List of Non-Speaking Order Judgments of Supreme Court.

In Lalankumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra, the court held that the order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt, that the order need not contain detailed reasons”. No doubt, that the order need not contain detailed reasons.

In JM Laboratories v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Appeal no. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5067 of 2024) Series of Judments read as under:

• In INOX Air Products Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024)  the Court held that summoning orders must reflect the Magistrate’s application of mind and cannot be passed mechanically.
• In Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate [(1998) 5 SCC 749] The Court emphasized that summoning an accused is a serious matter, and the Magistrate must examine the complaint, the evidence, and apply judicial mind before issuing process.
• In Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2015) 4 SCC 609] Reiterated that “sufficient ground for proceeding” under Section 204 CrPC requires due application of mind, and the reasoning must be reflected in the order.
• In Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda [(2015) 12 SCC 420] Confirmed the need for the Magistrate to record reasons while issuing process and not act as a mere post office for the complainant.
• In Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2021) 5 SCC 435] The Court held that a Magistrate must exercise discretion carefully and judicially at the stage of taking cognizance and issuing process.
• In Lalankumar Singh(Supra) Reinforced that the issuance of process is not an empty formality and must show the Magistrate’s satisfaction based on material before the court.
• In Ashoke Mal Bafna v. Upper India Steel Manufacturing & Engineering Co. Ltd. [(2018) 14 SCC 202] (briefly mentioned) Supported the requirement of judicial scrutiny and reasoning in summoning orders.

In Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Saheli Leasing, Civil Appeal No.4278 Of 2010, reiterate guidelines for the courts, while writing orders and judgments to follow the same. These guidelines are only illustrative in nature, not exhaustive and can further be elaborated looking to the need and requirement of a given case:

• It should always be kept in mind that nothing should be written in the judgment/order, which may not be germane to the facts of the case; it should have a co-relation with the applicable law and facts. The ratio decidendi should be clearly spelt out from the judgment/order.
• After preparing the draft, it is necessary to go through the same to find out, if anything, essential to be mentioned, has escaped discussion.
• The ultimate finished judgment/order should have sustained chronology, regard being had to the concept that it has readable, continued interest and one does not feel like parting or leaving it in the midway. To elaborate, it should have flow and perfect sequence of events, which would continue to generate interest in the reader.
• Appropriate care should be taken not to load it with all legal knowledge on the subject as citation of too many judgments creates more confusion rather than clarity. The foremost requirement is that leading judgments should be mentioned and the evolution that has taken place ever since the same were pronounced and thereafter, latest judgment, in which all previous judgments have been considered, should be mentioned. While writing a judgment, psychology of the reader has also to be borne in mind, for the perception on that score is imperative.
• Language should not be rhetoric and should not reflect a contrived effort on the part of the author.
• After arguments are concluded, an endeavour should be made to pronounce the judgment at the earliest and in any case not beyond a period of three months. Keeping it pending for a long time sends a wrong signal to the litigants and the society.
• It should be avoided to give instances, which are likely to cause public agitation or to a particular society. Nothing should be reflected in the same which may hurt the feelings or emotions of any individual or society.

Delineated by Advocate Hemdeep Moran, +919810863548