue to 'e determined, or to show the likelihood or unlikelihood of the occurrence of some future events the occurrence of which would 'e relev%nt) *t me%ns th%t he must not s2in % coin or consult %n strologer, 'ut th%t he must t%ke into %ccount %ny m%teri%l which, %s % m%tter of re%son, h%s some 2ro'%tive v%lue4) *t it is c%2%'le of h%ving %ny 2ro'%tive v%lue, the weight to 'e %tt%ched to it is % m%tter for the 2erson to whom P%rli%ment h%s entrusted the res2onsi'ility of deciding the issue)( Oet, %s held 'y the =u2reme Court in the c%se of 5%reilly -lectricity Co vs) Workm%n ( 9B ) 2 =CC 0 B, this does not me%n th%t Administr%tive Tri'un%l c%n decide % m%tter without %ny evidence on record or c%n %ct u2on wh%t is not evidence in the eye of l%w or on % document not 2roved to 'e % genuine one) =2e%king for the Court Ae%dy J) o'served &it is inconceiv%'le th%t the Tri'un%l c%n %ct on wh%t is not evidence such %s he%rs%y, nor c%n it 1ustify the Tri'un%l in '%sing its %w%rd on co2ies of documents when the origin%ls which %re in e7istence %re not 2roduced %nd 2roved 'y one of the methods either 'y %ffid%vit or 'y witness who h%ve e7ecuted them, if they %re %live %nd c%n 'e 2roduced) Decision on Guestions of ,%w While de%ling with issues of l%w, it is not necess%ry to st%te the whole l%w on the su'1ect commencing from element%ry 2rinci2les su22orted 'y numerous rulings) The discussion should 'e 'rief 'ut 2ointed %nd should 'e su22orted 'y some im2ort%nt decisions) *f there is % direct %uthority of the =u2reme Court or of Jurisdiction%l +igh Court, it is unnecess%ry to encum'er the 1udgment with other %uthorities) :in%l order After de%ling with %ll the issues the fin%l decision should 'e indic%ted in the concluding 2%r%g%2h with suit%'le directions) +%ving understood the '%sic fe%tures of #Writing of Judgment( we m%y h%ve %lso to 'e%r in mind th%t the 1udgment %lso reflects the 2erson%lity of the ?em'ers writing the 1udgments) Therefore, it m%y not 'e out of 2l%ce to refer in 'rief to some of the virtues of the ?em'ers to 2roduce good Judgments) Cl%rity 5efore 2roceeding to write or dict%te % 1udgment the mind should 'e cle%r %'out the conclusions of f%ct %nd l%w %nd the fin%l order) 8ne should not commence writing % 1udgment 'efore m%king u2 his mind) An unduly 2roli7 1udgment, like the lengthy %nd r%m'ling %rguments of % counsel, is usu%lly the 2roduct of % confused mind) *t is 'est %voided)

