High Courts have duty to pass reasoned order when refusing relief: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday observed that when a number of issues/grounds are raised before the High Court in a plea under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is duty-bound to deal with the same and pass a reasoned order [Vishal Ashwin Patel v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 25(3) and Others]..The Court was hearing an appeal challenging an order of the Bombay High Court which had dismissed the petitions challenging the reopening of the assessment/reassessment proceedings..A bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna said that the High Court's order was 'cryptic', noting that the manner in which the High Court dealt with and disposed of the plea without passing any reasoned order cannot be appreciated."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," the Supreme Court said. .Relying on its decisions in Central Board of Trustees v. Indore Composite Private Limited (2018) and Union Public Service Commission v. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi and Others (2021), the apex court took the view that in exercise of powers under Article 226, the High Court is required to independently consider the issues involved in a case."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," the Bench observed..In light of the above-mentioned observations and without going into merits of the case, the top court directed the matter to be remanded back to the High Court for fresh disposal on merits."In the interest of sobriety, we may only note that the orders are bereft of reasoning as diverse grounds were urged/raised by the parties which ought to have been examined by the High Court in the first place and a clear finding was required to be recorded upon analysing the relevant documents," the Court said..Advocate Raj Mittal appeared on behalf of appellant.Additional Solicitor General Balbir Singh and Advocate Raj Bahadur Yadav appeared on behalf of respondents..[Read Judgment]