Supreme Court of India
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus BIBHU PRASAD SARANGI AND OTHERS on 5 March 2021
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
v.
BIBHU PRASAD SARANGI AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 821 of 2021)
MARCH 05, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD ANDM. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Constitution of India -– Art.226 – Exercise of power under –Necessity of independent application of mind – ‘Cut-copy-paste’ not asubstitute for substantive reasoning – Issue whether first respondentwas correctly denied selection having regard to the fact that adisciplinary penalty had been imposed upon him – Appellant movedbefore High Court in proceedings u/Art.226 for challenging order ofthe Tribunal – High Court extracted portions of the judgment of theTribunal and declined to interfere stating that the Tribunal had notcommitted any jurisdictional error – Held: There was no independentapplication of mind to the controversy by the High Court – Technologyenables speed, efficiency and accuracy to judicial work – But prolificuse of ‘cut-copy-paste’ function should not become a substitute forsubstantive reasoning which, in the ultimate analysis, is the definingfeature of the judicial process – Reasons constitute the soul of a judicialdecision – It was necessary for the High Court to express an opinion onthe merits of the rival submissions since it was seized of proceedings u/Art.226 – High Court having not carried out the exercise, the judgmentof High Court is set aside – Writ petition restored to High Court –Judgment / Order – Practice and Procedure – Service Law.
Remitting the matter to the High Court, the Court HELD:1. There has been no independent application ofmind to the controversy by the High Court. [Para 6][15-D-E]
2. Cutting, copying and pasting from the judgment of theTribunal, which is placed in issue before the High Court, may addto the volume of the judgment. The size of judicial output does notnecessarily correlate to a reasoned analysis of the core issues in acase. Technology enables judges to bring speed, efficiency and
13
A
B
C
DEF
G
H
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
Aaccuracy to judicial work. But a prolific use of the ‘cut-copy-paste’ function should not become a substitute for substantivereasoning which, in the ultimate analysis, is the defining featureof the judicial process. Doing what the High Court has done inthe present case presents a veneer of judicial reasoning, bereftof the substance which constitutes the heart of the judicialBprocess. Reasons constitute the soul of a judicial decision. Withoutthem one is left with a shell which provides neither solace norsatisfaction to the litigant. While it is important to keep an eyeon the statistics on disposal, the quality of justice brings legitimacyto the judiciary. [Para 7][15-E-H; 16-A-B]C
3. It was necessary for the High Court to express an opinionon the merits of the rival submissions since it was seized ofproceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Courthaving not carried out the exercise, the impugned judgment andorder of the High Court is set aside. The writ petition shall standDrestored to the file of the High Court. [Para 9][16-D-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 821 of2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2019 of the High Courtof Orissa at Cuttack in W.P.(C) 13029 of 2019E
Mrs. Lalita Kaushik, Adv. for the appellant.
Shubhranshu Padhi, Ashish Yadav, Rakshit Jain, Vishal Banshal,Advs. for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered byFDR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal arises from a judgment and order of a DivisionGBench of the High Court of Orissa dated 21 November 2019.
4. The appellant moved before the High Court in proceedings underArticle 226 of the Constitution for challenging an order of the CentralAdministrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench[1] dated 13 March 2019. The 1 “Tribunal”H
Tribunal had directed the appellant to reconsider the case of the firstrespondent for promotion to the IAS in accordance with the vacanciesfor 2015 by reconvening a meeting of the Selection Committee andthereafter, to reconsider the first respondent similarly for 2016 and 2017if the first respondent was found unsuitable for promotion in the year2015. Consequential benefits were directed to be released in the eventthat the Review Selection Committee found the first respondent suitable.
5. For the purpose of the present appeal, it is not necessary forthe Court to consider the facts of the case in detail in view of what weindicate hereafter. In paragraph 4 of its judgment dated 21 November2019, the High Court extracted portions of the judgment of the Tribunal.Thereafter, the High Court noted that “the Tribunal has elaboratelydiscussed the law” while issuing directions. Having said this, the HighCourt made the following observations in paragraph 6 of its judgment:
“6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perusedthe materials including the impugned order. Learned Tribunal haselaborately dealt with the contentions of learned counsel for theparties with reference to the materials available on record.”
6. In paragraph 7, the High Court held that the Tribunal has notcommitted any jurisdictional error and no interference is warranted. Therehas been no independent application of mind to the controversy by theHigh Court.
7. Cutting, copying and pasting from the judgment of the Tribunal,which is placed in issue before the High Court, may add to the volumeof the judgment. The size of judicial output does not necessarily correlateto a reasoned analysis of the core issues in a case. Technology enablesjudges to bring speed, efficiency and accuracy to judicial work. But aprolific use of the ‘cut-copy-paste’ function should not become a substitutefor substantive reasoning which, in the ultimate analysis, is the definingfeature of the judicial process. Judges are indeed hard pressed for time,faced with burgeoning vacancies and large case-loads. Crisp reasoning isperhaps the answer. Doing what the High Court has done in the presentcase presents a veneer of judicial reasoning, bereft of the substancewhich constitutes the heart of the judicial process. Reasons constitute thesoul of a judicial decision. Without them one is left with a shell. The shellprovides neither solace nor satisfaction to the litigant. We are constrainedto make these observations since what we have encountered in this caseis no longer an isolated aberration. This has become a recurring AB
C
DE
F
G
H
Aphenomenon. The National Judicial Academy will do well to take thisup. How judges communicate in their judgments is a defining characteristicof the judicial process. While it is important to keep an eye on the statisticson disposal, there is a higher value involved. The quality of justicebrings legitimacy to the judiciary.
B8. In the present case, the issue was whether the first respondentwas correctly denied selection to the IAS having regard to the fact that adisciplinary penalty had been imposed upon him on 29 September 2011.The UPSC has submitted that the DOPT Guidelines apply to theconstitution of Departmental Promotion Committees for the purpose ofpromotion, whereas, in matters relating to selection of officers from theCstate civil services to the IAS, the UPSC Guidelines which have beenframed in exercise of powers under Article 320 of the Constitution wouldhave to be considered.
9. We do not express any opinion on the merits of the rivalsubmissions. It was necessary for the High Court to do so since it wasDseized of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The HighCourt having not carried out the exercise, we set aside the impugnedjudgment and order of the High Court dated 21 November 2019. Thewrit petition under Article 226, WP(C) 13029 of 2019, shall stand restoredto the file of the High Court.
E
10. The first respondent has, in the meantime, retired from service.The outcome of the proceedings will have a bearing on his pensionarybenefits. Hence, we request the High Court to take up the writ petitionfor disposal at an early date and to endeavour to do so within a period offour months from the date on which a certified copy of this order isFplaced on the record.
11. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
G
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose
Appeal disposed of.
H