+onesty +onesty of 2ur2ose is the first essenti%l re;uirement of % successful ?em'er) +e must 'e honest to the c%use of 1ustice) *f he is not sincere enough in his effort, the result would 'e dis%strous) A ?em'er h%s got to 'e honest %nd sincere to the 2%rties 'efore him) * %m reminded of the writing of :r%ncis 5%con in the -ss%ys C of Judic%ture 34 Judges ought to 'e more le%rned th%n witty, more reverend th%n 2l%usi'le, %nd more %dvised th%n confident) A'ove %ll things, integrity is their 2ortion %nd 2ro2er virtue)( Cour%ge A ?em'er must write the order fe%rlessly kee2ing in mind decency %nd decorum without 'eing 'row'e%ten or over%wed 'y the overEe%lous %rguments %dv%nced 'efore him) A ?em'er must write the order to the 'est of his %'ility) A ?em'er must 'e 'old 'ut his order should not e72ress %ny indisci2line, 'i%s or highh%ndedness) The re%sons for re%ching to the conclusion should 'e given to the 'est of one$s %'ility) *t will 'e relev%nt to refer to the f%mous o'serv%tions of the =u2reme Court in the c%se of Distri'utors (5%rod%) P) ,td) vs) >nion of *ndi% B 8thers, 99 *TA 2! 34 &We h%ve given our most %n7ious consider%tion to this ;uestion, 2%rticul%rly since one of us, n%mely P)I) 5h%gw%ti J) w%s % 2%rty to the decision in Cloth Tr%ders$ c%se) 5ut h%ving reg%rd to the v%rious consider%tions to which we sh%ll %dvert in det%il when we e7%mine the %rguments %dv%nced on 'eh%lf of the 2%rties, we %re com2elled to re%ch the conclusion th%t Cloth Tr%ders$ c%se must 'e reg%rded %s wrongly decided) The view t%ken in th%t c%se in reg%rd to the construction of s) "!? must 'e held to 'e erroneous %nd it must 'e corrected) To 2er2etu%te %n error is no heroism) To rectify it is the com2ulsion of the 1udici%l conscience) *n this, we derive comfort %nd strength from the wise %nd ins2ring words of Justice 5ronson in Pierce vs) Del%meter (A)?)O) %t 2%ge ")3 &%s 1udge ought to 'e wise enough to know th%t he is f%lli'le %nd, therefore, ever re%dy to le%rn 3 gre%t %nd honest enough to disc%rd %ll mere 2ride of o2inion %nd follow truth wherever it m%y le%d3 %nd cour%geous enough to %cknowledge his errors() +%rdwork *t is necess%ry to kee2 in mind th%t writing % good order re;uires h%rd work) There is % s%ying in Hu1%r%ti, &The sweetness of the food item de2ends u2on the e7tent of J%ggery 2ut therein)( A mem'er must %s2ire to live like % hermit %nd work like % horse) The l%w is known to 'e % Je%lous mistress C more %tt%ched one is to such % mistress 'etter results %re o't%ined in writing orders) &An inefficient 'ut honest Judge is not of much use to the =ociety) 5ut %n efficient 'ut dishonest one is 2ositively d%ngerous)( A ?em'er h%s to develo2 the 2ower of %n%lysis %nd %ssessment) This is 2ossi'le 'y

h%rd work) Wit %nd tem2er%ment in the court As you know it is necess%ry to h%ve sufficient m%teri%l for writing % order) *n order to collect good m%teri%l for the order it is necess%ry to 'e 2%tient %nd witty in the Court Aoom) 8ne h%s to 'e c%reful in m%king rem%rks in the court) An eminent 5%rrister of ?%dr%s '%r ?r) Iort%n w%s %rguing 'efore %n -nglish Judge %t the ?%dr%s high Court) Judge w%s short tem2ered %nd c%ustic in his rem%rks, After he%ring ?r) Iort%n for some time, the Judge o'served th%t wh%tever ?r) Iort%n w%s su'mitting entered his one e%r %nd went out of the other) ?r) Iort%n 2rom2tly res2onded 'y s%ying th%t it is 'ound to 'e so unless there w%s something in 'etween to ret%in it) The we%2on of wit h%s therefore to 'e utiliEed with c%re %nd c%ution in the course of he%ring of % c%se) The ?em'ers should h%ve %n %mi%'le tem2er%ment while writing % Judgment %nd conducting the Court) *n my 2ers2ective, the following %re the form%l 2%rts of % 1udgment 34 ) Title I%me of the 5ench I%me of the ?em'ers 2) I%me of the 2%rties F) I%me of the Advoc%tes %22e%ring for the 2%rties .) +e%ding C 8rder 9) 5rief f%cts of the C%se 0) Decision 3 :%cts in 'rief cont%ining contentions r%ised 'y the 2%rties, '%ckground giving rise to dis2ute 'efore the 5ench) :%ct in issue C 2oints of dis%greement 'etween the 2%rties C 2oints to 'e determined 'y the 5ench) -v%lu%tion of issues of f%cts C discussion of evidence 2roduced 'efore the Authorities %nd 5ench 'y the 2%rties %nd ev%lu%tion with the hel2 of contentions %dv%nced 'y the re2resent%tives of the 2%rties) *ssues on l%w 2oints) ?ention or % cit%tion of % relev%nt l%w or rule 4 rule of inter2ret%tion %22lied C reference of c%se l%w 2ut forth 'y the %dvoc%tes of the

2%rties C r%tio decidendi 'inding on the 5ench) 82er%tive order) A22lic%'le l%w or f%cts 2roved C decision on f%cts in issue with re%sons therefor C cle%r order to the 2%rties) Costs of the c%se, if %ny) D%te of 2ronouncement of the order) =ign%ture of the ?em'ers) )