VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL Vol. I (Nov.

2021)

EXPLORING THE RIGHT TO REASONED DECISION-MAKING IN

THE INDIAN CONTEXT

Chetan R

ABSTRACT
The right to give reasons or the right to a speaking order is one of the most important rights
individuals have when they come up against the state in various administrative procedures.
Due to this reason, this right has also been considered as the third principle of natural justice.
Although this right may seem simple and straightforward, in the larger picture, it imposes
different kinds of checks and balances on the government authorities while reinforcing the
separation of powers and the rule of law, which becomes all the more important in the current
day and age. In this article, the author has explored the extent of this right in India’s
administrative section, as propounded by various Supreme Court decisions and statutes to be
part of the principles of natural justice and the fundamental right to equality and freedom. In
this endeavour, the author has also identified different lacunas in the application of this right,
such as non-uniformity, non-mandatory and non-applicability against non-judicial
administrative functionaries. To remedy this, the author has performed a comparative analysis
with the American and the English standards of the right to reasoned decision making, and
suggested a route through which these lacunas could be addressed and better protection of the
interests of the citizens can be ensured.


Chetan R, 2nd Year, BA LLB, National Law School of India University, Bangalore.

Page | 104
VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL Vol. I (Nov. 2021)

INTRODUCTION
Historically, the giving reasons for any action (speaking order) is entirely a relational
enterprise.402 Parties give reasons to establish, affirm, repair, negotiate, or deny the relationship
which exists between them. Furthermore, the type of relationship which exists between the
parties, also ascertains the kind of speaking orders given. This relational understanding of
giving reasons is better understood when seen in the context of the relationship between
administrative authorities and citizens/firms/general public.403 This essay will mainly be
focussing on democratic countries having roots in common law as the basis of the relationship
between the administrative state and the public. In classical common law, there was no
mandatory requirement on the part of administrative authorities to provide reasons for their
decisions. It is in modern times, with evolution in constitutional and administrative
jurisprudence, that reasoned decision-making for administrative authorities has come about as
judge-made law.404
In view of this, I have divided this essay into 3 parts. Firstly, I will analyse the need for reasoned
decision-making in a democratic set-up by highlighting the virtues of speaking orders for
administrative actions using the transaction cost perspective. Secondly, I will demonstrate how
the Indian administrative law has incorporated reasoned decision-making into its folds through
multiple varied ways. Thirdly, I will highlight the lacunas present in the Indian adaptation of
reasoned decision-making before suggesting reforms which can be brought into the Indian
administrative law through a comparative study with the jurisdictions of the United States
(“US”) and the United Kingdom (“UK”).

ANALYSING THE VIRTUES OF REASONED DECISION-MAKING

Transaction Cost Analysis

Decision-making/Transaction costs refer to the costs incurred by the state while making any
decision, which include the time and effort put in by the state for any decision. Social cost
refers to the cost which the society/individuals have to bear as a result of the state action. 405
The utilitarian aim of this theory is to ensure the least social cost is imposed on the society

402
Charles Tilly, Why? (Princeton University Press 2008).
403
Jerry L Mashaw, “Reasoned Administration: The European Union, the United States, and the Project of
Democratic Governance” 76(1) The George Washington Law Review 99 (2007).
404
M.P. Jain and S.N. Jain, Principles of Administrative Law (first published in 2011, 7th edn, Lexis Nexis India
2017).
405
William F. Shughart II, “Public Choice”, The Library of Economics and Liberty, available at
<https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html> (last visited on 01 April 2021).

Page | 105
VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL Vol. I (Nov. 2021)

