UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus BIBHU PRASAD SARANGI AND OTHERS
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 13, Supreme Court of India, 2021
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Facts
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
13
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
v.
     BIBHU PRASAD SARANGI AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 821 of 2021)
MARCH 05, 2021
    [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Constitution of India -– Art.226 – Exercise of power under –
Necessity of independent application of mind – ‘Cut-copy-paste’ not a
substitute for substantive reasoning – Issue whether first respondent
was correctly denied selection having regard to the fact that a
disciplinary penalty had been imposed upon him – Appellant moved
before High Court in proceedings u/Art.226 for challenging order of
the Tribunal – High Court extracted portions of the judgment of the
Tribunal and declined to interfere stating that the Tribunal had not
committed any jurisdictional error – Held: There was no independent
application of mind to the controversy by the High Court – Technology
enables speed, efficiency and accuracy to judicial work – But prolific
use of ‘cut-copy-paste’ function should not become a substitute for
substantive reasoning which, in the ultimate analysis, is the defining
feature of the judicial process – Reasons constitute the soul of a judicial
decision – It was necessary for the High Court to express an opinion on
the merits of the rival submissions since it was seized of proceedings u/
Art.226 – High Court having not carried out the exercise, the judgment
of High Court is set aside – Writ petition restored to High Court –
Judgment / Order – Practice and Procedure – Service Law.
Remitting the matter to the High Court, the Court
HELD:1. There has been no independent application of
mind to the controversy by the High Court.  [Para 6][15-D-E]
2. 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. The size of judicial output does not
necessarily correlate to a reasoned analysis of the core issues in a
case. Technology enables judges to bring speed, efficiency and
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 13
13
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
accuracy to judicial work.  But a prolific use of the ‘cut-copy-
paste’ function should not become a substitute for substantive
reasoning which, in the ultimate analysis, is the defining feature
of the judicial process. Doing what the High Court has done in
the present case presents a veneer of  judicial reasoning, bereft
of the substance which constitutes the heart of the judicial
process. Reasons constitute the soul of a judicial decision. Without
them one is left with a shell which provides neither solace nor
satisfaction to the litigant. While it is important to keep an eye
on the statistics on disposal, the quality of justice brings legitimacy
to the judiciary. [Para 7][15-E-H; 16-A-B]
3.  It was necessary for the High Court to express an opinion
on the merits of the rival submissions since it was seized of
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.  The High Court
having not carried out the exercise, the impugned judgment and
order of the High Court is set aside. The writ petition shall stand
restored to the file of the High Court.  [Para 9][16-D-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 821 of
2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2019 of the High Court
of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P.(C) 13029 of 2019
Mrs. Lalita Kaushik, Adv. for the appellant.
Shubhranshu Padhi, Ashish Yadav, Rakshit Jain, Vishal Banshal,
Advs. for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y
CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal arises from a judgment and order of a Division
Bench of the High Court of Orissa dated 21 November 2019.
4. The appellant moved before the High Court in proceedings under
Article 226 of the Constitution for challenging an order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench1 dated 13 March 2019.  The
1 “Tribunal”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
15
Tribunal had directed the appellant to reconsider the case of the first
respondent for promotion to the IAS in accordance with the vacancies
for 2015 by reconvening a meeting of the Selection Committee and
thereafter, to reconsider the first respondent similarly for 2016 and 2017
if the first respondent was found unsuitable for promotion in the year
2015.  Consequential benefits were directed to be released in the event
that the Review Selection Committee found the first respondent suitable.
5. For the purpose of the present appeal, it is not necessary for
the Court to consider the facts of the case in detail  in view of what we
indicate hereafter.  In paragraph 4 of its judgment dated 21 November
2019, the High Court extracted portions of the judgment of the Tribunal.
Thereafter, the High Court noted that “the Tribunal has elaborately
discussed the law” while issuing directions.  Having said this, the High
Court made the following observations in paragraph 6 of its judgment:
“6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the materials including the impugned order.  Learned Tribunal has
elaborately dealt with the contentions of learned counsel for the
parties with reference to the materials available on record.”
6. In paragraph 7, the High Court held that the Tribunal has not
committed any jurisdictional error and no interference is warranted. There
has been no independent application of mind to the controversy by the
High Court.
7. 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. The size of judicial output does not necessarily correlate
to a reasoned analysis of the core issues in a case. Technology enables
judges to bring speed, efficiency and accuracy to judicial work.  But a
prolific use of the ‘cut-copy-paste’ function should not become a substitute
for substantive reasoning which, in the ultimate analysis, is the defining
feature of the judicial process.  Judges are indeed hard pressed for time,
faced with burgeoning vacancies and large case-loads. Crisp reasoning is
perhaps the answer. Doing what the High Court has done in the present
case presents a veneer of  judicial reasoning, bereft of the substance
which constitutes the heart of the judicial process. Reasons constitute the
soul of a judicial decision. Without them one is left with a shell. The shell
provides neither solace nor satisfaction to the litigant. We are constrained
to make these observations since what we have encountered in this case
is no longer an isolated aberration. This has become a recurring
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. BIBHU PRASAD
SARANGI AND OTHERS [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
phenomenon. The National Judicial Academy will do well to take this
up. How judges communicate in their judgments is a defining characteristic
of the judicial process. While it is important to keep an eye on the statistics
on disposal,  there is a higher value involved. The quality of justice
brings legitimacy to the judiciary.
8. In the present case, the issue was whether the first respondent
was correctly denied selection to the IAS having regard to the fact that a
disciplinary penalty had been imposed upon him on 29 September 2011.
The UPSC has 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.
9. We do not express any opinion on the merits of the rival
submissions.  It was necessary for the High Court to do so since it was
seized of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High
Court having not carried out the exercise, we set aside the impugned
judgment and order of the High Court dated 21 November 2019. The
writ petition under Article 226, WP(C) 13029 of 2019, shall stand restored
to the file of the High Court.
10. The first respondent has, in the meantime, retired from service.
The outcome of the
proceedings will have a bearing on his pensionary
benefits. Hence,  we request the High Court to take up the writ petition
for disposal at an early date and to endeavour to do so within a period of
four months from the date on which a certified copy of this order is
placed on the record.
11. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose
Appeal disposed of.