RULE AGAINST BIASNESS

no person can decide against his own cause. due diligence must be kept in mind while exercising duties.
biasness includes an operative prejudice whether concious or unconscious in relation to a party or issue
such operativ prejudice may be the result of a pre concieved opinion or pre disposition or a pre
determination to decide a case in a particular manner so much so that it does not leave the mind open.

criteria of determining biasness;

1. personal biasness

2. pecuniary biasness

3. subject matter biasness

4.departmental biasness

1.personal biasness;

crawford bayley company v. uoi case deals with personal biasness, in case the court while explaining
personal biasness said that there must be some sort of personal connection. justice should not be only
be done but shiuld manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. in this manner the person holding
authority is duty bound to be non prejudiced in whatsoever manner. exceptions to personal biasness are
taxation matters, electricity matters and other likewise govt. related matters.

mineral devolopment corp. ltd (mdcl) v. uoi.

owner of mdcl got a licence by mining board for 99 years. after 15 years govt. slapped then to stop
mining as due to certain violation. this was challenged wherein petitioner contested that the minister
had ulterior motives as they had a fued brewing between them for which he stopped the license
unjustly. court decided order of govt. must be quashed as there was personal biasness.

test involved over here is

*REAL LIKLIHOOD OF BIAS test focuses on court's own evaluation of possibilities

*REASONABLE SUSPICION TEST looks to outward appearance.

the courts while applying these two test sees whether there is a reasonable ground that the deciding
authority was likely to have been bias in deciding the question of bias judges take into account
considerations of human possiblities and ordinary course of human conduct.
furthermore it is well concieved notion that courts tend to focus more on real likelihood of bias rather
than mere suspicion of biasness . courts stated this apprehension of biasness must be judged from a
healthy reasonable and average point of view and not on mere apprehension and vague suspicion of
whimsical , capricious and unreasonable people. the real test of real likelihood of bias is whether a
reasonable man in possession of relevant information would have thought that bias was likely and
whether the authority concerned was likely to be disposed to decide the matter in a particular way

ramanand parashad singh v. uoi.

here ramanad was memeber of a committee where his brother was to appear, but was not selected. this
was challenged on grounds of personal biasness. court held mere participation in selection committee
as a member where the brother was the candidate but was not selected is inconsequential bias on
which the whole selection list can't be quashed

Jaswinder singh v. state of j&k

court held that instance of getting higher marks in interview and lower marks in test

AK Kraipak v. uoi

ak keaipak was a cheif conservation officer of forest while selection of cad he was candidate as well as
member of selection board too. this was challenged as a man can't judge his own cause. courts held that
even though he went outside during his candidature yet it was a case of personal bias as it was enough
to influence other members of board and hence his candidature was not valid and hence biased

g.n nayak v. Goa University

a senior officer wrote appreciation letter for junior officer that officer was member of selection board
also. the junior was selected. this was challenged on grounds of personal bias. the sc held that unless
the preferrence seems to unreasonable and is based on self interest, it will not vitiate an administrative
decesion.

essential of personal biasness

1. personal connection

2. real likelihood of bias

3. something even more which would add to the cause.

2. pecuniary biasness
it means biasness related to adminstration's financial interests vested in certain entities. it means any
financial interest howsoever small or big maybe would vitiate administrative action

jee. jee. bhoy v. collector

one of the members of bench was also member of cooperative society which was supposed to receive a
land. it was challenged that the granting of land was on pecuniary biasness. even if there is certain
indirect nexus too as pertaining to society, the financial transactions can vitiate adminstrative action.

r. v. bow street metropolitan magistrate.

2 principles were propounded in this case

1st element is if judge has a financial or proprietary intrest in a case or is a party to a suit he is
automatically disqualified unless he makes a voluntary disclosure

2nd element is if a judge has no financial or proprietary intrest and is also not a party to the case but his
conduct gives rise to suspicion then no automatic disqualification is there unless real likelihood is
proved.

3. subject matter biasness

it is easy to analyse as on face it can be deciphered.it means direct or indirect involvement in subject
matter of a particular thing. here real likelihood of biasness is a must to prove.

r. v. dean justices

An animal cruelty matter came before committee. Magistrate was member of animal protection
committee i.e. royal society of animal protection.

the court decided that this was merely a reasonble suspicion and was not real likelihood of biasness

Gullipali Nageshwar Rao v. APSRTC (1st case)

A decesion was to be taken on nationalisation of road transport . court quased ap's decision the
secretary of state was biased.

court said if secretary was changed then policy can be considered

4. departmental biasness

g Nageswar rao v. APSRTC (2nd case)

