Why Government Officials Avoid Giving Reasons — And What You Can Do About It
Understanding why government officials avoid giving reasons starts with recognising what the law demands of them. The Apex Court of India has recognised, in numerous judgments, that every administrative decision must be supported by reasons. This principle is fundamental to a just and sound administrative system. Furthermore, this “Right to Reason” ensures transparency and promotes accountability. It also allows the aggrieved party to understand the basis of a decision — so they can seek effective remedies if necessary.
When an administrative authority closes a complaint or appeal with a brief, non-explanatory order, it directly violates the right to a reasoned decision. For instance, remarks like “Grievance No. … is rightly resolved, hence appeal stands disposed off” or “This matter does not pertain to MCA” — without detailed justification — fall well short of good governance standards.
Why Government Officials Avoid Giving Reasons: The Core Problem
Several structural factors explain why government officials avoid giving detailed reasons. Together, these factors create a culture of vagueness that harms citizens at every stage:
- 1. Workload and Pressure: Officials handling grievances often manage an extremely high volume of cases. As a result, they rely on standardised, brief, and non-specific closing remarks to quickly c2. Fear of Accountability: A well-reasoned order establishes a clear record. Consequently, higher authorities and courts can scrutinise it during appeals or judicial review. By contrast, a vague or cryptic note offers fewer clear points to challenge. Therefore, officials often feel that deliberate ambiguity shields them from criticism or disciplinary action — which is precisely why government officials avoid giving reasons, even when the law requires it. required to do so.
- 3. Lack of Training: Insufficient training prevents many officials from drafting proper speaking orders. Specifically, they fail to address the applicant’s contentions or clearly state the rationale for the outcome.
- 4. Passing the Buck (Jurisdictional Evasion): Officials often forward matters to the wrong authority and then close cases with remarks like “does not pertain to MCA.” In doing so, they disown responsibility rather than address the core issue and redirect it appropriately. Indeed, this is one of the most frustrating ways government officials avoid giving reasons: by denying jurisdiction altogether.
Case Study: How Government Officials Avoid Giving Reasons — Appeal DCOYA/E/A/24/0001830
This appeal process is a textbook example of why government officials avoid giving reasons — and the real harm it causes citizens seeking justice. Specifically, it exposes multiple points of administrative failure regarding the Right to Reason and timely action:
1. The Cryptic Closure of Initial Appeal (DCOYA/E/A/24/0000072)
On 15/07/2024, Smt. Richa Kukreja disposed of the first appeal with nothing more than a brief remark — after more than six months. This directly violates the Right to Reason. Moreover, the officer neither specified why the grievance was considered resolved nor justified the excessive delay.
- Specify the Reason: Why was the original grievance considered “rightly resolved”? The reason for the resolution should have been stated.
- Justify the Delay: After over six months, an explanation for the excessive delay was required.
2. Jurisdictional Blunder and Misdirection
The grievance clearly concerns a company registered in Punjab and Chandigarh (ROC Chandigarh). Nevertheless, staff incorrectly forwarded the matter to the Registrar of Companies, Telangana. This demonstrates a serious lapse in attention and competency. Furthermore, the Telangana office explicitly stated that it could not understand the grievance’s contents — confirming that the misdirection caused real confusion.
3. The Dismissive FSh. M.K. Sahu closed the latest appeal (DCOYA/E/A/24/0001830) with a dismissive remark. He failed to address key procedural issues, such as the misdirection to ROC Telangana. Moreover, he merely advised the applicant to seek a new forum without specifying which authority is appropriate. As a result, this response actively hindered justice rather than advancing it.us hindering justice.
Conclusion: The Path Forward
This case underscores the critical need for administrative reform. The pattern of why government officials avoid giving reasons is not accidental — it is systemic. Therefore, the Right to Reason must be enforced not just as a judicial concept but as a mandatory, day-to-day administrative practice. Above all, public servants must be held accountable for issuing cryptic, non-speaking orders. They must also answer for the delays and jurisdictional errors that needlessly frustrate To use this remedy, approach the High Court with a Writ Petition. Clearly cite the absence of reasons as your central legal ground. In doing so, you compel a review of the order and enforce the right to a reasoned response. ground. This step compels a review of the order and enforces the need for a reasoned response.
