IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA,

NATURAL LAW AND JUDICIAL APPROACH IN INDIA

Introduction

The concept of natural law has taken several forms. The idea began with the ancient Greeks' conception of a universe governed in every particular by an eternal,immutable law and in their distinction between what is just by nature and just byconvention. Stoicism provided the most complete classical formulation of natural law. The Stoics argued that the universe is governed by reason, or rational principle; they further argued that all humans have reason with in them and can therefore know and obey its law.Because human beings have the faculty of choice (a free will), they will notnecessarily obey the law; if they act in accordance with reason, however, they will be "following nature."

Holding that reasons are the heart-beat of any judgment, the Supreme Court of India in a recent decision has set to terms the procedure required to be observed by all courts in the country. Setting aside a decision of the High Court for want of reasoning, the Court referred to various earlier decisions and the consistentreiterationof the principles relating to assigning of reasons while disposing of a particular matter.

The doctrine of natural justice is undeniably an important thread in our legal heritage. The positive impact of the doctrine on public administration with reason is clear for all to see. It has become well-known and commonly practiced that decision-making should be free of bias and conflict of interest, reasonable , and that a person affected adversely and directly by an administrative decision should be given a prior warning and opportunity to comment. This adherence to natural justice goes well beyond administrative practice and is now rooted in many statutory schemes that spell out the hearing or adjudication procedures that must be followed by decision makers.

Natural Law

The unwritten body of universal moral principles that underlie the ethical and legal norms by which human conduct is sometimes evaluated and governed. Natural law is often contrasted with positive law, which consists of the written rules and regulations enacted by government. The term natural lawis derived from the Roman termjus naturale.Adherents to natural law philosophy are known as naturalists.Naturalists believe that natural law principles are an inherent part of nature and exist regardless of whether government recognizes or enforces them. Naturalists further believe that governments must incorporate natural law principles into their legal systems before justice can be achieved. There are three schools of natural law theory: divine natural law, secular natural law, and historical natural law.

Divine natural law represents the system of principles believed to have been revealed or inspired by God or some other supreme and supernatural being. These divine principles are typically reflected by authoritative religious writings such as Scripture. Secular natural law represents the system of principles derived from the physical, biological, and behavioral laws of nature as perceived by the human intellect and elaborated through reason. Historical natural law represents the system of principles that has evolved over time through the slow accretion of custom, tradition, and experience. Each school of natural law influenced the Founding Fathers during the nascent years of U.S. law in the eighteenth century and continue to influence the decision-making process of state and federal courts today.

Christian philosophers readily adapted Stoic natural law theory, identifying natural law with the law of God. For Thomas Aquinas, natural law is that part of the eternal law of God ("the reason of divine wisdom") which is knowable by human beings by means of their powers of reason. Human, or positive, law is the application of natural lawto particular social circumstances. Like the Stoics, Aquinas believed that a positive law that violates natural law is not true law. With the secularization of society resulting from the Renaissance and Reformation, natural law theory found a new basis in human reason. The 17th-century Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius believed that humans by nature are not only reasonable but social. Thus the rules that are "natural" to them -- those dictated by reason alone -- are those which enable them to live in harmony with one another. From this argument, by the way, Grotius developed the first comprehensive theory of international law.

JUDICIAL APPROACHES IN INDIA

1. Judicial approach of Legal Aid before 42nd Amendment of the Indian Constitution:

Though the Legal Aid movement in India has got impetus on the part of judiciary itself, initially the approach of judiciary in interpreting the provisions of the Constitution of India or other statutes conferring Legal Aid benefits was not much liberal as it exists now. However, in India as there is an adversarial judicial system based on the Anglo-Saxon Jurisprudence. As far as the Indian scenario is considered, the weakness of such a system lies in the fact that, the victim faces difficulties in satisfying the Court of Law about his innocence and many times it may place a poor victim in a defeating position. No doubt, there are some provisions in the existing statutes and the Constitution of India itself dealing with Legal Aid benefit but they were not given expansive interpretation by Courts at initial stages. As an effect, though law provided for representation through a lawyer it was considered as a duty of accused or his relatives to make arrangements for the same. State had no obligation in this respect. Thus, in spite of there being the provisions conferring the benefit of Legal Aid to poor litigants, effectiveness and implementation of the same was not satisfactorily. In this context, it is important to note that the insertion of Article 39-A in the Constitution of India by way of 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 has changed the scene totally.

