Inclination or disinclination of judges (even officers, authorities, members) should not come in way of justice and in not deciding matters properly.

[DEV KUMAR KOTHARI]

Disinclination of judges ( even officers, authorities, members)  should not come in way of justice and in not deciding matters properly.

Courts are to render justice:

Courts are to render justice. For rendering justice, it is necessary that petition and accompanying documents and related documents and information should be considered and parties (applicant and respondents) should be heard. Contentions raised must be considered. The matter has to be decided with open mind and not with closed mind with bias or presumption.

Mood of judges should not affect order or judgment:

Though judges are also human being and may have personal and natural limitations, however, they need to overcome any personal and natural limitations while rendering justice. Mood can have a role in their working but it should not affect. In case for any reason, on any day or in any matter judges are not suitable mood, it would be better to release file and take it after some time and in some situations, it can be deserving to release the file and matter can be taken by other judges.

Inclination and disinclination:

In context of human behavior and working popular meaning or general understanding of inclinations can be put in  following simple words and phrases:

Tendency towards any particular aspect, action, situation etc. to think in particular manner or style.

 A natural or acquired habit or characteristic or tendency of any person

An attitude of mind especially one that favors one alternative over others.

A preference or tendency, or a feeling that makes a person want to do something or not to do something.

Synonyms: favorable disposition, favorable tendency,  favorable attitude, mood to do.

Disinclination:

In context of human behavior and style of working or style of not to work general understanding of disinclination can be placed in simple words and phrases like:

       A reluctance, a resistive mood or lack of enthusiasm to do some thing or not or not to do particular work in desired manner or to just avoid doing it.

A feeling that you do not want to do it.

A feeling of not wanting to do something a tendency to avoid, delay or abandon a particular activity.

Synonyms:  reluctance, unwillingness, indisposition, not in mood.

Phases of inclination and disinclination and interchanges:

Therefore inclination and disinclination can have different colors in different situations. These are opposite. In case of personal attitude or behavior both can be different at different time or in different situations.

Therefore, these are personal behavioral aspects of any person including judges. It can be that a particular point of time I am not inclined to do some work or to help someone or even I am in in mood to consult or discuss even with wife or  a friend on any matter. Whereas, after some time is passed and more thoughts are processed my disinclination can be changed to inclination.

Supreme Court reverses order of High Court which was due to disinclination:

Reference of judgments:

VISHAL ASHWIN PATEL VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. RESPONDENT (S) CIRCLE 25 (3) & ORS. [2022 (3) TMI 1296 - SUPREME COURT]

VISHAL ASHWIN PATEL VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 25 (3) & ORS. [2022 (1) TMI 1223 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]

In these cases before the High Court issue was about  legality and validity of Reopening of assessment u/s 147. Notices issued by AO us 148 were challenged on several ground mentioned in Writ Petition.

The honorable High Court did not consider any of grounds and contentions and this has been noticed by the Supreme Court in judgment that ‘none of the grounds raised in the writ petitions has been dealt with and/or considered by the High Court on merits’.

High Court dismissed the writ petition giving reasons  of the disinclination to entertain the writ petitions.

The Supreme Court observed  on the following lines:

1. That the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the writ petitions in a most casual manner which is unsustainable. Except stating that ‘we are not inclined to entertain writ petition’, nothing further has been stated by the High Court giving reasons for the disinclination to entertain the writ petitions.
2.  The manner in which the High Court has dealt with and disposed of the writ petitions without passing any reasoned order is not appreciated by this Court.
3. When a number of issues/grounds were raised in the writ petitions, it was the duty cast upon the court to deal with the same and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order.
4. When the Constitution confers on the High Courts the power to give relief it becomes the duty of the Courts to give such relief in appropriate cases and the Courts would be failing to perform their duty if relief is refused without adequate reasons.
5.  Referring to earlier ruling While in the case of CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES VERSUS INDORE COMPOSITE PVT. LTD. [2018 (7) TMI 2206 - SUPREME COURT] Supreme Court again emphasized :

 the necessity to pass a reasoned order,  that the courts need to pass a reasoned order in every case . Reasoned order  must contain :

1. the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis,
2. the issues arising in the case,
3.  the submissions urged by the parties,
4. the legal principles applicable to the issues involved and
5. the reasons in support of the findings on all the issues arising in the case and urged by the learned counsel for the parties in support of its conclusion.

Their lordships expressed views:

1. Since we cannot countenance the manner in which the orders have been passed by the High Court
2. which has compelled us to remand the matter to the High Court for deciding the writ petitions afresh on merits,
3. we do so in light of the aforesaid observations.

Thus Supreme court  allowed  appeals and set aside the impugned orders passed by the High Court and remand the matters to the Division Bench of the High Court for deciding the writ petitions afresh in accordance with law, keeping in view observations made by the Supreme court.

Ground realities:

On reading of orders and judgments reported we can see that in majority of cases, orders passed do not satisfy all of above strict requirements as observed in the judgment of the Supreme Court.

This can be due to reason that there are large number of cases pending and new cases are filed regularly. Courts are burdened with work. It will not be possible to pass perfect orders in view of observations. This cannot be justified.

However, short orders can still be acceptable because  as a matter of practices prevalent concerned parties can still refer to petitions and contentions and counter contentions raised.

Parties to lis, can accept short orders provided that:

1. The order contains detailed and  understandable  reasons  of the order for accepting or not accepting any grounds of contentions or grounds and reasons for admitting or not admitting petition or deciding matter in favor of one party and against another party.

In short, the order must be clear about reason for particular decision so that parties to lis can check with facts and circumstances and contentions raised.

Order  cannot be that  we are / I do not want to entertain or

 we are / I am not interested to admit  or

Or we are/ I am not inclined to accept contentions.

Off course judges or authorities are free to take a decision in particular manner, but it must be reasoned in light of documents and evidences on record.

Another ground reality can be observed from orders including judgments with files and order sheets and nature of orders that many times orders and records reveal that the concerned officer, member or judge was inclined  to pass a justifiable order doing justice and  in some other cases  he was not inclined to do justice  rather he had preset mind to avoid justice and to do injustice may be just to delay justice and to put parties in difficult conditions having feeling of being harassed.  

These can also be indicative of possibility of corruption- doing favor in some cases  by doing justice and penalizing in another cases  by denying justice on flimsy grounds.