JUDGMENT : TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J. 1. The respondents have produced a copy of the decision taken by the Unfair Means Cases Appeal Committee on 22.4.2016, which apparently is bereft of any reasons and reads thus: "After the perusal of UMC case the Committee upholds the decision of UMC Committee." 2. It is evident from the bare perusal of the aforesaid order that the same is devoid of any reasons. No doubt, the Committee while passing any order of affirmness, is not required to give elaborate and extensive reasons but then it still has to record reasons in support of its order to indicate that it has applied its mind to the grounds raised therein. Even brief reasons would be sufficient, but in the instant case, no reasons whatsoever have been recorded. 3. The requirement of recording reasons has been lucidly dealt by the Honble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another versus Masood Ahmed Khan and Others (2010) 9 SCC 496, wherein after taking into consideration the entire law on the subject, the position of law was summarized as under: "47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasijudicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasijudicial or even administrative power. (e)Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f)Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasijudicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasijudicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a Judge or a quasijudicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 73137). (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process". 9. The necessity of recording reasons by the administrative authority was reempahsised by the Honble Supreme Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process". 9. The necessity of recording reasons by the administrative authority was reempahsised by the Honble Supreme Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and others (2012) 4 SCC 407 , wherein it has been held as under: "38. It is a settled proposition of law that even in administrative matters, the reasons should be recorded as it is incumbent upon the authorities to pass a speaking and reasoned order. 39. In Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs. U.P. (1991) 1 SCC 212 this Court has observed as under: (SCC p. 243, para 36). "36. Every State action may be informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason, is arbitrary. The rule of law contemplates governance by laws and not by humour, whims or caprices of the men to whom the governance is entrusted for the time being. It is the trite law that be you ever so high, the laws are above you. This is what men in power must remember, always." 40. In LIC Vs. Consumer Education and Research Centre (1995) 5 SCC 482 this Court observed that the State or its instrumentality must not take any irrelevant or irrational factor into consideration or appear arbitrary in its decision. "Duty to act fairly" is part of fair procedure envisaged under Articles 14 and 21. Every activity of the public authority or those under public duty must be received and guided by the public interest. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Capoor (1973) 2 SCC 836 and Mahesh Chandra Vs. U.P. Financial Corpn. (1993) 2 SCC 279 . 41. In State of W.B. Vs. Atul Krishna Shaw 1991 Supp (1) SCC 414, this Court observed that : (SCC p. 421, para 7) "7.Giving of reasons is an essential element of administration of justice. A right to reason is, therefore, an indispensable part of sound system of judicial review." 42. In S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594 , it has been held that the object underlying the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure fair play in action. A right to reason is, therefore, an indispensable part of sound system of judicial review." 42. In S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594 , it has been held that the object underlying the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure fair play in action. The expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice provides for requirement to record reasons as to it is now regarded as one of the principles of natural justice, and it was held in the above case that except in cases where the requirement to record reasons is expressly or by necessary implication dispensed with, the authority must record reasons for its decision. 43. In Krishna Swami Vs. Union of India (1992) 4 SCC 605 , this Court observed that the rule of law requires that any action or decision of a statutory or public authority must be founded on the reason stated in the order or borne out from the record. The Court further observed: (SCC p. 637, para 47). "47. Reasons are the links between the material, the foundation for their erection and the actual conclusions. They would also demonstrate how the mind of the maker was activated and actuated and their rational nexus and synthesis with the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Lest it would be arbitrary, unfair and unjust, violating Article 14 or unfair procedure offending Article 21". 44. This Court while deciding the issue in Sant Lal Gupta Vs. Modern Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. (2010) 13 SCC 336 , placing reliance on its various earlier judgments held as under: (SCC pp. 34546, para 27). "27. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial orders must be supported by reasons recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the court to record reasons while disposing of the case. "27. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial orders must be supported by reasons recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is for the forum to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of the justice delivery system, to make it known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice. 3. The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the court concerned had really applied its mind. The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before the higher forum. Recording of reasons is the principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected." 