In the present case, Supreme Court overturned order passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court (“High Court”) for lacking proper reasoning wherein the High Court had merely affirmed the Single Bench’s decision without providing detailed explanation for its concurrence. The Supreme Court noted that a decision without reasoned judgment cannot be legally sustained.
The State of Uttar Pradesh (“State”) had filed an appeal against judgment passed by the High Court. The High Court’s judgment was in response to an intra-court appeal against a common judgment passed by the Single Judge in a batch of Writ Petitions. The State had issued various Government Orders including one dated 11.12.2020. The State contended that the Allahabad High Court did not adequately consider or address the Government Orders and Circulars issued by them. During the pendency of the matter, the Supreme Court issued a stay order dated 2.9.2022 which was subsequently made absolute on 2.05.2023. The stay order allowed the State to make appointments with teachers, subject to final orders in the appeal. The State further argued that the High Court had not applied its mind to the submissions made by both sides and had simply upheld the Single Judge’s order without proper reasoning. The case involved issues related to teacher appointments in Uttar Pradesh, with subsequent developments occurring after the initial judgments were passed, however the same was not considered.
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court in its impugned judgment, merely placed on record the cases of the Writ Petitioners and Respondents, followed by the findings of the Single Judge. The Supreme Court emphasized that in the absence of any reasoning in the impugned judgment, the same cannot be sustained. Relying on the precedent set in CCT v. Shukla & Bros (2010), the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that reason is the very life of law and that giving reasons furthers the cause of justice while avoiding uncertainty. The Supreme Court observed that the absence of reasons in a judgment leads to frustration of these objectives and introduces an element of uncertainty and dissatisfaction and accordingly directed the High Court to hear the intra court appeal again.