2. Judicial approach of Legal Aid after 42nd Amendment of the Indian Constitution:

As stated earlier, the 42nd Amendment, 1976 in the Constitution of India is the most extensive and exhaustive of the Amendments made so far. It inter alia inserted Article 39-A in the Constitution of India as one of the Directive Principles of State Policy. It aimed at delivering of equal justice with the instrument of Legal Aid. In spite of being a mere directive to the State, it has become capable of causing far reaching effects on the entire legal system in India only due to its dynamic and humanistic interpretation at the hands of Indian Judiciary. Thus, it can be said that insertion of Article 39-A in the Constitution of India has brought about a revolutionary change in the field of Legal Aid in India.3. Judicial activism in Indian Legal System- The Powers of the Supreme Court for the protection of the constitutional rights of citizen are of the widest amplitude and there is no reason why the court should not adopt activist approach similar to court in America and issue to the state directions which may involve taking of positive action with a view to securing enforcement of the fundamental rights.

In Hussainara Khatoon versus state of Bihar the Supreme court has held that speedy trial is an essential and integral part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21. In Bihar a number of under trial prison were kept in various jails for several years without trial. The court ordered that all such prisoners whose names were submitted to the court should be released forthwith. Since speedy trial was held to be a fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21 the Supreme Court considered its constitutional duty to enforce this right of the accused person. The Supreme Court pivotal role in making up for the lethargy of the legislative and inefficiency of the executive is commendable. Those who opposed the growing judicial activism of the higher courts do not realise that it has proved a boon for the common man.

Application of Judicial Activism Judicial law rests on the efficiency of his application and also on the law enforcement machinery. The law enforcing agency should follow the provisions of the law and apply the law in practice fairly, honestly, impartially and free from all kinds of bias. Rule of law rests on the pillar of an independent, honest, segment and impartial judiciary. The judiciary ought to interpret law in such a manner which the aims and objects of constitution. It must keep an eye on the actions of the executive and the lad passed by the legislature so that they confirm to the fundamental laws of the land. In view of the role assigned to the judiciary by the constitution as the supreme arbiter to darken about the constitutional validity of the laws made by the legislature and the legal and constitutional validity of acts of the executive. It is felt that any attempt to make the higher judges vulnerable i n t h e security of their tenure would be retrecrade step fought with serious consequences for the independence of judiciary upon which depends the rule of law so vital for the survival of democratic polity. There has no doubt been a general decline during recent years in our allegiance to moral values. This has been so in most spheres of our national life. In such an atmosphere it is unrealistic to believe that the judges would remain unaffected by the general malaise and decline in moral standards. We have to bear in mind that judges too are an integral part of society and are not denizens of and her planet living in a different stratosphere above and far from that in which reside the other mortals with all their weaknesses4. Judicial Review and Natural Law

In its capacity as the guardian of the Constitution the Supreme Court of India possesses implied power to declare any Act of the Central or State Legislature or any decree of the Executive as ultra vires, if it does not conform to the provisions of the Constitution.The power of the Judiciary to review the Act of the Legislature or the Executive in order to determine its constitutional propriety is known as the Doctrine of Judicial Review.

America is the classic home of judicial review. It was an extra constitutional growth in America. In the famous case of Marbury vs. Madison Chief Justice John Marshall of the United States emphatically pronounced the power of the Court to declare the act of the legislature as ultra vires. Marshall claimed this power of the Court from famous clause of Due Process of Law of the American Constitution. One of the Bills Of Rights in the American Constitution is that No person shall be deprived of his life, liberty and property without due process of law.

American Jurists claim that Law in this Clause is akin to Natural Law. According to Daniel Webster the meaning of Due Process of Law is that Every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property and immunities for the protection of general laws which govern society. Due in this clause has been taken to mean What is just and proper and Law as Natural Law. Thus the Judicial Review in the American Constitution has two aspects, namely, procedural and Substantive. The Supreme Court can challenge an Act if either its procedure is defective or the substance contained in it is against the canons of the natural law or natural justice.

