Insistence on unnecessary documentation and circuitous procedures in govt offices remain a harrowing experience for citizens of the country. But in an important decision to simplify administrative procedures and infuse reform, Supreme Court on Friday ruled that govt’s insistence on unnecessary, excessive requirements in public dealings must be set aside as illegal.Terming simplified processes as a hallmark of good governance, a bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar said the authorities must resist imposing superfluous and redundant requirements as they make any procedure complicated, causing loss of time and, also, peace of mind.The bench declared a memo issued in 2009 by Jharkhand govt illegal on the basis that it was not needed. The memo mandated an additional recommendation of assistant registrar as a pre-condition for registration of a document under Section 9A of Indian Stamp Act. The court said that when a cooperative society is registered, the certificate of registration signed and sealed by the registrar shall be conclusive evidence.Simplicity in transactions good governance, says SCThe additional requirement imposed by govt, SC noted, is “disruptive to ease of transaction, without any value addition to the integrity of the transaction”.“Simplicity in public transactions is good governance. Constitutional courts uphold this virtue to strengthen the rule of law and ensure access to justice. In administrative law, simplicity means laws, regulations and procedures should be clear, straightforward and easy to understand, allowing for effortless compliance. Administrative procedures should avoid complexity, redundant requirements and unnecessary burdens, which waste time, expense, and disturb peace of mind,” Justice Narasimha, who penned the judgment for the bench, said.“While higher courts set aside executive decisions on the grounds of illegality if they are not founded on relevant considerations, or even when the decisions are based on irrelevant considerations, it is important to recognise the principle that executive actions that mandate certain unnecessary, excessive requirements must equally be set aside as illegal,” he said.The court further elaborated that “irrelevant consideration includes insistence or performance of acts or submission of documents, which neither have relevance nor are value additions to the purpose or object of law or policy in place. Instead, they are demonstrably superfluous and unnecessary, consuming limited time and human resources. This also has a direct bearing on efficiency and good governance…”The bench said administrative law has well recognised the principle of an administrative decision becoming unlawful if the decision fails to take into account relevant considerations, or even when it takes into account irrelevant considerations.