while balancing the decision-making/transaction cost as per the different scenarios and state
actions.406
Reasoned decision-making essentially requires the administrative authorities and officers to
record reasons for each and every administrative decision undertaken by them. These reasons
can be in different forms but should essentially justify the cause for making any administrative
decision concerning the public.407 This causes considerable time and effort expenditure for the
administrative authorities as well as certain opportunity costs.
While these decision-making costs may prima facie, appear excessive, the social costs being
avoided, far outweighs them. These social costs are being avoided in a variety of ways, and all
of which benefit the citizens and general public. Firstly, the authorities will become more
transparent and fairer when they record reasons after applying their minds. The decisions
become less subjective - in the sense that it will minimise the chances of capricious, extraneous
or prejudiced considerations in decision-making – and will become more objective.408
Secondly, it promotes accountability of the administrative authority as the fact of having to
explain to others will oblige the officer to carefully marshal and weight the evidence and
provide impartial satisfactory arguments, lest the administrative decision should be challenged
and struck down.409 Thirdly, it imposes a lesser cost on the individual as they will be in a better
position to understand the reason for their rejection, and hence act accordingly, i.e., either be
content with the reasons or file for an appeal.410 Fourthly, the appellate courts and authorities
will also bear less costs while examining the appeal. Instead of going into the complete merits
of the case, they could adjudicate over the reasons of the administrative authority and determine
its validity.411 Fifthly, justifying all actions with adequate reasons also instils public confidence
in the administrative process. This legitimises the authorities in the eyes of the public as it is
fulfilling their legitimate expectation of knowing the reasons for their rejection.412
These consequences of giving reasons enhance the social benefit derived from any
administrative action of the state and hence, for providing maximum benefit for the maximum

406
Jonathan R. Macey, ‘Transaction Costs and the Normative Elements of the Public Choice Model: An
Application to Constitutional Theory” 74(2) Virginia Law Review 471 (1988).
407
Anju P. Singh, “Reasoned Decision: The Necessity and Importance to Achieve Transparent and Accountable
Society” 3(1) Journal of National Law University, Delhi 163 (2015).
408
Supra note 3.
409
Supra note 5.
410
R. Vijayan, “Administrative Decisions and Duty to Give Reasons A Search for Justification” 26(1/2) Journal
of Indian Law Institute 70 (1984).
411
Supra note 3.
412
Supra note 9.

Page | 106
VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL Vol. I (Nov. 2021)

number with reasonable costs, the state should be mandated to give reasons for all or atleast
most of its administrative actions.

Reinforcing Separation of Powers

Separation of powers is essentially the division of power and state roles between the 3 organs
of the state, i.e., the legislature, executive and judiciary. With modern states giving increased
functions and scope of operation to the executive bodies, it calls for certain accountability
mechanisms to be set as a form of checks and balances. 413 Reasoned decision-making is one
such mechanism which effectively places a check on the powers of the executive.
Along with demanding careful consideration of all matters by the administrative authorities,
giving reasons enables the judiciary, through their appellate jurisdiction, to place a firm check
on the powers and actions of the administration. By perusing through the reasons provided by
the authorities, the judiciary can effectively and efficiently decide whether the officers abused
their powers or made irrelevant decisions.414

Furthering Rule of Law

Prof. A.V. Dicey, in his book Introduction to the Law of Constitution, has elaborated and laid
down three principles which constitute the doctrine of rule of law. The first principle is that
government officials should not have any discretionary powers in their hands so that rule of
law is supreme. The second principle protects individuals from suffering or being deprived or
property save for breach of established law in the ordinary legal manner before ordinary courts.
The third principle locates the rights of individuals in custom, conventions and judicial
decisions.415
It is argued that reasoned decision making furthers this conception of rule of law in the first
two principles. When administrative authorities give reasons for their actions, they are on the
alert and have to carefully formulate objective reasons for their actions, which minimises the
chances of abuse of powers by such authorities.416 Absence of such requirements, results in a
wide scope for abuse of their discretion and creates a feeling of injustice and suspicion towards

413
“Separation of Powers”. britannica, available at <https://www.britannica.com/topic/separation-of-powers>
(last visited on 02 April 2020).
414
Supra note 9.
415
Yashomati Ghosh, Textbook on Administrative Law (1st edn, LexisNexis 2015) 21.
416
V.S. Chauhan, “Reasoned Decision: A Principle of Natural Justice” 37 Journal of Indian Law Institute 92
(1995).

Page | 107
VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL Vol. I (Nov. 2021)

the state. Hence, this process of reasoning greatly limits the discretionary powers in the hands
of government officials and furthers social welfare.
Further, when administrative officials undertake any actions which adversely affect
individuals, the reasons which they provide for justifying their actions, always has to be based
on established law through established procedure, for it to be convincing and legitimate
according to reasonable standards. This will ensure that justice is not only done, but also seen
to be done as reasoned decisions, which may inherently be just, will also have the appearance
of justice for those reading them.417 Therefore, the state authorities will be affecting the rights
of the individuals using ordinary law and in the ordinary legal manner, which in turn, can be
questioned by the individuals in ordinary courts of law.
Therefore, giving reasons for administrative actions is one of the fundamentals of good
administration.418

REASONED DECISION-MAKING IN THE INDIAN CONTEXT

In this section, I aim to illustrate the various approaches existing in Indian jurisprudence which
warrant administrative authorities – both quasi-judicial and non-judicial – to give reasons for
their actions.