The power of judicial review is explicit in the Constitution of India. Further, the scope of judicial review in India is not as wide as that of the United States of America. The scope of judicial review is comparatively limited in India because of the fact that the Constitution of India is the longest written Constitution in the world. All provisions including the distribution of powers between the Union and the States have been elaborately enumerated. The enumeration of Fundamental Rights along with its limitations in detail has also restricted the scope of judicial review in India. Further, there is a vital distinction between the two clauses contained in the respective Constitutions, namely, Due Process of Law of the American Constitution and Procedure established by Law of the Indian Constitution.

Article 21 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. The word law in the clause procedure established by law does not mean natural law but it implies State made law.

If the State makes law through which life or personal liberty of the citizen is deprived of the Supreme Court cannot question it on the ground of natural law or natural justice. The Court can only question the procedure through which the person is deprived of his life or personal liberty.

The Supreme Court of India in the famous case of A. K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras accepted its own limitations. It decided that the Procedure established by Law is not same as Due Process of Law of the American Constitution and by adopting that phrase, the Constitution-makers of India gave the Legislature the final word to determine law. Thus the reasonableness of law cannot be questioned in India by the Supreme Court on substantive grounds. Only the procedural aspect of the judicial review is found in the Indian Constitution but not that of its substantive aspect. Further, the Supreme Court can declare any legislation as ultra vires if it goes against any provision of the Constitution. It can declare any act of the Legislature or the Executive as unconstitutional if it violates any of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Justice B. K. Mukherjee correctly assessed the position of our Supreme Court in the following words:- In India it is the Constitution that is Supreme and Parliament as well as Stale legislatures must not only act within the limits of their respective legislative spheres as demarcated in the three lists occurring in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, but Part 3 of the Constitution guarantees to the citizen certain fundamental rights which the legislative authority can on no account transgress. A statute or law to be valid must, in all cases, be in conformity with the constitutional requirements and it is for the judiciary to decide whether any enactment is unconstitutional or not.

Natural Law and the Supreme Court of IndiaIn recent years, the ideas of natural law have become more and more important and have been relied upon by the Supreme Court of India and High Courts in their decisions. In A.K.Kraipak v. Union of India, the Supreme Court observed that the aim of the rules ofnatural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively, to prevent miscarriage ofjustice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. They do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it. The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. In the past it was thought that itincluded just two rules, namely:

1. No one shall be a judge in his own cause(nemo debet esse judex propria causa).

2. No decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing(audi alteram partem).

Very soon thereafter, a third rule was added which provides that quasi-judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and notarbitrarily or unreasonably. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court observed that naturaljustice is a great humanising principle intended to invest law with fairness and to secure justice. Over the years, it has grown into a widely pervasive rule affecting large areas of administrative action. The soul of natural justice is fair play in action and it has received widest recognition throughout the democratic world.The Supreme Court held that even the procedure laid down by law must be right, just and fair. It is liable to be set aside on the ground that it is not reasonable.

Natural Law (Reasoning) and Indian Judiciary DecisionsHolding that reasons are the heart-beat of any judgment, the Supreme Court in a recent decision has set to terms the procedure required to be observed by all courts in the country. Setting aside a decision of the High Court for want of reasoning, the Court referred to various earlier decisions and the consistentreiterationof the principles relating to assigning of reasons while disposing of a particular matter.

The Supreme Court explained the principle as under;

1. The increasing institution of cases in all Courts in India and itsresultant burden upon the Courts has invited attention of all concerned inthe justice administration system. Despite heavy quantum of cases inCourts, in our view, it would neither be permissible nor possible to state asa principle of law, that while exercising power of judicial review onadministrative action and more particularly judgment of courts in appealbefore the higher Court, providing of reasons can never be dispensed with.The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials. Firstly, aperson against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights arelikely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of beingheard. Secondly, the concerned authority should provide a fair andtransparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must apply itsmind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order. This hasbeen uniformly applied by courts in India and abroad.

