Supreme Court criticizes High Court’s ‘Cut-Copy-Paste’ Judgments in Promotion Case (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 05 March 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 123

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and M R Shah, J

Can a High Court merely reproduce the judgment of a lower tribunal without conducting its own analysis? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, expressing concern over the practice of some High Courts simply copying and pasting judgments from lower courts or tribunals. This case arose from a dispute over the promotion of a state civil service officer to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), where the High Court of Orissa had affirmed the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision without providing any independent reasoning. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Dr. Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over the denial of promotion to the first respondent, Bibhu Prasad Sarangi, to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS). A disciplinary penalty had been imposed on Mr. Sarangi on 29 September 2011. The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) contended that the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) guidelines apply to the constitution of Departmental Promotion Committees for promotion, while for selection of officers from state civil services to the IAS, the UPSC guidelines framed under Article 320 of the Constitution should be considered. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, had directed the UPSC to reconsider Mr. Sarangi’s case for promotion, which was challenged by the UPSC before the High Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Cuttack Bench, had directed the appellant, Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), to reconsider the case of the first respondent for promotion to the IAS for the year 2015. The Tribunal further directed that if the first respondent was found unsuitable for promotion in 2015, his case should be reconsidered for 2016 and 2017. The High Court of Orissa, in its judgment dated 21 November 2019, upheld the decision of the Tribunal, noting that the Tribunal had “elaborately discussed the law.” However, the High Court did not provide any independent reasoning or analysis of the case, instead, it extracted portions of the Tribunal’s judgment.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to Article 320 of the Constitution of India, which provides for the functions of the Union Public Service Commission. The UPSC guidelines, framed under this article, were relevant to the case. The court also noted that the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) guidelines apply to the constitution of Departmental Promotion Committees for promotion, whereas, in matters relating to selection of officers from the state civil services to the IAS, the UPSC Guidelines would have to be considered. The court did not delve into the specifics of these guidelines, but highlighted their relevance to the case.

Arguments

The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) argued that the High Court had not independently applied its mind to the case and had merely copied and pasted the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The UPSC submitted that the DOPT Guidelines apply to the constitution of Departmental Promotion Committees for the purpose of promotion, whereas, in matters relating to selection of officers from the state civil services to the IAS, the UPSC Guidelines which have been framed in exercise of powers under Article 320 of the Constitution would have to be considered. The UPSC contended that the High Court, in its judgment, simply extracted portions of the Tribunal’s judgment without providing any independent analysis or reasoning.

The respondents argued that the Tribunal had elaborately discussed the law and the High Court had rightly upheld the decision of the Tribunal. The respondents contended that the High Court’s judgment was valid since the Tribunal had thoroughly examined the matter.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the core issue before the court was whether the High Court had erred in simply adopting the reasoning of the Tribunal without any independent application of mind.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court dealt with the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. The Court primarily focused on the procedural lapse of the High Court in not providing independent reasoning. The Court did refer to Article 320 of the Constitution of India, which provides for the functions of the Union Public Service Commission.

Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, noting that the High Court had not independently applied its mind to the controversy. The Court emphasized that the High Court should have provided its own reasoning and analysis instead of simply copying the judgment of the Tribunal. The Court restored the writ petition to the file of the High Court for fresh consideration.

The following table shows how each submission made by the parties was treated by the Court:

The following table shows how each authority was viewed by the Court:

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by its concern over the lack of independent reasoning in the High Court’s judgment. The Court emphasized that a mere reproduction of the Tribunal’s judgment is not sufficient for the High Court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction. The Court underscored the importance of reasoned judgments in maintaining the legitimacy of the judicial process. The Court highlighted that while technology can enhance judicial efficiency, it should not replace the substantive reasoning that is the hallmark of judicial decision-making.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning process can be illustrated as follows:

The Court did not delve into the merits of the case but focused on the procedural lapse of the High Court. The Court rejected the argument that the High Court’s judgment was valid simply because the Tribunal had thoroughly examined the matter. The Court emphasized that the High Court should have provided its own reasoning and analysis.

The Supreme Court observed, “There has been no independent application of mind to the controversy by the High Court.” The Court also noted, “Cutting, copying and pasting from the judgment of the Tribunal, which is placed in issue before the High Court, may add to the volume of the judgment… but a prolific use of the ‘cut-copy-paste’ function should not become a substitute for substantive reasoning.” The Court further stated, “Reasons constitute the soul of a judicial decision. Without them one is left with a shell.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench.

The implications of this decision are significant for the judicial process. It reinforces the importance of reasoned judgments and highlights the need for High Courts to conduct their own analysis of cases instead of simply adopting the findings of lower courts or tribunals. This decision also serves as a reminder that while technology can enhance judicial efficiency, it should not compromise the quality of justice.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ High Courts must provide independent reasoning in their judgments.
• ✓ Copying and pasting from lower court judgments is not acceptable.
• ✓ Reasoned judgments are essential for maintaining the legitimacy of the judicial process.
• ✓ Technology should not replace substantive reasoning in judicial decision-making.
• ✓ The quality of justice is more important than the quantity of judgments.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to restore the writ petition to its file and dispose of it within four months from the date a certified copy of the order is placed on record. The Court also noted that the outcome of the proceedings would have a bearing on the first respondent’s pensionary benefits.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts must provide independent reasoning in their judgments and cannot simply copy and paste from lower courts or tribunals. This decision reinforces the importance of reasoned judgments and the need for High Courts to conduct their own analysis of cases. The Supreme Court’s judgment emphasizes that the quality of justice is more important than the quantity of judgments, and that technology should not replace substantive reasoning in judicial decision-making.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Union Public Service Commission vs. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi and others is a significant reminder of the importance of reasoned judgments in the judicial process. The Court’s criticism of the High Court’s practice of copying and pasting judgments underscores the need for High Courts to independently apply their minds to the cases before them. This decision is likely to have a positive impact on the quality of judicial decisions and reinforce the legitimacy of the judiciary.