Suppose you file a case before a court and in its order, the court just says "Case dismissed" without any explanation. Even though your case has been decided, can it be said that you received justice?
According to a well-known adage, justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. If justice is "to be seen to be done", judgments should be a reasoned judgments. If a judgment can not convince people that it is fair, through cogent arguments, justice will not be seen to be done. That is why good judicial systems always emphasize reasoned judgments.
Judicial orders which define what the issues before the court are, decide these issues clearly and give reasons for deciding the issues in that particular way are called "Speaking orders". All courts are supposed to give speaking orders in every case before them. In Swaran Lata Vs. Harendra Kumar (AIR 1969 SC 1167), the Supreme Court of India has said "In a judicial trial, the Judge not only must reach a conclusion which he regards as just, but, unless otherwise permitted, by the practice of the Court or by law, he must record the ultimate mental process leading from the dispute to its solution. A judicial determination of a disputed claim where substantial questions of law or fact arise is satisfactorily reached, only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that suggest themselves to the Judge; a mere order deciding the matter in dispute is no judgment at all. Recording the reasons in support of a decision of a disputed claim serves more purposes than one. It is intended to ensure that the decision is not the result of whim or fancy, but of a judicial approach to the matter in contest; it is also intended to ensure adjudication of the matter according to law. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the Court has decided against him, and more so, when the judgment is subject to appeal. The Appellate Court will then have adequate material on which it may determine whether the facts are properly ascertained, the law has been correctly applied and the resultant decision is just."
Even though the Supreme Court, in this lucid order, has emphasized the need for speaking orders in all courts in all cases, the courts in India are not always following it. There might be a historical reason for this. During the British rule and the early days of independence, court orders were seldom challenged and the courts did not have to explain their decisions in great detail. As the spirit of democracy grew, the courts have become more responsive. But still nonspeaking orders are being given in too many cases, by courts at all levels, causing great hardship to the litigants and causing doubts in the minds of the public whether the decisions were "a result of whim or fancy" to which the above Supreme Court order alluded.
In fact as far back as 1984, the Supreme Court noticed that the problem was escalating (1984 AIR 444) and again urged lower courts to issue speaking orders in all cases. It said that if such an order is appealed against, the higher courts would have to inevitably stay the order because they would not know the logic behind the order. The Supreme Court admitted that it also gives nonspeaking orders, but defended such orders giving the reason that there can be no appeals against Supreme Court orders (But this defence of nonspeaking orders issued by the Supreme Court goes against the spirit of its own order quoted at the beginning!).
Despite these observations of the Supreme Court in 1984, the problem of nonspeaking orders is steadily getting worse. More and more orders, even from the apex court, do not address the issues raised in the complaints before them and do not explain the rationale behind the orders. Cases are being decided in one paragraph or even one sentence. This trend, if left unchecked, will erode the public's faith in the judiciary. A law which makes speaking orders mandatory may be required to enforce the observations of the Supreme Court quoted above and remedy the situation.
C.V. Nagaraj, Mysore Grahakara Parishat