2. The Supreme Court in the case ofS.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, while referring to the practice adopted and insistenceplaced by the Courts in United States, emphasized the importance ofrecording of reasons for decisions by the administrative authorities andtribunals. It said administrative process will best be vindicated by clarityin its exercise. To enable the Courts to exercise the power of review inconsonance with settled principles, the authorities are advised of theconsiderations underlining the action under review. This Court withapproval stated:-the orderly functioning of the process of reviewrequires that the grounds upon which the administrativeagency acted be clearly disclosed and adequatelysustained.

3. In exercise of the power of judicial review, the concept of reasonedorders/actions has been enforced equally by the foreign courts as by thecourts in India. The administrative authority and tribunals are obliged togive reasons, absence whereof could render the order liable to judicialchastise. Thus, it will not be far from absolute principle of law that theCourts should record reasons for its conclusions to enable the appellate orhigher Courts to exercise their jurisdiction appropriately and in accordancewith law. It is the reasoning alone, that can enable a higher or an appellatecourt to appreciate the controversy in issue in its correct perspective and tohold whether the reasoning recorded by the Court whose order isimpugned, is sustainable in law and whether it has adopted the correctlegal approach. To sub-serve the purpose of justice delivery system,therefore, it is essential that the Courts should record reasons for itsconclusions, whether disposing of the case at admission stage or after regular hearing.

4. At the cost of repetition that the Court hasconsistently taken the view that recording of reasons is an essential featureof dispensation of justice. A litigant who approaches the Court with anygrievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grantor rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recordingof reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice tothe affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the properadministration of justice. These principles are not only applicable toadministrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, infact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. Ajudgment without reasons causes prejudice to the person against whom itis pronounced, as that litigant is unable to know the ground which weighedwith the Court in rejecting his claim and also causes impediments in histaking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher Court in theevent of challenge to that judgment. Now, we may refer to certainjudgments of this Court as well as of the High Courts which have taken this view.

5. In the case ofSiemensEngineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India andAnr. [], the Supreme Court held as under:-

If courts of law are to be replaced byadministrative authorities and tribunals, as indeed, insome kinds of cases, with the proliferation ofAdministrative Law, they may have to be so replaced,it is essential that administrative authorities andtribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to thepersons sought to be affected by their orders and givesufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of theorders made by them. Then alone administrativeauthorities and tribunals exercising quasi-judicial function will be able to justify their existence and carrycredibility with the people by inspiring confidence inthe adjudicatory process. The rule requiring reasons tobe given in support of an order is, like the principle ofaudi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justicewhich must inform every quasi-judicial process andthis rule must be observed in its proper spirit and merepretence of compliance with it would not satisfy therequirement of law.

6. In the case ofMc Dermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co.Ltd. and Ors., the Supreme Court clarified the rationalitybehind providing of reasons and stated the principle as follows:-. . . Reason is a ground or motive for a belief or acourse of action, a statement in justification orexplanation of belief or action. It is in this sense thatthe award must state reasons for the amount awarded.The rationale of the requirement of reasons is thatreasons assure that the arbitrator has not acted capriciously. Reasons reveal the grounds on which theArbitrator reached the conclusion which adverselyaffects the interests of a party. The contractualstipulation of reasons means, as held in Poyser andMills Arbitration in Re, `proper adequate reasons.Such reasons shall not only be intelligible but shall be areason connected with the case which the Court can seeis proper. Contradictory reasons are equal to lack ofreasons. . . .

7. InGurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab, whiledealing with the matter of selection of candidates who could be underreview, if not found suitable otherwise, the Court explained the reasonsbeing a link between the materials on which certain conclusions are basedand the actual conclusions and held, that where providing reasons forproposed supersession were essential, then it could not be held to be avalid reason that the concerned officers record was not such as to justifyhis selection was not contemplated and thus was not legal. In this context,the Court held Reasons are the links between the materials onwhich certain conclusions are based and the actualconclusions. The Court accordingly held that themandatory provisions of Regulation 5(5) were notcomplied with by the Selection Committee. That anofficer was not found suitable is the conclusion andnot a reason in support of the decision to supersedehim. True, that it is not expected that the SelectionCommittee should give anything approaching thejudgment of a Court, but it must at least state, as brieflyas it may, why it came to the conclusion that the officerconcerned was found to be not suitable for inclusion inthe Select List.