- The Ground for Challenge: The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that an administrative order passed without recorded reasons violates the Principles of Natural Justice — specifically the rule of audi alteram partem, which includes the right to a reasoned decision. Consequently, courts generally consider non-speaking orders arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
- The Relief Sought: You would request the High Court to:
- Quash the closing remarks/orders passed by the officials (Smt. Richa Kukreja and Sh. M.K. Sahu) as being unreasoned, cryptic, and arbitrary.
- Direct the MCA to reconsider your appeal and issue a fresh, reasoned order covering your arguments, addressing the misdirection (ROC Telangana instead of ROC Chandigarh), and the merits (non-refund and alleged corruption/irregularity).
2. Targeting Maladministration and Misconduct: Vigilance Complaint
Your grievance involves alleged company corruption, administrative delays, misdirection, and lack of consideration. For this reason, escalate the matter to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
- The Appropriate Authority: The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is the apex body for probity in Central Government organisations, including the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA).
- Focus your CVC complaint specifically on misuse of office and deliberate negligence by government staff. In particular, highlight the following:
- Jurisdictional Misdirection: The initial failure to forward the matter to the correct Registrar of Companies (ROC Punjab/Chandigarh) and instead sending it to ROC Telangana.
- Undue Delay: The six-month period taken to dispose of the first appeal with a cryptic remark.
- Non-Application of Mind: The final disposal stated that it “does not pertain to MCA,” even though the company clHow to File: File a complaint with the CVC online through their portal. Alternatively, send a written letter to the Secretary, Central Vigilance Commission, Satarkta Bhavan, New Delhi. In either case, ensure your complaint is specific, factual, and includes all relevant details.d includes all the details you provided.
3. Redressal of Company Grievance: National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs’ role is distinct from judicial or quasi-judicial remedies under the Companies Act, 2013.
- The Appropriate Forum: The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) handles disputes related to a company’s internal workings, corruption, or non-compliance. Therefore, check whether your grievance falls within sections of the Companies Act that the NCLT or the Regional Director can address.
- The final remark — “applicant is requested to file your case to appropriate court/authority” — likely points to the NCLT or a civil court. Indeed, this is where the core complaint against the company for non-refund and cheating would ultimately lie.
For comprehensive redress, pursue both judicial review through a Writ Petition against non-speaking orders and a vigilance complaint with the CVC. In parallel, if you seek relief against the company, approach the NCLT directly. When navigating the legal system — especially after experiencing first-hand why government officials avoid giving reasons — having access to the right official portals is essential.
Here are the official links and portals for the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and related resources:
Key Links for NCLT E-Filing and Resources
| NCLT E-Filing Portal | The main portal for electronic filing, registration, and case management. Individuals must register here first. | https://efiling.nclt.gov.in/ |
| NCLT Official Website | The National Company Law Tribunal’s primary website for general information, orders, judgments, and rules. | https://nclt.gov.in/ |
| Contact Page (Chandigarh) | Contact details for the Chandigarh Bench, including the email for the Assistant Registrar, Sh. P K Tiwari. | https://nclt.gov.in/contact-us-list |
| NCLT Rules, 2016 | The rules governing the procedure for filing petitions, including the prescribed Form NCLT.1 and Form NCLT.6 (Affidavit). | https://ca2013.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/National-Company-Law-Tribunal-Rules-2016-dated-21.07.2016_1.pdf |
NCLT E-Filing Procedure Overview (The Two-Step Process)
Filing a petition in the NCLT requires two mandatory steps that combine electronic and physical submission:
1. Electronic Filing (The E-Filing Portal)
- Registration: You must first register on the e-Filing Portal (link above) as an “Individual” user.
- Case Creation: Once logged in, you will select the relevant NCLT location (Chandigarh Bench), the jurisdiction, and the section of the Companies Act, 2013, under which you are. Document Upload: Upload your documents (Petition, Affidavit, Annexures) as PDFs. Importantly, the NCLT mandates specific formatting — including PDF/A version and proper bookmarking for easy navigation.avigation.
- Payment: You can pay the prescribed filing fees online through the portal’s payment gateway (often integrated with the Bharatkosh portal).
- E-Filing Submission: After all documents are uploaded and fees are paid, you submit the e-filing to generate an Acknowledgement Receipt.
2. Physical Filing (The Registry)
- After successful e-filing, submit two complete hard copies of the petition to the NCLT Chandigarh Bench Registry within the stipulated time frame. Include the signed Affidavit and the e-filing acknowledgement receipt with each copy.
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.