9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issue of disposing of appeals without recording reasons u/s 136 of the Constitution. The judgment addressed the issue of the High Court disposing of appeals without recording reasons, as highlighted by the appellant's counsel. The Court emphasized the importance of recording reasons to ensure transparency and facilitate review by superior courts. It referenced past cases such as State of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi to underscore the necessity of providing reasoned judgments to avoid complications in the appellate process. The Court reiterated that final orders should not be pronounced without supporting reasons to enable effective judicial review and prevent hasty decisions. Furthermore, the judgment discussed the distinction between courts whose judgments are final and those subject to appeal, emphasizing the need for reasons to be assigned for orders. It cited State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar to clarify that while it may not be imperative for the Supreme Court to provide reasons for every order, such a requirement is crucial for lower courts subject to appellate scrutiny. The Court cautioned against adopting a practice of issuing final orders without recording reasons, urging all courts, including High Courts, to adhere to the principles established by previous rulings. In light of the above principles, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and remitting the matter for reconsideration with the directive to provide a reasoned judgment. The appellant's request for bail was not granted by the Supreme Court, with the suggestion that the High Court should evaluate the bail plea independently. The Court clarified that its decision did not delve into the merits of the case, leaving it to the High Court to adjudicate based on its own assessment of the facts and arguments presented.
|
