Principles on Recording Reasons
The Supreme Court in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan [(2010) 9 SCC 496] laid down the most comprehensive and authoritative summary of the law on recording of reasons by administrative and quasi-judicial authorities.
In para 51 of the judgment, the Court distilled the entire line of precedent into eleven guiding principles on why reasons must be recorded.
Reasons Bring in Objectivity
The Court held that reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Recording of reasons operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial, or even administrative power. Where a decision reveals the ‘inscrutable face of the sphinx,’ its silence renders it virtually impossible for courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision.
Reasons Enable the Affected Party to Know What Went Against Him
The Court explained that reasons reassure the affected party that discretion has been exercised on relevant grounds, disregarding extraneous considerations. The right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, allowing the affected party to know why a decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made — in other words, passing a speaking order.
Rules of Natural Justice Prevent Miscarriage of Justice
The Court traced this obligation through a long line of earlier decisions, including Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar [AIR 2003 SC 1571] and in Rama Varma Bharathan Thampuran v. State of Kerala and Ors. [AIR 1979 SC 1918], where a three Judge Bench of the Kerala High Court held that the functioning of the Board in question was quasi-judicial in character, and that one of the attributes of quasi-judicial functioning is the recording of reasons in support of decisions taken, alongside compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The object underlying the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure fair play in action. The recording of reasons by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority serves a salutary purpose — it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. It applies equally to all decisions made by such authority, and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision, or judicial review.
Reasons Need Not be as Elaborate as in a Judicial Order
At the same time, it is not required that reasons be as elaborate as in a decision of a Court of law. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit, so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy.
Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in the order passed by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority.
Kerala High Court’s Recent Application of the Principle
The Kerala High Court applied Kranti Associates directly in Ismail Kunju M. v. State of Kerala (2025), a case concerning rejection of an organ (kidney) transplant application. Referring to Kranti Associates, the Bench observed that such a rejection directly affects a person’s right to life and health, and held the Authorisation Committee’s order defective because it disclosed no reasons whatsoever and relied on an undisclosed police report that was never furnished to the affected parties — compounding the violation with a further breach of natural justice.
