Fed up with cut, copy and paste business of HCs in this computer age: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday said that it is fed up with “cut, copy and paste business” done in this “computer age” by the High Courts, which don’t apply their independent minds in their orders.

The remarks by a bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and M R Shah came while dealing with a plea of Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) against the Orissa High Court order upholding a decision of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) asking it to look into the matter of granting IAS cadre to a person.

It restored a disposed of plea before the High Court and said cut, copy and paste of Tribunal’s verdict only “adds to the volume of pages but does not answer the core issue of appeal”.

“One of the problems of the computer-age is copying and pasting of orders. I am fed up when I come across orders of High Courts in which I see cut, copy and paste. This problem has grown. They don’t apply their independent minds for the reasons”, Justice Chandrachud said.

Justice Chandrachud further said, “Reasons have to be given when orders are being affirmed. There has to independent application of mind”.

The UPSC has challenged the order as the person was denied a place in IAS cadre due to disciplinary action against him.

The bench said that it is the UPSC rules and Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) guidelines which will hold ground on the issue.

It set aside the order of the High Court and restored the plea of UPSC against one Bibhu Prasad Sarangi and others there.

Advocate Subhranshu Padhi, appearing for Sarangi, who has filed a caveat said that the person in question has retired and the question is of only “notional promotion”.

Justice Shah said, “We are on non-application of mind by the High Court. The tribunal order has been copied.”

Padhi submitted that the tribunal has directed the UPSC to reconsider the case of the respondent (Sarangi) for promotion to the IAS cadre by reconvening the meeting of the selection committee and said that consequential benefits if any be given, if found eligible.

The bench said that high court has simply extracted the judgement of tribunal and said that since tribunal has elaborately discussed the question of law, no interference is warranted. The UPSC has contended that tribunal has committed error and gone beyond its jurisdiction by granting relief to the respondent and the DoPT guidelines are only applicable for promotion and not in the facts of present case.