CCS Rules & Principles of Natural justice
1. I. Bias or interest - Contrary to natural
justice
The
first requirement of natural justice is that the judge must be impartial and
neutral and free from bias. He cannot act as judge of a cause in which he
himself has some interest either pecuniary or otherwise as it affords the
strongest proof against neutrality. He must be in a position to act judicially
and to decide the matter objectively. If the judge is subject to bias in favour
of or against either party to the dispute or is in a position that a bias can
be assumed, he is disqualified to act as judge and the proceedings will be
vitiated. There should be no pecuniary, personal or official bias. Mukharjee,
J. in Secretary to Govt. Transport Deptt v. Munnusway, AIR 1988 SC 2232 has
laid down that "a predisposition to decide for or against one party
without proper regard to the true merits of the dispute is bias."
Rule
against bias is based on three maxims.
(i) No
man shall be a judge in his own cause.
(ii) Justice
should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.
(iii) Judges,
like Caesor's wife should be above suspicion.
[Halsbury's
Laws of England]
II. Pecuniary
Interest -
Speaking
for the Supreme Court, Gajendragadkar J, (as he was then) held in Manak Lal v.
Dr. Prem Chand, AIR 1957 SC 425 that "it is obvious that pecuniary
interest however small it may be in a subject matter of the proceedings, would
wholly disqualify a member from acting as a judge."
Chief
Justice Gajendragadkar reconstituted the Bench on objection being taken on
behalf of the witnesses in 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 the
disputed land had been acquired.
[Jeejeebhoy
v. Asst. Collector of Thane, AIR 1965 SC 1096]
III. Personal
Bias - Case-Law
A
departmental enquiry was held against 'A' by 'B. As one of the witnesses turned
hostile, 'B left the enquiry, gave evidence against 'A', resumed to complete
the enquiry and passed an order of dismissal. The Supreme Court observed that
"the rules of natural justice were completely discarded and all cannons
of fair play were grievously violated by 'B.
[State
of UP v. Mohd Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86]
IV. Official
bias -
Mere
"office" or "policy" may not necessarily be held to
disqualify an official from acting as an adjudicator unless there is total
nonapplication of mind on his part and he has acted as per dictation of the
superior authority instead of deciding the matter independently or has
pre-judged the issue or has taken improper attitude to uphold the policy of the
department so as to constitute a legal bias.
According
to the Commercial Tax Officer, the petitioner was not liable to pay tax, and
yet, he referred the matter to his superior officers, and on instructions from
him imposed tax. The Supreme Court set aside the decision.
[Mahadayal
v. CTO, AIR 1961 SC 82]
V. Test
of Bias
The
Court laid down the test in the following words;
In
such cases the test is not whether in fact a bias has affected the judgment;
the test always is and must be whether a litigant could reasonably apprehend
that a bias attributable to a member of the tribunal might have operated
against him in the final decision of the tribunal. It is in this sense that it
is often said that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be
done.
[Manak
Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand, AIR 1957 SC 425]
Sir
ReplyDeleteBias with judgements explained well 🙏