45. In Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. L.K. Ratna (1986) 4 SCC 537 , this Court held that on charge of misconduct the authority holding the inquiry must record reasons for reaching its conclusion and record clear findings. The Court further held: (SCC p. 558, para 30). "30..In fairness and justice, the member is entitled to know why he has been found guilty. The case can be so serious that it can attract the harsh penalties provided by the Act. Moreover, the member has been given a right of appeal to the High Court under Section 22A of the Act. To exercise his right of appeal effectively he must know the basis on which the Council has found him guilty. The case can be so serious that it can attract the harsh penalties provided by the Act. Moreover, the member has been given a right of appeal to the High Court under Section 22A of the Act. To exercise his right of appeal effectively he must know the basis on which the Council has found him guilty. We have already pointed out that a finding by the Council is the first determinative finding on the guilty of the member. It is a finding by a Tribunal of first instance. The conclusion of the Disciplinary Committee does not enjoy the status of a finding. Moreover, the reasons contained in the report by the Disciplinary Committee for its conclusion may or may not constitute the basis of the finding rendered by the Council. The Council must, therefore, state the reasons for its finding." 46. The emphasis on recording reason is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind of the authority before the court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out the reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The inscrutable face of the sphinx is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasijudicial performance." 11. The juristic basis underlying the requirement that the Courts and indeed all such authorities as exercise the power to determine the rights and obligations of individuals must give reasons in support of their orders has been examined in detail by the Honble Supreme Court in Maya Devi (dead) through LRs. Versus Raj Kumari Batra (dead) through LRs and others (2010) 9 SCC 486 wherein it has been held as under: "22.. In Hindustan Times Limited v. Union of India & Ors. 1998 (2) SCC 242 the need to give reasons has been held to arise out of the need to minimize chances of arbitrariness and induce clarity. 23. Versus Raj Kumari Batra (dead) through LRs and others (2010) 9 SCC 486 wherein it has been held as under: "22.. In Hindustan Times Limited v. Union of India & Ors. 1998 (2) SCC 242 the need to give reasons has been held to arise out of the need to minimize chances of arbitrariness and induce clarity. 23. In Arun v. Inspector General of Police 1986 (3) SCC 696 the recording of reasons in support of the order passed by the High Court has been held to inspire public confidence in administration of justice, and help the Apex Court to dispose of appeals filed against such orders. 24. In Union of India v. Jai Prakash Singh 2007 (10) SCC 712 , reasons were held to be live links between the mind of the decision maker and the controversy in question as also the decision or conclusion arrived at. 25. In Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity 2010 (3) SCC 732 , reasons were held to be the heartbeat of every conclusion, apart from being an essential feature of the principles of natural justice, that ensure transparency and fairness, in the decision making process. 26. In Ram Phal v. State of Haryana 2009 (3) SCC 258 , giving of satisfactory reasons was held to be a requirement arising out of an ordinary man's sense of justice and a healthy discipline for all those who exercise power over others. 27. In Director, Horticulture Punjab & Ors. v. Jagjivan Parshad 2008 (5) SCC 539 , the recording of reasons was held to be indicative of application of mind specially when the order is amenable to further avenues of challenge. 28. It is in the light of the above pronouncements unnecessary to say anything beyond what has been so eloquently said in support of the need to give reasons for orders made by Courts and statutory or other authorities exercising quasi judicial functions. All that we may mention is that in a system governed by the rule of law, there is nothing like absolute or unbridled power exercisable at the whims and fancies of the repository of such power. There is nothing like a power without any limits or constraints. All that we may mention is that in a system governed by the rule of law, there is nothing like absolute or unbridled power exercisable at the whims and fancies of the repository of such power. There is nothing like a power without any limits or constraints. That is so even when a Court or other authority may be vested with wide discretionary power, for even discretion has to be exercised only along well recognized and sound juristic principles with a view to promoting fairness, inducing transparency and aiding equity. 29. What then are the safeguards against an arbitrary exercise of power? The first and the most effective check against any such exercise is the well recognized legal principle that orders can be made only after due and proper application of mind. Application of mind brings reasonableness not only to the exercise of power but to the ultimate conclusion also. Application of mind in turn is best demonstrated by disclosure of the mind. And disclosure is best demonstrated by recording reasons in support of the order or conclusion. 30. Recording of reasons in cases where the order is subject to further appeal is very important from yet another angle. An appellate Court or the authority ought to have the advantage of examining the reasons that prevailed with the Court or the authority making the order. Conversely, absence of reasons in an appealable order deprives the appellate Court or the authority of that advantage and casts an onerous responsibility upon it to examine and determine the question on its own. An appellate Court or authority may in a given case decline to undertake any such exercise and remit the matter back to the lower Court or authority for a fresh and reasoned order. That, however, is not an inflexible rule, for an appellate Court may notwithstanding the absence of reasons in support of the order under appeal before it examine the matter on merits and finally decide the same at the appellate stage. Whether or not the appellate Court should remit the matter is discretionary with the appellate Court and would largely depend upon the nature of the dispute, the nature and the extent of evidence that may have to be appreciated, the complexity of the issues that arise for determination and whether remand is going to result in avoidable prolongation of the litigation between the parties. Remands are usually avoided if the appellate Court is of the view that it will prolong the litigation." 4. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the Unfair Means Cases Appeal Committee to take a decision afresh, which shall be duly supported by reason(s). Needful be done within a period of four weeks from today. 5. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.