Third Principle of Natural Justice

Among the many mechanisms adopted by the Indian courts to prevent the abuse of power by
administrative authorities, the principles of natural justice remains the most significant. 419 The
Supreme Court has accepted this principle to be a pervasive facet of our secular law which
extends to all legislative, administrative and adjudicatory realms.420 Along with the first two
principles of nemo judex in causa sua and audi alteram partem, the Indian courts have also
accepted the third principle of reasoned decision to be a part of our judicial system.421 This
specifically applies to administrative authorities which perform judicial and quasi-judicial
functions which determine questions affecting citizen’s rights. In all such cases of performing
adjudicatory functions, administrative authorities have to conform to the principles of natural
justice and mandatorily record clear and explicit reasons for their decision.422

417
Supra note 6.
418
Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union, [1971] 2 QB 175.
419
Supra note 9.
420
Mohinder Singh Gilt v. Chief Election Commissioner, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 851.
421
Siemens bngg. & Mfg. Co. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1785.
422
Sunil Baíra v. Delhi Administration, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1675.

Page | 108
VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL Vol. I (Nov. 2021)

Doctrine of Arbitrariness

Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution is a dynamic concept, which means that it cannot
be “crippled, cabined and confined” within traditional and doctrinal limits.423 Equality is anti-
thesis to arbitrariness in both legislative and executive actions. It strikes at anything done in an
unreasonable or non-rational manner, capriciously or at pleasure, without a determining
principle.424
To prevent the negation of their decisions due to arbitrariness, the administrative authorities
have to give convincing reasons for their actions. This prevents the functionaries from acting
unfairly, unjustly and arbitrarily.425 Any acts of administrative functionaries which curb or
affect the individual’s liberty in any manner have to be backed by legitimate reasons which
necessitate the authorities to take up such a measure. Any lack in providing such reasons and
justifying their actions would invoke Article 14 because the aggrieved party and appellate
courts have no idea about the basis for the decision.426 Hence, the doctrine of arbitrariness
warrants reasoned decision making.

Violation of Fundamental Rights

Certain Fundamental rights are present under Article 19(1), such as right to freedom of speech,
expression, assemble, associate, etc. Any administrative act which is restricting any of these
rights will have to be located in Article 19, clauses (2) to (6). The reasonableness of any such
restriction depends on the substantive and procedural aspects of the law. When no reason is
given for such restriction, then the validity of the administrative decision/order can be
questioned and struck down.427 There have even been instances where a law, which authorises
administrative authorities to interfere in such rights of individuals “without assigning any
reasons”, has been found to impose unreasonable restrictions which do not qualify under any
restrictive clause of Article 19, and was hence, held unconstitutional.428 Therefore,
administrative authorities need to give reasons for their actions lest they should be struck down
as being unconstitutional and violative of Part III rights.

423
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 555.
424
Sharma Transport v. Government of A.P, A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 322.
425
Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 818.
426
Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Woolcombers Workers Union, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2758.
427
M. P. Singh, “Duty to Give Reasons for Quasi-Judicial and Administrative Decisions” 21(1) Journal of Indian
Law Institute 45 (1979).
428
Anumathi Sadhukhan v. A.K. Chatterjee, A.l.R. 1951 Cal. 90.

Page | 109
VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL Vol. I (Nov. 2021)

Appellate and Supervisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts

Apart from the Part III requirements, the courts have held that, power of the Supreme Court
under Article 136 and the High Court under Article 226 and 227, to hear appeals from
administrative tribunals429 and to supervise over lower tribunals,430 respectively, would be
defeated unless reasons are given by such functionaries for their decisions. Giving reasons is
one of the fundamental elements of good administration and both the judicial and
administrative authorities are under a general duty to act accordingly.431 This not only
streamlines and accelerates the appeal procedure but also ensures that the appellate and
supervisory functions of the higher judiciary are exercised over the decision-making of the
lower courts and not on the merits of each and every case.

