CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 222 of 2008
PETITIONER: Ran Singh and Anr.
RESPONDENT: State of Haryana and Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/01/2008
The Supreme Court of India corrected the Punjab and Hariyana High Court, its action of not giving reasons for its judgement.
Brief details: A dowry harrassment case filed by bride's father.
Statute under discussion: Definition of dowry u/s 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Dowry Act).
Section 2. Definition of 'dowry' In this Act,
'dowry' means any property or valuable
security given or agreed to be given either
directly or indirectly
(a) by one party to a marriage to the
other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a
marriage or by any other person, to
either party to the marriage or to any
other person,
at or before or any time after the marriage in
connection with the marriage of the said
parties, but does not include dower or mehr
in the case of persons to whom the Muslim
personal law (Shariat) applies.
Explanation I- For the removal of doubts, it is
hereby declared that any presents made at
the time of a marriage to either party to the
marriage in the form of cash, ornaments,
clothes or other articles, shall not be deemed
to be dowry within the meaning of this
section, unless they are made as
consideration for the marriage of the said
parties.
Explanation II- The expression 'valuable
security' has the same meaning in Section 30
of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
The trial court held that no offenses could be made out against the father and mother. The High Court ordered added their names, without indicating reasons for its decision. The Supreme Court reversed the HIgh Court's decision. The Supreme Court's observations:
9. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest
consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth
its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an
application of its mind. The absence of reasons has rendered
the High Court's judgment not sustainable.
10. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning
M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All
E.R. 1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of the
fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery
(Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed:
"Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons
are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the
controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived
at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The
emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals
the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence,
render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their
appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in
adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an
indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least
sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter
before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can
know why the decision has gone against him. One of the
salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons
for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The
"inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a
judicial or quasi-judicial performance.
