Holding

A High Court must record reasons for its orders; an order dismissing an appeal without reasons is void and must be set aside.

Summary

Mangat Ram appealed to the High Court against his detention, seeking bail. The High Court dismissed the appeal with the terse order "Dismissed, reasons to follow" without providing any reasoning. The appellant challenged this order before the Supreme Court, arguing that a court must record reasons for its decisions to enable proper review. The Supreme Court held that disposing of an appeal without reasons is impermissible, citing earlier judgments that stressed the necessity of reasoned orders. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, allowed the appeal, and remitted the matter back to the High Court to decide the bail application on its merits, granting the appellant liberty to pray for bail before the High Court.

Issues considered

What is the requirement for courts, particularly High Courts, to record reasons when disposing of an appeal?
Can a High Court dismiss a criminal appeal without providing reasons?
Whether the Supreme Court should intervene to grant bail in the remitted matter

Subjects

bailreasoned ordersappellate jurisdictionhigh court procedurecriminal appealSupreme CourtArticle 136

Judgment

[2008] 2 S.C.R. 80

A MANGAT RAM
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 2008)
JANUARY 25, 2008
B
(C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.)

Order of High Court - Dismissing criminal appeal
observing "reasons to follow" - HELD: The High Court ought
c not to have disposed of appeal without recording reasons -
Supreme Court has deprecated practice of disposing of
matters and pronouncing final orders without recording
reasons in support of such decision - It has been insisted that
when matter is decided by a Court, reasons must be recorded
. in support' of such decision - It would be appropriate and
0
desirable if all courts including High Courts keep in mind the
principles laid down by Supreme Court and pass final orders
only after recording reasons in support of such orders -
Appellant would be at liberty to make prayer for bail before
High Court - Let High Court consider the same on its own
E merits and pass an appropriate order - Bail - Administration
of justice - Practice and Procedure.
Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
&Ors. [2004] 4 SCC 158; State of Punjab vs. Jagdev Singh
F Talwandi [1984] 1 SCC 596; State of Punjab vs. Surinder
Kumar [1992] 1 sec 489 - relied on.
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 182 of 2008.
G From the final Judgment and Order dated 3.5.2007 of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal
·Appeal No. 592-SB o~ 1997.
Satinder S. Gulati and Kamaldeep Narang for the
Appellant.
H 80

t-
)
+ I
MANGAT RAM v. STATE OF HARYANA 81

~
Rajeev Gaur "Nasem" and T. V. George for the Respondent. A
The following Order of the Court was delivered
1. Leave granted.
2. On November 30, 2"007 when the matter was placed for
B
admission-hearing, this Court passed the following order:
"Delay 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". c
""'
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 'Motion
petitions'. It was, therefore, submitted that the case was not
D
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
"f
by the High Court reads as under:
E
"Present : Mrs. Ritu Punj, DAG, Haryana.
Mrs. Harpreet Kaur Dhillon, Advocate is appointed as
Amicus Curiae.
Heard. F

)'
Dismissed, reasons to follow''.
(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 G
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
stated "Dismissed, reasons to follow".
H
82 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.
-·+
A 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
B 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,
v
extraneous, irrelevant, etc. The successful party, on the other
c hand, may support the reasons recorded by the Court in his t-
favour. Finally, the superior Court may also consider whether
reasons recorded by the Court in support of the order passed 1
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
D
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.
)'-

E 6. Before more than two decades, in State of Punjab v.
Jagdev Singh Talwandi, (9184) 1 SCC 596, the Court said:
"We 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
F 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
G 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
H detention. If the object of passing such orders is to ensure
j

-~- MANGAT RAM v. STATE OF HARYANA 83

speedy compliance with them, that object is more often A
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 B
implemented. The result inevitably is that the operation of
the order passed by the High Court has to be stayed
pending delivery of the reasoned judgment".
7. Discussing the position of this Court on passing final
orders without recording reasons in support of such orders, this C
Court stated:
"It 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
0
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 E
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 F
useful purpose may not grow out of its present
infancy".
(emphasis supplied)
8. The principle was reiterated by this Court in State of G
Punjab v. Surinder Kumar, (1992) 1 SCC 489. Distinguishing
the position of this Court and other Courts, the Court stated:
"On 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 H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. - -f-

A and other courts. One of the main reasons for disclosing -1"
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
8 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".
(emphasis supplied) "'
c 9. In Zahira Habibul/a H. Sheikh &Anr. v. State of Gujarat
I
~

&Ors., (2004) 4 SCC 158, the High Court, after hearing criminal
appeal, directed its dismissal indicating that "reasons would
follow". When the matter reached this Court, the Court
disapproved the approach adopted by the High Court observing !
D that it did not see "perceivable reason for the hurry". Referring r-
to Jagdev Singh Talwandi and observing that sometimes even
this Court makes such order, the Court stated:
"It may be thought that such orders are passed by this
Court and, therefore, there is no reason why the High
~
•
E 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
F 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
G may not grow out of and beyond its present infancy".
(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
H
MANGAT RAM v. STATE OF HARYANA 85

only after recording reasons in support of such orders. A
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 8
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 c
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
obseNations. The order of the High Court is set aside. The matter
mt is remitted to the High Court to be decided in accordance with D
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 E

• on its own merits .
15. Ordered accordingly.
R.P. Appeal allowed.
F