http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  182 of 2008

PETITIONER: Mangat Ram

RESPONDENT: State of Haryana

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/01/2008

BENCH: C.K. THAKKER & D.K. JAIN

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 7578 OF 2007

1.              Leave granted.

2.              On November 30, 2007 when the matter  was placed for admission-hearing, this Court  passed the following order:      \023Delay condoned.

       Issue notice on the special leave  petition as on the application for  bail. Notice will state as to why the  special leave petition should not be  disposed of at this stage\024.

3.              The learned counsel for the appellant  submitted that on May 3rd, 2007, Criminal  Appeal No. 592-SB of 1997 was placed on Daily  Board of the High Court showing them to be  \021Motion petitions\022. It was, therefore,  submitted that the case was not placed for  regular final hearing. It was, however, taken  up for final hearing. One Mrs. Harpreet Kaur  Dhillon, Advocate was appointed as Amicus  Curiae for the accused who was heard and the  matter was disposed of. The order which was  passed by the High Court reads as under: \023Present : Mrs. Ritu Punj, DAG,  Haryana.

Mrs. Harpreet Kaur Dhillon, Advocate  is appointed as Amicus Curiae.

Heard. Dismissed, reasons to follow\024.                               (emphasis supplied)

4.              From the above order, passed by the  High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 592-SB of  1997, it was submitted by the learned counsel  that Deputy Advocate General for the State of  Haryana was present. For the accused, Mrs.  Harpreet Kaur Dhillon, Advocate was appointed  as Amicus Curiae on that date. On the same day,  the matter was dismissed and the High Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

stated \023Dismissed, reasons to follow\024. 5.              In our opinion, the learned counsel  for the appellant is right in submitting that  the High Court ought not to have disposed of  the appeal without recording reasons. This  Court has deprecated the practice of disposing  of matters without recording reasons in support  of such decision. It has been insisted that  when the matter is decided by a Court, reasons  must be recorded in support of such decision.  It is because the aggrieved party may make  grievance in the superior Court that the  reasons recorded by the trial Court were non- existent, extraneous, irrelevant, etc. The  successful party, on the other hand, may  support the reasons recorded by the Court in  his favour. Finally, the superior Court may  also consider whether reasons recorded by the  Court in support of the order passed by it were  in consonance with law and whether interference  is called for. If the final order is without  any reason, several questions may arise and it  will be difficult for the parties to the  proceedings as well as the superior Court to  decide the matter one way or the other. This  Court has, therefore, deprecated the practice  of pronouncing final order without recording  reasons in support of such order. 6.              Before more than two decades, in State  of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi, (9184) 1  SCC 596, the Court said: \023We would like to take this  opportunity to point out that serious  difficulties arise on account of the  practice increasingly adopted by the  High Courts, of pronouncing the final  order without a reasoned judgment. It  is desirable that the final order  which the High Court intends to pass  should not be announced until a  reasoned judgment is ready for  pronouncement. Suppose, for example,  that a final order without a reasoned  judgment is announced by the High  Court that a house shall be  demolished, or that the custody of a  child shall be handed over to one  parent as against the order, or that a  person accused of a serious charge is  acquitted, or that a statute is  unconstitutional or, as in the instant  case, that a detenu be released from  detention. If the object of passing  such orders is to ensure speedy  compliance with them, that object is  more often defeated by the aggrieved  party filing a special leave petition  in this Court against the order passed  by the High Court. That places this  Court in a predicament because,  without the benefit of the reasoning  of the High Court, it is difficult for  this Court to allow the bare order to  be implemented. The result inevitably  is that the operation of the order

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

passed by the High Court has to be  stayed pending delivery of the  reasoned judgment\024.

7.              Discussing the position of this Court  on passing final orders without recording  reasons in support of such orders, this Court  stated: \023It may be thought that such orders  are passed by this Court and therefore  there is no reason why the High Courts  should not do the same. We would like  to point out respectfully that the  orders passed by this Court are final  and no appeal lies against them. The  Supreme Court is the final Court in  the hierarchy of our courts. Besides,  orders without a reasoned judgment are  passed by this Court very rarely,  under exceptional circumstances.  Orders passed by the High Court are  subject to the appellate jurisdiction  of this Court under Article 136 of the  Constitution and other provisions of  the concerned statutes. We thought it  necessary to make these observations  in order that a practice which is not  very desirable and which achieves no  useful purpose may not grow out of its  present infancy\024.                               (emphasis supplied)

8.              The principle was reiterated by this  Court in State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar,  (1992) 1 SCC 489. Distinguishing the position  of this Court and other Courts, the Court  stated: \023On the question of the requirement to  assign reasons for an order, a  distinction has to be kept in mind  between a court whose judgment is not  subject to further appeal and other  courts. One of the main reasons for  disclosing and discussing the grounds  in support of a judgment is to enable  a higher court to examine the same in  case of a challenge. It is, of course,  desirable to assign reasons for every  order or judgment, but the requirement  is not imperative in the case of this  Court. It is, therefore, futile to  suggest that if this Court has issued  an order which apparently seems to be  similar to the impugned order, the  High Court can also do so\024.                                   (emphasis supplied)

9.              In Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh & Anr.  v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2004) 4 SCC 158,  the High Court, after hearing criminal appeal,  directed its dismissal indicating that \023reasons  would follow\024. When the matter reached this  Court, the Court disapproved the approach  adopted by the High Court observing that it did  not see \023perceivable reason for the hurry\024.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

Referring to Jagdev Singh Talwandi and  observing that sometimes even this Court makes  such order, the Court stated: \023It may be thought that such orders  are passed by this Court and,  therefore, there is no reason why the  High Courts should not do the same. We  would like to point out that the  orders passed by this Court are final  and no further appeal lies against  them. The Supreme Court is the final  Court in the hierarchy of our Courts.  Orders passed by the High Court are  subject to the appellate jurisdiction  of this Court under Article 136 of the  Constitution and other provisions of  the concerned statutes. We thought it  necessary to make these observations  so that a practice which is not a very  desirable one and which achieves no  useful purpose may not grow out of and  beyond its present infancy\024.                                   (emphasis supplied)

10.             In our considered opinion, it would be  appropriate and desirable if all Courts  including High Courts keep in mind the above  principles laid down by this Court and pass  final orders only after recording reasons in  support of such orders. 11.             Learned counsel for the appellant  states that before the High Court passed the  order challenged in the present appeal, the  appellant-accused had throughout remained on  bail. He, therefore, submitted that this Court  may pass an appropriate order enlarging the  appellant on bail on such terms and conditions  as this Court deems fit. 12.             In our opinion, however, it would not  be appropriate to pass such order when we are  remitting the matter to the High Court. We may,  however, grant liberty to the appellant to make  such prayer before the High Court. Let the High  Court consider the same on its own merits and  pass an appropriate order. 13.             The appeal is accordingly allowed with  aforesaid observations. The order of the High  Court is set aside. The matter is remitted to  the High Court to be decided in accordance with  law after hearing the parties. 14.             Before parting with the matter, we may  clarify that we have not entered into merits of  the matter and we may not be understood to have  expressed any opinion one way or the other on  the issues in the case. The High Court will  decide the appeal on its own merits. 15.             Ordered accordingly.