HC decries ‘copy-paste’, tick-mark justice’; directs in-depth administrative law training for civil servants
Coming down heavily on the widespread practice of ‘tick-mark’ approvals and ‘copy-paste’ justice, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Union of India to ensure in-depth education in Administrative Law for civil servants at training academies, including the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri ordered that a dedicated faculty must impart comprehensive instruction on Administrative Law, followed by periodic refresher courses involving professors, legal practitioners, research scholars and other experts.
The judgment, passed against the State of Haryana but equally applicable to Punjab and other states, issued sweeping directions to dismantle “let the Court decide syndrome by laying down vital jurisprudential principles. It emphasised revamping of legal departments, passing of speaking orders by competent authorities alone, adherence to natural justice, and avoiding mechanical decisions that have grave civil consequences.
Making it clear that only the authority empowered by law could pass orders, the court held that any order issued by a subordinate officer merely claiming to have ‘approval’ of the competent authority was illegal, perverse and “coram non judice”. Orders involving punishment or civil consequences could not be passed by someone else on behalf of the appellate authority.
Similarly, any punitive or appellate order passed without detailed reasoning — merely noting “rejected” or “approved” in a file — was arbitrary, non-speaking, and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Justice Puri ruled such decisions reflected complete non-application of mind and breach natural justice.
The Bench further clarified that an order must be directly communicated to the person concerned. The communication was invalid, if an employee was only informed about the decision without receiving the signed order issued by the competent authority. Subordinate staff could only forward the original order — not replace it with their own communication.
Justice Puri also declared impermissible the practice of getting a draft order simply approved by “tick-mark” or initials of the competent officer if it was prepared by an unauthorised person. “A speaking order involving civil consequences must be passed by a competent authority in whom the power vests under the law and simply approving a draft order drafted by another officer amounts to abdication of powers causing miscarriage of justice and therefore impermissible,” Justice Puri observed.
The court also termed the copy-pasting of orders by changing just the names and dates as “illegal, perverse and mechanical”. Justice Puri directed all departments to desist from such stereotyped orders. The court further instructed that all officers in public sector establishments must act not just diligently but “extra-diligently”, with sensitivity, compassion, and a humanistic approach—especially while handling matters relating to pension, disability, or medical claims.
The judgment concluded by directing all administrative departments, statutory boards, corporations and PSUs to “revamp their legal departments” and put in place a “robust legal support system” anchored in legal education, accountability and training.
Haryana Tribune