“Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow old”

“Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow old”

This fascinating observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while holding that validity of an order passed by a statutory authority has to be judged solely on the basis of reasons actually mentioned in the order. Such reasons cannot be supplemented later [Mohinder Singh Gill v. CEC: 1978 1 SCC 405].

Simply put, statutory orders must stand on the strength of their own language. An officer cannot later justify what was in his mind or what he intended.

This celebrated decision, although in the context of election laws, has been followed by courts while adjudicating the matters under the Income Tax Act as well, to decide the validity of unreasoned or vague orders.

As a passing thought, could the inverse of maxim “nemo debet quod non habet” (one cannot give what one does not have) also apply here? If an order does not provide proper reasons, should it be presumed that reasons don’t exist? If so, should the order be simply quashed or should the matter be remanded back?

I can think of only one classic answer - it depends!