REASONED ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS IN INDIA- THE EVOLUTION OF THE DUTY TO GIVE REASONS THROUGH JUDICIAL REVIEW

This paper charts the evolution of the duty to give reasons for administrative decisions in India. Neither the Constitution nor any general statute explicitly imposes this obligation but it emerged through judicial pronouncements from the Supreme Court beginning in Harinagar Sugar Mills (1961) and concluding in Anuradha Bhasin (2020). It is demonstrated that the duty evolved through three phases. Initially, it was justified as a supervisory tool for appellate and revisional orders then incorporated within article 14 and finally declared as a general principle of administration. In assessing the strictness of this obligation in four contexts dismissal from service, preventive detention, licence revocation and economic or fiscal decisions four variables consistently resurfaced the nature of the function, the value of the interest affected, the availability of review and possible competing public interests. These variables were found to operate in a manner akin to proportionality though implicitly and with varying degrees of consistency which may explain the divergence between the various cases, including the shift from Madhya Pradesh Industries to Bhagat Raja. It was further found that fiscal decisions are not subject to differential scrutiny per se, since adjudicative fiscal decisions involve a strict scrutiny standard whereas fiscal policy or commercial decisions are guided by leniency principles. Finally, a four-part framework for evaluating the duty’s strictness is proposed.