S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India · 28 August 1990 · 5 judges · 1990 AIR 1984; 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 44; 1990 SCC (4) 594
An administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must record reasons unless the requirement is excluded expressly or by necessary implication, but the Army Act and Rules exclude it for confirmation of court-martial findings and post-confirmation petitions.
Facts
The appellant, a Captain officiating as Major, commanded 38 Coy. ASC (Sup) attached to the Military Hospital, Jhansi. Discrepancies between two contingent bills for winter liveries of civilian employees led to a Court of Enquiry and a General Court Martial, which in November 1978 found him guilty of doing a thing with intent to defraud under Section 52(f) of the Army Act, 1950 and of an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline under Section 63, and sentenced him to dismissal. The Chief of the Army Staff confirmed the findings and sentence, and the Central Government rejected his post-confirmation petition under Section 164(2). Neither order gave reasons. The Delhi High Court dismissed his writ petition in limine, and he appealed by special leave. The appeal was listed before a Constitution Bench on the question whether reasons had to be recorded.
Questions before the Court
- Is there a general principle of law requiring an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions to record reasons for its decision?
- Does that principle apply to the confirmation of the findings and sentence of a court-martial and to orders on a post-confirmation petition under Section 164(2) of the Army Act, 1950?
- Did the appellant have a right to make a representation before confirmation, and were the court-martial's findings based on no evidence?
What the Court held
- Except where the requirement is dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions must record reasons for its decision. The requirement to record reasons is one of the principles of natural justice.
- The requirement applies whether or not the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. Reasons need not be as elaborate as a court's, but must be clear and explicit; an appellate or revisional authority affirming a reasoned order need not give separate reasons.
- The scheme of the Army Act and the Army Rules, 1954 excludes the requirement by necessary implication at the stages of court-martial findings and sentence, confirmation, and the post-confirmation petition under Section 164(2). Som Datt Datta's conclusion was therefore not reconsidered.
- Section 164(1) gives no right to petition against the finding or sentence before confirmation, so non-consideration of the appellant's representation did not vitiate the confirmation. The findings were supported by evidence, and the appeal was dismissed without costs.
- Such orders remain open to challenge under Article 32 or Article 226.
Why it matters
The judgment states the Indian rule that administrative authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions must give reasons, treating the duty as a principle of natural justice rather than a requirement only for decisions subject to appeal or review. It explains the purposes of reasons (excluding arbitrariness, ensuring fairness and enabling scrutiny) and recognises that a statute may exclude the duty expressly or by necessary implication, as the Army Act does for court-martial confirmation and post-confirmation proceedings.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasijudicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review.”
“Keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion, that the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules.”
“For the reasons aforesaid, it must be concluded that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decision.”
“For the reasons aforesaid it must be held that reasons are not required to be recorded for an order passed by the confirming authority confirming the findings and sentence recorded by the court-martial as well as for the order passed by the Central Government dismissing the post-confirmation petition.”
Provisions interpreted
- Section 164, Army Act, 1950
- Sections 153, 158, 160 and 162, Army Act, 1950
- Rules 62, 66, 69 to 71 and 147, Army Rules, 1954
Related judgments
- Follows A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)“This view is in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in A.K. Kraipak and Others v. Union of India and Others, [1970] 1 SCR 457” (page 15)
Case and bench
- Parties
- S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India
- Case
- Civil Appeal No. 417 of 1984
- Decided
- 28 August 1990
- Bench
- Mukharji, Sabyasachi (CJ), Agrawal, S.C. (J), Kania, M.H., Shetty, K.J. (J), Saikia, K.N. (J)
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment of the Court delivered by S.C. Agrawal, J.
Questions on this case
2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. A few from free papers:
Question 1 · Administrative Law Practice Set 1
Match List I with List II and select the correct code: List I A. Donoughmore Committee B. Franks Committee C. Conseil d'Etat D. Committee on Subordinate Legislation List II 1. Administrative tribunals and enquiries in the United Kingdom 2. Ministers' powers, including delegated legislation, in the United Kingdom 3. Parliamentary scrutiny in India of rules and regulations made under delegated powers 4. Highest administrative court in France
- A. A-2, B-1, C-3, D-4
- B. A-1, B-2, C-4, D-3
- C. A-3, B-4, C-2, D-1
- D. A-2, B-1, C-4, D-3
Show the answer
D. A-2, B-1, C-4, D-3
The Donoughmore Committee was the Committee on Ministers' Powers and the Franks Committee was the Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Enquiries, as noted in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (1990). The Conseil d'Etat heads the French administrative courts, and the Committee on Subordinate Legislation scrutinises delegated legislation for Parliament; its recommendations are not legally binding (Hundraj Kanyalal Sajnani v. Union of India, 1990).