Person who replaced the secretary was challenged to be bias on basis of departmental biasness. the
court did not accepted the departmental biasness , further court said that in cases of departmental
biasness the test is strict i.e. it must be proved that there must be real likelihood of biasness and
reasonable apprehension is not enough

major element of departmental biasness is there must be allgieance

5. policy notion bias

frankiln v. minister case

franklin in his speech said shout as you like i will do as i wish' in front of protestors. the protesters
challenged this before the court that these words clearly shows his allegiance with the policy and
outcome that would come out of it. the court didn't accepted the contentions of protestors as the
decesion was considered as quasi judi

kondala rao v. APSRTC

Minister who was of idea of road transport Nationalisation irked certain pvt. individuals who contested
that there livelihood would get affected badly. the minster didn't paid any heed to there contentions.
These pvt. individual challenged the minsiter who was of the opinion of nationalisation of road transport
on basis of policy biasness. the court did not accept the charges saying the minister's decesion was not
final and was merely policy making decesion and not policy biasness

6. pre concieved notion bias

it is unconscious bias or an open expression of prejudice. it may have to be disposed of as an inherent

limitation of administrative process.

7. bias on account of obstinacy

obstinacy implies unreasonable and unwavering persistence and that the deciding officer would not take
no for an answer.

doctrine of necessity is based on

the court always hear even if there is

ashok kumar yadav v. state of Haryana

public service commission was selecting candidates which were directly or indirectly related to members
of PSC. The court held to strike down the whole list but also included doctrine of necessity that 156 govt.
officers were required to fill in seats and if list gets strikes down govt. would have to wait for another
year. hence the stricking of complete list would be unjust.

12 main elements under audi alteram partem

1. duty to act judicially or duty to act fairly

2. right to notice

3. right to know evidence against him

4. right to present case and evidence

5. right to rebutt adverse evidence

6. no evidence is to be taken at the back of other party

7. report of enquiry to be shown to the other party

8. reasoned decision to be taken

9. institution decesion or one who decides must hear

10. rule against dictation

11. financial incapacity to attend enquiry

12. decesion post haste.

Audi alteram partem is fair right to be heard before a court of life. Jurisprudence states that life, liberty
and

r. v. University of Cambridge

aka dr. Bentley case

herein a prof was working in Cambridge he was a rebellious prof. due to this management gave him
termination notice. this was challenged by him as he was not provided with prior notice. management
took plea in their statues there is no prior requirements of providing notice in advance for termination.
court said that even if statutes are not present for audi alteram partem i.e. both the parties must be
heard yet common law will supply the opportunity to be heard

state bank of patiala v. s.k. sharma

herein court stated opportunity of being heard should be understood by distinguishing btw. 2
components

1. no opportunity at all ( wrong on face value)

2. no adequate opportunity ( prejudice must be proved)

{there also persists the concept of legitimate expectation in audi alteram partem i.e. anyone deciding for
an individual should atleast hear him prior to providing judgement against him.}

Audi alteram applies to all types of proceedings i.e. quasi judicial, judicial, and other likewise authorities.

National textile company ltd. v. p.r. Ramakrishna

court held that even if in statue based provisions such as during winding up of company, principle of
audi alteram partem should be applied for

S.L. kapoor v. Jagmohan

before this case courts were of purview that natural justice should apply to quasi judicial functions and
not adminstration function.

in this case, court highlighted that this purview has hindered the areas of high practicability of
administrative functions. hence court removed the requirement of PROVING PREJUDICE IN FORM OF
HAVING A CIVIL CONSEQUENCES as a seperate element in administrative cases

1. DUTY TO ACT JUDICIALLY

before ak krypak scenario; distinction btw quasi judicial and administrative function was quite clear. it
was only after ak krypak, maneka gandhi and sahara case the line blurred.

• only in quasi judicial function, duty to act judicially was applied.

• duty to act fairly will apply in administrative function. but the test to analyse was same in both

both these were inherently similar but were a judiciary devised mechanism to differentiate btw.

POST AK KRYPAK the dividing line btw abovementioned 2 criterion was blurred

further Ck thakkar stated stated that duty to act fairly was nothing but an additional weapon.

created by the sc to create a limitation on the power of administrative authorities

right to fair hearing is that of procedural fairness. it is also known as code of procedure it starts from the
very inception of a plaint. right to defence is am integral part of audi alteram partem can only be
achieved by incorporating procedural fairness from the inception of the case till the very end of the
case.

2. RIGHT TO NOTICE

right to notice embodies rule of fairness and must preceed an adverse order. there are certain ailments
regarding components of a notice by virtue of various judiciary cases to combat arbitrariness. these
components being

• it should be clear and precise

• it should have adequate information

• it should also contain adequate time for preparation of defence

determination regarding all these components depends on facts and circumstances of cases

Furthermore there are certain details which must be there in the notice;

• time, place and nature of hearing

• legal authority under which hearing is to be held

• statement of specific charges which a person has to meet.

• particular penalty or action proposed to be awarded/taken.

Joseph vilangandan v. executive engineer;

herein the pwd gave certain Assignment of construction to mr. joseph. to which he did not started work
pertaining to certain dispute btw them. to this joseph was slapped by a notice by pwd which stated that
he would be considered defaulter . furthermore his contract was terminated and he was blacklisted
from any further contracts. this was challenged by Joseph and court held that ......