This principle has been extended to administrative actions on thepremise that it applies with greater rigor to the judgments of the Courts.InState of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan , while remanding the matter to the High Court for examination ofcertain issues raised, this Court observed:. . . It would be for the benefit of this Court that aspeaking judgment is given.

In the cases where the Courts have not recorded reasons in thejudgment, legality, propriety and correctness of the orders by the Court ofcompetent jurisdiction are challenged in absence of proper discussion.The requirement of recording reasons is applicable with greater rigor to thejudicial proceedings. The orders of the Court must reflect what weighedwith the Court in granting or declining the relief claimed by the applicant.In this regard we may refer to certain judgments of this Court.

8. A Bench of Bombay High Court in the case ofM/s. Pipe Arts IndiaPvt. Ltd. V. Gangadhar Nathuji Golamare [], wherein the Bench was concerned with an appeal against anorder, where prayer for an interim relief was rejected without stating anyreasons in a writ petition challenging the order of the Labour Court noticed, that legality, propriety and correctness of the order waschallenged on the ground that no reason was recorded by the learnedSingle Judge while rejecting the prayer and this has seriously prejudicedthe interest of justice. After a detailed discussion on the subject, theCourt held:-

The Supreme Court and different High Courts havetaken the view that it is always desirable to recordreasons in support of the Government actions whetheradministrative or quasi judicial. Even if the statutoryrules do not impose an obligation upon the authoritiesstill it is expected of the authorities concerned to actfairly and in consonance with basic rule of law. Theseconcepts would require that any order, particularly, the order which can be subject matter of judicial review, isreasoned one. Even in the case ofChabungbambohalSingh v. Union of India and Ors. 1995 (Suppl) 2 SCC83, the Court held as under:His assessment was, however, recorded as"very good" whereas qua the appellant it hadbeen stated unfit. As the appellant was beingsuperseded by one of his juniors, we do notthink if it was enough on the part of theSelection Committee to have merely statedunfit, and then to recommend the name of oneof his juniors. No reason for unfitness, isreflected in the proceedings, as against whatearlier Selection Committees had done towhich reference has already been made.In the case ofJawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors., accepting the plea that absenceof examination of reasons by the High Court on thebasis of which the trial Court discarded prosecutionevidence and recorded the finding of an acquittal infavour of all the accused was not appropriate, theSupreme Court held that the order should recordreasons. Recording of proper reasons would beessential, so that the Appellate Court would haveadvantage of considering the considered opinion of theHigh Court on the reasons which had weighed with thetrial Court.9. In the case ofState of Punjab and Ors. v. SurinderKumar and Ors, while noticing thejurisdictional distinction between Article 142 andArticle 226 of the Constitution of India, the SupremeCourt stated that powers of the Supreme Court underArticle 142 are much wider and the Supreme Courtwould pass orders to do complete justice. The 10. SupremeCourt further reiterated the principle with approval thatthe High Court has the jurisdiction to dismiss petitionsor criminal revisions in limini or grant leave asked forby the petitioner but for adequate reasons which shouldbe recorded in the order. The High Court may not passcryptic order in relation to regularisation of service ofthe respondents in view of certain directions passed bythe Supreme Court under Article 142 of theConstitution of India. Absence of reasoning did notfind favour with the Supreme Court. The SupremeCourt also stated the principle that powers of the HighCourt were circumscribed by limitations discussed anddeclared by judicial decision and it cannot transgressthe limits on the basis of whims or subjective opinionvarying from Judge to Judge.

