UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONversusBIBHU PRASAD SARANGI AND OTHERS

                           [2021] 7 S.C.R. 13                                 13


             UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION                                  A
                                    v.
              BIBHU PRASAD SARANGI AND OTHERS
                     (Civil Appeal No. 821 of 2021)
                           MARCH 05, 2021                                     B
           [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
                     M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
       Constitution of India -– Art.226 – Exercise of power under –
Necessity of independent application of mind – ‘Cut-copy-paste’ not a
                                                                              C
substitute for substantive reasoning – Issue whether first respondent
was correctly denied selection having regard to the fact that a
disciplinary penalty had been imposed upon him – Appellant moved
before High Court in proceedings u/Art.226 for challenging order of
the Tribunal – High Court extracted portions of the judgment of the
Tribunal and declined to interfere stating that the Tribunal had not          D
committed any jurisdictional error – Held: There was no independent
application of mind to the controversy by the High Court – Technology
enables speed, efficiency and accuracy to judicial work – But prolific
use of ‘cut-copy-paste’ function should not become a substitute for
substantive reasoning which, in the ultimate analysis, is the defining
                                                                              E
feature of the judicial process – Reasons constitute the soul of a judicial
decision – It was necessary for the High Court to express an opinion on
the merits of the rival submissions since it was seized of proceedings u/
Art.226 – High Court having not carried out the exercise, the judgment
of High Court is set aside – Writ petition restored to High Court –
Judgment / Order – Practice and Procedure – Service Law.                      F
      Remitting the matter to the High Court, the Court
     HELD:1. There has been no independent application of
mind to the controversy by the High Court. [Para 6][15-D-E]
       2. Cutting, copying and pasting from the judgment of the               G
Tribunal, which is placed in issue before the High Court, may add
to the volume of the judgment. The size of judicial output does not
necessarily correlate to a reasoned analysis of the core issues in a
case. Technology enables judges to bring speed, efficiency and

                                                                              H
                                    13
14                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A    accuracy to judicial work. But a prolific use of the ‘cut-copy-
     paste’ function should not become a substitute for substantive
     reasoning which, in the ultimate analysis, is the defining feature
     of the judicial process. Doing what the High Court has done in
     the present case presents a veneer of judicial reasoning, bereft
     of the substance which constitutes the heart of the judicial
B
     process. Reasons constitute the soul of a judicial decision. Without
     them one is left with a shell which provides neither solace nor
     satisfaction to the litigant. While it is important to keep an eye
     on the statistics on disposal, the quality of justice brings legitimacy
     to the judiciary. [Para 7][15-E-H; 16-A-B]
C          3. It was necessary for the High Court to express an opinion
     on the merits of the rival submissions since it was seized of
     proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court
     having not carried out the exercise, the impugned judgment and
     order of the High Court is set aside. The writ petition shall stand
D    restored to the file of the High Court. [Para 9][16-D-E]
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 821 of
     2021
           From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2019 of the High Court
     of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P.(C) 13029 of 2019
E
              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 by
F
              DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
              1. Delay condoned.
              2. Leave granted.
          3. This appeal arises from a judgment and order of a Division
G    Bench of the High Court of Orissa dated 21 November 2019.
           4. The appellant moved before the High Court in proceedings under
     Article 226 of the Constitution for challenging an order of the Central
     Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench1 dated 13 March 2019. The
     1
         “Tribunal”
H
   UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. BIBHU PRASAD                              15
SARANGI AND OTHERS [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

Tribunal had directed the appellant to reconsider the case of the first         A
respondent for promotion to the IAS in accordance with the vacancies
for 2015 by reconvening a meeting of the Selection Committee and
thereafter, to reconsider the first respondent similarly for 2016 and 2017
if the first respondent was found unsuitable for promotion in the year
2015. Consequential benefits were directed to be released in the event
                                                                                B
that the Review Selection Committee found the first respondent suitable.
       5. For the purpose of the present appeal, it is not necessary for
the Court to consider the facts of the case in detail in view of what we
indicate hereafter. In paragraph 4 of its judgment dated 21 November
2019, the High Court extracted portions of the judgment of the Tribunal.
Thereafter, the High Court noted that “the Tribunal has elaborately             C
discussed the law” while issuing directions. Having said this, the High
Court made the following observations in paragraph 6 of its judgment:
      “6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
      the materials including the impugned order. Learned Tribunal has
      elaborately dealt with the contentions of learned counsel for the         D
      parties with reference to the materials available on record.”
      6. In paragraph 7, the High Court held that the Tribunal has not
committed any jurisdictional error and no interference is warranted. There
has been no independent application of mind to the controversy by the
High Court.                                                                     E

        7. Cutting, copying and pasting from the judgment of the Tribunal,
which is placed in issue before the High Court, may add to the volume
of the judgment. The size of judicial output does not necessarily correlate
to a reasoned analysis of the core issues in a case. Technology enables
judges to bring speed, efficiency and accuracy to judicial work. But a          F
prolific use of the ‘cut-copy-paste’ function should not become a substitute
for substantive reasoning which, in the ultimate analysis, is the defining
feature of the judicial process. Judges are indeed hard pressed for time,
faced with burgeoning vacancies and large case-loads. Crisp reasoning is
perhaps the answer. Doing what the High Court has done in the present           G
case presents a veneer of judicial reasoning, bereft of the substance
which constitutes the heart of the judicial process. Reasons constitute the
soul of a judicial decision. Without them one is left with a shell. The shell
provides neither solace nor satisfaction to the litigant. We are constrained
to make these observations since what we have encountered in this case
is no longer an isolated aberration. This has become a recurring                H
16              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A    phenomenon. The National Judicial Academy will do well to take this
     up. How judges communicate in their judgments is a defining characteristic
     of the judicial process. While it is important to keep an eye on the statistics
     on disposal, there is a higher value involved. The quality of justice
     brings legitimacy to the judiciary.
B           8. In the present case, the issue was whether the first respondent
     was correctly denied selection to the IAS having regard to the fact that a
     disciplinary penalty had been imposed upon him on 29 September 2011.
     The UPSC has submitted that the DOPT Guidelines apply to the
     constitution of Departmental Promotion Committees for the purpose of
     promotion, whereas, in matters relating to selection of officers from the
C    state civil services to the IAS, the UPSC Guidelines which have been
     framed in exercise of powers under Article 320 of the Constitution would
     have to be considered.
            9. We do not express any opinion on the merits of the rival
     submissions. It was necessary for the High Court to do so since it was
D    seized of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High
     Court having not carried out the exercise, we set aside the impugned
     judgment and order of the High Court dated 21 November 2019. The
     writ petition under Article 226, WP(C) 13029 of 2019, shall stand restored
     to 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 pensionary
     benefits. Hence, we request the High Court to take up the writ petition
     for disposal at an early date and to endeavour to do so within a period of
     four months from the date on which a certified copy of this order is
F    placed on the record.
            11. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
            12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

     Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                         Appeal disposed of.
G




H