Part 1 — What is a "Reasoned Decision"?
A reasoned decision is what the book calls a speaking order — an order that "speaks for itself or tells its own story." It is an order that gives the
person affected enough information to understand why the authority decided as it did.
Cite Dhanda directly here. The book notes that recording reasons is a principle of natural justice and that every judicial or quasi-judicial order must
be supported by reasons recorded in writing, because this "ensures transparency and fairness in decision-making" and the person adversely affected
"comes to know as to why his application has been rejected."
The book also cites the Apex Court in State of West Bengal v. Atul Krishna Shaw: "Reasoned decision is not only for the purpose of showing that
the citizen is receiving justice, but also a valid discipline for the Tribunal itself. Therefore, statement of reasons is one of the essentials of justic
Why Are Reasoned Decisions Essential? (The Five Core Reasons)
1. Preventing arbitrariness and abuse of power. The book quotes Justice Subba Rao in M.P. Industries v. Union of India: if tribunals can make
orders without giving reasons, "the said power in the hands of unscrupulous or dishonest officers may turn out to be a potent weapon for abuse of
power." In the scenario, the one-line rejection is the exact kind of order that could hide political interference — and the absence of reasons makes
it impossible to challenge.
2. Enabling the right to appeal. This is perhaps the most powerful argument. The book states clearly that "failure to give reasons amounts, in
substance, to depriving the party of the right of appeal or revision." In Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court quashed
both the licensing authority's order and the appellate order for failure to give reasons, holding that the practice of dismissing appeals without
reasons "is a negation of the rule of law." In the scenario, even if there is an appeal mechanism, it becomes meaningless — you cannot argue
against something you don't know.
3. Enabling judicial review. Courts exercising supervisory jurisdiction under constitutional provisions cannot function without knowing the
reasoning of the lower authority. The book quotes Bhagat Raja v. Union of India: "both the High Court and this Court are placed under a great
disadvantage if no reasons are given and the revision is dismissed curtly by the use of the single word 'rejected' or 'dismissed'." The one-line order
in the scenario does exactly this.
4. Public confidence in administration. The book cites Prasad v. State of Karnataka quoting Lord Denning: "The giving of reasons is one of the
fundamentals of good administration." Unreasoned decisions may be just but cannot appear just. "Justice should not only be done but should also
be seen to be done." A young entrepreneur who has invested everything and gets a one-line rejection loses not just her license, but her faith in the
system itself.
5. Discipline for the decision-maker. Requiring reasons forces the authority to apply its mind carefully. The book explains that reasons "minimise
chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfairness." In other words, when an officer knows they have to explain their decision in
writing, they are far less likely to decide on the basis of political pressure, personal bias, or whim.