Bias” means an operative prejudice, whether conscious or unconscious, in relation to a party or

issue. Such operative prejudice may be the result of a preconceived opinion or a predisposition or
a predetermination to decide a case in particular manner, so much so that it does not leave the
mind open. In other words, “bias” may be generally defined as partiality or preference which is
not Founded on reason and is actuated by self-interest-whether pecuniary or personal. - as held in
G. N. Nayak v. Goa University (2002) 2SCC 712
Therefore, the rule against bias strikes against those factors which may improperly influence a
judge in arriving at a decision in any particular case.
Basis of the Rule
If a person for whatever reason, cannot take an objective decision on the basis of evidence on
record, he shall be said to be biased. A person cannot take an objective decision in a case in
which he has an interest, for, as human psychology tells us, very rarely can people take decisions
against their own interests. Therefore, the maxim is- a person cannot be made a judge in his own
cause i.e. nemo judex in causa sua.
Types of bias
Bias is of 4 types:
1. Pecuniary bias
2. Personal Bias
3. Official bias or bias as to subject matter
4. Judicial Obstinacy
Pecuniary Bias-illustrative Cases
It is well settled that as regards pecuniary interest “the least pecuniary interest in the subject
matter of the litigation will disqualify any person from acting as a judge”.
In N.B. Jeejeebhoy v. Collector of Thana (AIR 1965 SC) Gajendragadkar CJ reconstituted the
Bench on objection being taken on behalf of the interveners in the court on the ground that the
Chief Justice, who was a member of the Bench, was also a member of the cooperative society for
which disputed land had been acquired.
. Mohapatra & Co. v. State of Orissa AIR 1984 SC 1572
Some of the members of the Committee set up fir selecting books for educational institutions
were themselves authors whose books were to be considered for selection. It was held by the SC
that the possibility of bias could not be ruled out.
Illustrative cases of Personal Bias
A judge may be a relative, friend or business associate of a party. He may have some personal
grudge, enmity or grievance or professional rivalry against such party.
In State of U.P.v. Mohd. Nooh (AIR 1958 SC 86) a departmental enquiry was held against A by
B. as one of the witnesses against A turned hostile, B left the enquiry, gave evidence against A,
resumed to complete the enquiry an passed an order of dismissal. The S. C. held that the rules of
Natural Justice were completely discarded and all canons of fair play were grievously violated by
B.
In leading case of A. K. Kraipak v. UOI (AIR 1970 150) One A was a candidate fir selection to
the Indian Foreign Service and was also a member of the Selection Board. A did not sit on the
Board when his own name was considered. Name of A was recommended by the Board and he
was selected by the Public Service Commission. The candidates who were not selected filed a
writ petition for quashing the selection of A on the ground that the principles of Natural Justice
were violated.
Illustrative cases of Official Bias
This bias may arise when the judge has a general interest in the subject matter.
In Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. APSRTC (Gullapalli I) the petitioners were carrying on motor
transport business. The Andhra State Transport Undertaking published a scheme for
nationalization of motor transport in the State and invited objections. The objections filed by the
petioners were received and heard by the Secretary and thereafter the scheme was approved by
the Chief minister.
The S.C. upheld the contentions of petitioners that the official who heard the objections was in
substance one of the parties to the dispute and hence the principles of N.J. were violated.
In G. N. Rao.v. APSRTC (Gullapalli II) AIR 1959 SC 1376 the S.C. qualified the application of
the doctrine of official bias. In this hearing was given by the minister and not by Secretary. The
Court held that proceedings were not vitiated as Minister was primarily responsible for the
disposal of the business pertaining to that department.
Krishna Bus Service(P) Ltd V. State of Haryana AIR 1985 SC 1651 the legality and validity of
notifications issued by the State govt. conferring the power of Dy. Superintendent of Police on
the G.M. Haryana Roadways was challenged by private operators on the ground of interest and
bias and the contentions upheld and notification quashed.
Illustrative cases of Judicial Obstinacy
There may also be a judicial bias i.e. bias on account of Judicial Obstinacy.
In A. U. Kureshi v. High Court of Gujarat (2009) 11 SCC 84 one of the judges of High Court
considered the so-called misconduct of a member of subordinate judiciary on administrative side
(disciplinary committee). He then decided the petition filed by the delinquent officer on judicial
side. It was held that there was reasonable apprehension of bias.
In State of W.B. v. Shivanand Pathak AIR 1998 SC the Supreme Court described this case as a
new form of bias.