Justice DWIVEDI, S.N. Justice REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN in Woolcombers Of India Ltd vs Woolcombers Workers Union - AIR 1973 SC 2758
“The judicial and quasi-judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction should give their reasons in support of their conclusions because of the following reasons :
(a) It is calculated to prevent unconscious unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions.
(b) It is a well known principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to have been done. In a sense, the conclusions may be just, but they may not appear to be just to those who read them; and
(c) That from an appeal to this Court under Art. 136, if the lower courts do not give reasons for their conclusions, it will be of little assistance to this Court to come to a correct decision. The Court will have to wade through the entire record and find for itself whether the decision in appeal is right or wrong. In many cases, this investment of time and industry will be saved if reasons are given in support of the conclusions.”
Justice BHAGWATI, P.N., Justice GUPTA, A.C., Justice FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA in Siemens Engineering & ... vs Union Of India & Anr AIR 1976 SC 1785. “If courts of law were to be replaced by administrative authorities and tribunals and with the proliferation of administrative law, they may have to be so replaced, it is essential that administrative authorities and tribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them. The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is like the principal of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law.”
Per Chandrachud, CJ. V.D. Tulzapurkar, R.S. Pathak & D.P. Madon JJ. - M.P. Thakkar,J. dissenting in Union of India and Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416. The principles of natural justice consist primarily of two main rules, namely, "nemo judex in cause sua" ("no man shall be a judge in his own cause") and "audi alteram partem" ("hear the other side"). The corollary deduced from the above two rules and particularly the audi alteram partem rule was "qui aliquid statuerit parte inaudita altera, adguum licet dixerit, haud aequum fecerit" ("he who shall decide anything without the other side having been heard, although he may have said what is right will not have done what is right" or as is now expressed "justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done"). These two rules and their corollary are neither new nor were they the discovery of English judges but were recognised in many civilizations and over many centuries. ………… The principles of natural justice apply both to quasi judicial as well as administrative inquiries entailing civil consequences. …… The principles of natural justice must be confined within their proper limits and not allowed to run wild. The concept of natural justice is a magnificant thorough bred on which this nation gallops forwards towards its proclaimed and destined goal of "JUSTICE, social, economic and political". This thoroughbred must not be allowed to turn into a wild and unruly house, carrering off were it lists, unsaddling its rider, and bursting into fields where the sign "no passaran" is put up.