Statutory Obligation
Lastly and one of the most frequently used arguments in compelling administrative authorities
to give reasons is the obligation placed on them by their parent statute. There are multiple
statutes mandating giving reasons, such as, the Indian Police Service (Appointment of
Promotion) Regulation, 1955,432 the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951,433
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Mines Act, 1952,434 etc. They oblige administrative
and quasi-judicial authorities to give reasons for their actions and any default on this front will
result in court intervention and opens a possibility for the decision/order to be struck down and
even fines being paid.

THE WAY FORWARD

While there may be various elaborate ways through which administrative authorities are
compelled to give reasons for their actions, there also exist various lacunas in the operation of
the law with regards to this crucial aspect of accountability. To that effect, in this section,
firstly, I will highlight the lacunas present in the law with regard to the administrative
authorities giving reasons. Secondly, I will perform a comparative analysis of the US and the
UK administrative law on reasoned decision-making with the Indian law. Thirdly, I will make

429
Hari Nagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1669
430
Bhagat Raja v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1606
431
Govt. Branch Press v. Belliappa, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 429.
432
Uma Charan v. State Of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1915.
433
Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer And Ors., A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1121.
434
Union Of India v. Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 5160.

Page | 110
VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL Vol. I (Nov. 2021)

certain suggestion to reform the Indian administrative law for furthering the spirit of the third
principle of natural justice.

Lacunas in the Indian Law

The first and most important lacuna in this system is the inconsistency and non-uniformity
present in the law to mandate administrative authorities to give reasons. While the court in
most cases opines in favour of the citizen, there have been sporadic instances where the court
has denied any recourse to the individual and chose to not interfere in the authority’s stance of
not providing reasons for their actions.435 This is particularly visible in situations where the
parent act of the administrative authority is silent on the requirement of giving reasons. 436
However, while recent case laws have mandated judicial and quasi-judicial bodies to give
reasons, the same has not been entirely and uniformly reflected in non-judicial administrative
authorities.437 This is a very pertinent point to consider because in the case of tribunals, even if
they are not mandated to provide reasons, oral and personal hearings still exist. This enables
the party to atleast bring their case before the judge who can then apply his mind and decide
the issue. However, in the case of non-judicial administrative authorities, barring a few
exceptions, there exists no such opportunity for the aggrieved party.438
Another instance of non-uniformity is seen in how the courts respond to the administrative
authorities which do not give reasons. Certain times, they quash the entire decision and ask the
authorities to review the matter all over again,439 while other times, they just ask the authorities
to merely consider the matter and just record the reasons for reaching that decision.440
The second lacuna in this system is that when the parent statute is silent on giving reasons, the
authority, in numerous instances, just recuses itself from giving reasons, until it is forcibly
directed by the court to do so. This has the potential of becoming the norm in such
administrative actions. This creates a large burden on the individuals being affected by such
actions as they will have to keep going to the court to get any recourse. 441 While this may be

435
Supra note 26.
436
Nandram Hunatram, Calcutta v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1922.
437
Kishan Chand Arora v. Commissioner of Police, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 705; Mahabir Jute Mills v. Shibban Lai,
A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1302.
438
Supra note 26.
439
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. K.L. Ratna, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 71.
440
Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1402.
441
Supra note 6.

Page | 111
VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL Vol. I (Nov. 2021)

feasible for individuals with expendable money and time, majority of the citizens who do not
have access to such resources will be at the mercy of such authorities.442
The third lacuna is that there is no overarching landmark judgement, guidelines or legislations
which lay down the standard for measuring the adequacy of the reasons. There is a vacuum
regarding the detailed structuring and formulation of these reasons by the authorities. In certain
cases, the court has held that it need not go into the adequacy of the reasons,443 while in other
cases, it has rejected the reasons stating that they are not sufficient enough to show that the
officers have properly applied their mind to the case.444 Therefore, such inconsistencies and
obscurities in the law warrant for some changes to be brought about.

Comparative Analysis with the US and UK Administrative Law

The various lacunas of the Indian law can be contrasted against the more enabling provisions
present in the American and English jurisdictions.
While India doesn’t have any general legislation dealing with state administrative authorities,
in the US, there exists a federal statute called the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, which
governs the functioning of the administrative agencies of the US federal government. Since it
is also one of the most important pieces of legislations in the US, it is also called the
Constitution of the US administrative law.445 Section 8 of this act has been interpreted by the
US courts to mandate all administrative authorities to state their findings, conclusions and
reasons on all decision reached by them. This act extends equally to both quasi-judicial and
non-judicial administrative agencies.446 The act not only provides guidance for determining the
adequacy of the reasons, but also the procedure for approaching other responsibilities. Since
reasoned decision-making and legal reasoning form a core part of this mechanism, it has been
mandated for all administrative agencies.447
In the UK, on the other hand, there is Section 1.2 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958,
which provides that all tribunals listed in the statute, must mandatorily give oral or written

