Reasoned decision in administrative law refers to the requirement that administrative decisions must be accompanied by an explanation of the reasoning behind the decision. This requirement is an important aspect of administrative law and is widely recognized as a basic principle of natural justice and due process.

The requirement for a reasoned decision is intended to ensure that administrative decisions are made in a fair, impartial, and transparent manner. When an administrative decision is accompanied by a clear explanation of the reasoning behind the decision, it becomes possible for affected parties to understand the basis for the decision and to determine whether the decision was made in accordance with the law and the facts. This helps to ensure that administrative decisions are made in a fair and impartial manner, and that they are subject to meaningful review and scrutiny.

The requirement for a reasoned decision is also intended to promote accountability and transparency in the administrative decision-making process. When administrative decisions are accompanied by clear explanations of the reasoning behind the decisions, it becomes easier for the public to hold administrative authorities accountable for their decisions. This helps to promote public trust in the administrative system, and helps to ensure that administrative decisions are made in a manner that is open and transparent.

In many legal systems, the requirement for a reasoned decision is implemented through the use of administrative law. Administrative law sets out the rules and procedures that administrative authorities must follow when making decisions, and provides guidance on the type of reasoning that must be provided to support a decision. For example, in some legal systems, administrative decisions must be supported by evidence and must be accompanied by a statement of the facts and the law that was relied on to make the decision.

In addition to the requirement for a reasoned decision, administrative law also provides for the right of affected parties to challenge administrative decisions. This right is an important aspect of administrative law and helps to ensure that administrative decisions are subject to meaningful review and scrutiny. When an affected party is dissatisfied with an administrative decision, they may challenge the decision by seeking a review or appeal. This provides an opportunity for the decision to be reviewed by a higher authority, and for the reasoning behind the decision to be scrutinized and evaluated.

The requirement for a reasoned decision is an important aspect of administrative law, and is widely recognized as a basic principle of natural justice and due process. The requirement helps to ensure that administrative decisions are made in a fair, impartial, and transparent manner, and that they are subject to meaningful review and scrutiny. By promoting accountability and transparency in the administrative decision-making process, the requirement helps to ensure that administrative decisions are made in a manner that is open and transparent, and that they are subject to meaningful review and scrutiny.

There have been several landmark reasoned decisions in India that have had a significant impact on the legal landscape in the country. Here are a few notable examples:

1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This case established the principle that the government must provide reasons for its decisions and that those reasons must be fair and reasonable. The court held that the right to know the reasons for a decision is an essential aspect of the principle of natural justice.
2. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This landmark judgement is famous for laying down the basic structure doctrine, which states that there are certain basic features of the Indian Constitution that cannot be amended by a constitutional amendment. The court held that the right to life and personal liberty is a basic feature of the Constitution, and that this right cannot be taken away even by a constitutional amendment.
3. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967): This case dealt with the issue of the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. The court held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not unlimited and that it cannot be used to destroy or emasculate the basic structure of the Constitution.
4. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007): This case dealt with the issue of the right to life and personal liberty under the Indian Constitution. The court held that the right to life and personal liberty is a fundamental right and that it cannot be taken away by the government except in accordance with the procedure established by law.
5. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): This case dealt with the issue of the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. The court held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is limited by the basic structure of the Constitution, and that any amendment that would destroy or emasculate the basic structure of the Constitution would be unconstitutional.

These judgements demonstrate the importance of reasoned decisions in the Indian legal system and the way in which the Supreme Court of India has used reasoned decisions to shape the legal landscape in the country. These decisions have had a significant impact on the development of administrative law, constitutional law, and human rights law in India, and have helped to ensure that the rights of citizens are respected and protected.

In conclusion, the requirement for a reasoned decision in administrative law is a fundamental principle of natural justice and due process. It is intended to ensure that administrative decisions are made in a fair, impartial, and transparent manner, and that they are subject to meaningful review and scrutiny. By promoting accountability and transparency in the administrative decision-making process, the requirement helps to ensure that administrative decisions are made in a manner that is open and transparent, and that they are subject to meaningful review and scrutiny. This helps to ensure that administrative decisions are made in a manner that is consistent with the rule of law, and that the rights of affected parties are respected and protected.