Two pages, eight paragraphs and 15 sentences were not enough for the Allahabad high court to explain why six people should face a criminal trial, the Supreme Court has held, reminding judges that a judicial order cannot be reduced to a conclusion without the reasoning that leads to it and that heavy caseload cannot be an excuse for dispensing with reasons.
But brevity, it cautioned, cannot come at the cost of reasons. The judgment highlights a recurring judicial insistence that a reasoned order is not a matter of style or judicial formality but an essential component of the adjudicatory process, particularly where the consequence is to subject an individual to a criminal trial. The bench particularly faulted the high court for not examining the evidence against the accused even though they had not been named in the charge sheet and were brought into the trial subsequently on an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
A bench of justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu set aside the high court’s order, underlining that it failed to meet even the basic standards of a “reasoned and speaking” judicial order. The court said the burden on high court judges was undoubtedly immense and that writing brief orders could be a prudent approach in view of heavy caseloads. “A laconic order (such as the impugned order) can neither be appreciated nor countenanced,” held the bench in an order earlier this week, stressing that every judicial order must meet the basic minimum standard expected of a high court judge, “more so in a criminal appeal of the present nature”.
However, after investigation, the police filed a chargesheet on October 3, 2022, without showing them as accused. After the trial commenced, the complainant moved an application under Section 319 CrPC seeking their summoning to face trial. The special judge, SC/ST Act, allowed the application on June 11, 2025. The accused challenged that order before the Allahabad high court, but a single judge dismissed their appeal on August 11, 2025.
The present case concerned six people who were initially named as accused in an FIR registered in Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh , under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act .