442
“Legal system geared to favour the rich, powerful: Justice Gupta”, The Hindu, 06 May 2020, available at
<https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/legal-system-geared-to-favour-the-rich-powerful-justice-
gupta/article31521708.ece> (last visited on 02 April 2020).
443
Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer and Ors., A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1121.
444
Mayer Simon Parur v. Advocate-General of Kerala, A.I.R. 1975 Ker 57.
445
Kristen E. Hickman and Richard J. Pierce, Federal Administrative Law: Cases and Materials (3rd edn, West
Academic Press 2020).
446
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co, 463 U.S. 29.
447
John F. Duffy, “Reasoned Decision making vs. Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office” 104 Iowa Law Review
2351 (2019).

Page | 112
VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL Vol. I (Nov. 2021)

reasons for their decisions.448 However, there are 2 caveats which differentiates this from its
US counterpart. Firstly, this duty only extends to administrative agencies performing
adjudicatory functions like the tribunals, and not non-judicial bodies. For other agencies,
reliance has to be placed in the diverse set of common law cases proving reason. Secondly, the
agency does not have any automatic duty to give reasons for all of its actions. It only needs to
give reasons if the same is requested by the involved parties.449

Reforms to the Indian Law

All the lacunas which are present in the Indian system is a result of the legislative void which
exists in this realm of reasoned decision making. As of now, there are multiple approaches
taken by the court to direct the administrative authorities to give reasons. Besides statutory
obligations, none of the basis employed by the courts are consistent and good enough to support
reasoned decision-making.450 Therefore, with the ever-expanding executive and their powers,
a legislation, which squarely deals with the entire Indian administration as suggested by the
14th Law Commission, is the call of the day. Among the two systems which were discussed, I
submit that the US model would be better suited for addressing all the current pitfalls in the
Indian constitutional democracy.
A comprehensive document which deals with all the substantive and procedural aspects of the
Indian administrative law has to be brought about. It should make it mandatory under the law
to give reasons for every administrative action/decision, be it judicial, quasi-judicial or non-
judicial functionaries.
The provision and its concurrent interpretation should be such that the reasons ought to be
simple and logical, so that the party to whom it is addressed can understand the same.451 The
detail and amount of reasons to be given by the authorities can be established in a staggered
manner, such that most of the officers should give brief reasons and elaborations for their
decision which should be unique to the facts of each case. At the same time, for certain few
functionaries where expedition and inexpensiveness is key, like passport, immigration, parole,
etc., the mandate can be laxed. The acceptance or rejection of any application can perhaps be
done by checking the relevant grounds in a pre-made response letter, as is the case in UK.452

448
Paul Paterson, “Administrative Decision-Making and the Duty to Give Reasons: Can and Must Dissenters
Explain Themselves?” 12 Auckland University Law Review 1 (2006).
449
Supra note 3.
450
H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India (4th edn, Universal Law Publishing 2015).
451
Supra note 6.
452
Supra note 26.

Page | 113
VISHWAKARMA UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL Vol. I (Nov. 2021)

All these detailed reforms to the administrative law can only be possible through a national-
level discussion and formulation of a legislation, which caters to all these policy
considerations.453

CONCLUSION
As the third principle of natural justice, reasoned decision making a critical role in all
democracies which have a separation of power dynamics within the state. From placing a check
on the abuse of power by the administrative agencies, to expediting the appellate process and
legitimising the state, giving reasons plays a pivotal role for the benefit of the state and
especially the citizens. The Indian state has also incorporated this practice in varied methods,
mainly as a result of judicial interpretation of legal statutes and concepts. While this may be
the case, there have been piecemeal and sporadic instances where the courts have ruled against
the aggrieved party thus, favouring the state for not giving reasons. To rectify such instances
and to ensure they do not occur again, there is a dire need of a national legislation on the Indian
administrative law, which can be reflective of the American Administrative Procedure Act.
Such a law will not only bring much-needed clarity to the obligations present on the ever-
growing administration, but also would lay down the procedure to be followed by such
authorities while executing their obligations.

453
Ibid.

Page | 114