In the case ofHindustan Times Ltd. v. Union of Indiaand Ors., the Supreme Court whiledealing with the cases under the Labour Laws andEmployees' Provident Funds and MiscellaneousProvisions Act, 1952 observed that even when thepetition under Article 226 is dismissed in limini, it isexpected of the High Court to pass a speaking order,may be briefly.Consistent with the view expressed by the SupremeCourt in the afore-referred cases, in the case ofState ofU.P. v. Battan and Ors., theSupreme Court held as under:The High Court has not given any reasonsfor refusing to grant leave to file appealagainst acquittal. The manner in whichappeal against acquittal has been dealt withby the High Court leaves much to be desired.Reasons introduce clarity in an order. Onplainest consideration of justice, the HighCourt ought to have set forth its reasons,howsoever brief, in its order. The absence ofreasons has rendered the High Court ordernot sustainable.Similar view was also taken by the Supreme Court inthe case ofRaj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors..In a very recent judgment, the Supreme Court in thecase ofState of Orissa v. D haniram Luharwhile dealing with the criminal appeal,insisted that the reasons in support of the decision wasa cardinal principle and the High Court should recordits reasons while disposing of the matter. The Courtheld as under:8. Even in respect of administrative orders LordDenning, M.R. InBreen v. Amalgamated Engg.Unionobserved:The giving of reasons is one of thefundamentals of good administration." InAlexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtreeit was observed: "Failure to give reasonsamounts to denial of justice." "Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker tothe controversy in question and the decision orconclusion arrived at." Reasons substitutesubjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis onrecording reasons is that if the decision revealsthe "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by itssilence, render it virtually impossible for theCourts to perform their appellate function orexercise the power of judicial review inadjudging the validity of the decision. Right toreason is an indispensable part of a soundjudicial system; reasons at least sufficient toindicate an application of mind to the matterbefore Court. Another rationale is that theaffected party can know why the decision hasgone against him. One of the salutaryrequirements of natural justice is spelling outreasons for the order made; in other words, aspeaking-out. The "inscrutable face of thesphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicialor quasi-judicial performance.

11. By practice adopted in all Courts and by virtue of judge made law,the concept of reasoned judgment has become an indispensable part ofbasic rule of law and, in fact, is a mandatory requirement of the procedurallaw. Clarity of thoughts leads to clarity of vision and proper reasoning isthe foundation of a just and fair decision. In the case ofAlexanderMachinery (Dudley) Ltd., there are apt observations in this regardto say failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons arethe real live links to the administration of justice. With respect we willcontribute to this view. There is a rationale, logic and purpose behind areasoned judgment. A reasoned judgment is primarily written to clarifyown thoughts; communicate the reasons for the decision to the concernedand to provide and ensure that such reasons can be appropriatelyconsidered by the appellate/higher Court. Absence of reasons thus wouldlead to frustrate the very object stated hereinabove. The order in thepresent case is as cryptic as it was in the case ofSunil Kumar Singh Negi(supra). Being a cryptic order and for the reasons recorded in that case bythis Court which we also adopt, the impugned order in the present appealshould meet the same fate.

Conclusion

The concept of natural law has been used to support different ideologies from time to time. It has been used not only to support absolutism, individualism but also to overthrow government. The natural law philosophy has contributed a lot in the development of law and legal system. The natural law principles of justice, morality and conscience have been embodied in various legal systems. Man-made positive laws are arbitrary and contingent whereas natural being regulated by laws of nature is inevitable and obligatory. Natural law emanating from human reasoning which is known for itsuniformity and general acceptance is not variable. Natural law helped in denouncing the divine authority of theChurch.It helped in generating a favorable climate for reformation, renaissance and provided a sound foundation for fundamental human rights.

On the basis of various judicial approach of Judiciary of India fairness may also demand that the public body give reasons for their decision. Certain statutory procedures will require this, although there is no specific requirement in law generally. However, more recent cases have suggested that in certain circumstances reasons should be given, and this will often depend on the nature of the decision and how important it is to an individual. Reasons for a decision may be required when the decision-maker is a professional judge, the decision would otherwise appear aberrant (aberrant meaning to diverge from the normal type), or where the subject matter is particularly highly regarded, such as a persons liberty. References Section 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1360

1803

1950

(1990) 4 SCC 594

AIR 1976 SC 1785

(2006) SLT 345

(1979) 2 SCC 368

(1981) 4 SCC129

2008 (6) Maharashtra LawJournal 280

(1987) 2 SCC 222

(1992) 1 SCC 489

(1998) 2 SCC 242

(2001) 10 SCC 607

JT 2003 (Supp.2) SC 354

(2004) 5SCC 568

supra

A PROJECT ON JURISPRUDECNE Page 12