3. RIGHT TO KNOW EVIDENCE AGAINST ONESELF

dhakeswari cotton mills v. cit

herein certain income tax was not filed properly by this company so case was filed by It department
before IT tribunal. Tribunal didn't suplied proper charges and documents against Dhakeswari Cotton
mills . this was challenged before SC which held that yes the right to fair hearing was vitiated and hence
the decision of it tribunal was quashed

keshav mills v. uoi

govt. closed down keshav mills due to corruption charges

report by govt.(inquiry report) was not given to company

company said there was prejudice

court said no prejudice was there

goa mining committee report

rule of giving notice has some exceptions based on general public interest...

furthermore,

exceptions always depends on public welfare and hence the case depends on facts and circumstances of
different cases as in not all cases fair hearing can exist.

hira nath Mishra v. rajendra medical college.

evidence can't
4. RIGHT TO PRESENT CASE AND EVIDENCE

reasonable opportunity to present case in either written or oral form

courts are unanimous that oral hearing is not an integral part of fair hearing unless circumstances are so
exceptional that without oral hearing a person can't put up an effective defence.

• representation in oral and written hearing

ak roy v. uoi

court held, a detenue has a right of fair hearing and examine the informations available at hand.
basically a detained person has

5. RIGHT TO REBUTT ADVERSE EVIDENCE

It is not only sufficient that a person knows that there is an adverse material, it is also necessary that he
must have an opportunity to rebutt the evidence.

• CROSS EXAMINATION

It is rule of evidence. it is not possible to provide cross examination, a person detained can't be allowed
for criss examination i.e. cases like FEMA, FERA , Sea customs.

kalungo v. controller of customs

A person was carrying 396 luxury watches. Sea customs officer caught him up based on tip off by an
informer. he asked that the informer should be brought before him to cross examine. this was denied
and hence was challenged in court. the court held that sea customs do not provide for cross
examination.

furtherance court in ak roy case did not agreed with contention that there can be no effective hearing
without cross examination
• LEGAL REPRESENTATION

legal representation must be provided to all parties to the case.

hussainara khatoon case;

free legal aid must be provided to poor and those who were unable to pay for their case.

khatri v. bihar;

free legal aid to be provided to poor from inception to end of case.

nandini satapati v. P.L. dani;

legal representation should be provided during custidial interrogation

6. NO EVIDENCE SHOULD BE TAKEN BEH

errington case; herein a building was declared unfit for habitation. certain members of commitee visited
building without informing owners. court quashed order stating that ex parte statement in absence of
other party without opportunity to rebutt is against natural justice.

Ceylon University v. farnando.

farnando was thrown out of university. the privy council backed University decision of expelling the
student and said so far as charges of misconduct is provided to student it was okay to remove him.

4. Enquiry report considers material on which the government has to ultimately act

The enquiry report exonerates the person but the disciplinary authority indicts a person the inquiry
report indicts and the disciplinary authority also indict

The enquiry report exonerates and the disciplinary authority also exonerates
Report with the comments if not provided would violate the principle of fairness it is in the interest of
fairness that the copy of the report is provided to the

Reasons mandated by constitution, law, nature of function perform by administrative authority

exercises, natural justice

M j sivam V state of karnataka

Rules directing recording of reasons are SINE QUA NON and a condition precedent for a valid order

Sunil batra v delhi administration

1. Prisoners Act there is a duty on the jail supredent for putting fetters

Dev dutt case

Third rule is transparency and good governance which mandates duty to give reasons when person
suffers from prejudice even if there is contrary instructions

Local authority board V R rich

Morgan V U.S.

Mahadayal V CTO

Captain pol Anthony V bharat goldmines

Both r based on identical facts because criminal proceedings are grave in nature that the departmenatal
procceding should be tailed till the conclusion of matter

Whether a case is grave in nature is depend on evidence

Tribunal is categorized in 4 types

1. Tribunal outside judicial system and disputes betn gov and individual
2. Tribunal with in judicial framework and decide disputes between citizens
3. Tribunal to decide between private individuals but stabilise outside judicial system
4. Tribunal under Article

S P sampat kumar it is within the power of parliament to amend the power of

L Chandrakumar

UOI madras bar association to vest essential judicial functions outside its authority

What is the constitutional limit

Shamnath basshir V UOI

But r also invested in judicial power to adjudicate

Kihoto Holloham V zachillu

Test

1. There is a least involved

2. Dispute involves rights and obligations of parties
3. Authority is called upon to decided

Administrative tribunals are not bound by strict

When an authority qualifies as tribunal U/A

Proceedings musr start on application in the nature of plate it must posses power of civil court allows
cross examination and legal representation

Decide on thd basis of evidence according to law members shoild be qualified as judges

A question of law of general public importance or decision which shocks a conscience of the court for
primary