Administrative Law Project 1
Administrative Law Project 1
Administrative Law Project 1
Submitted By
MOHAMMAD ZIYA ANSARI
BALLB (HONS)
SEMESTER-VI
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ENROLLMENT NO- GI- 6492
FACULTY NO- 17BALLB- 72
PROJECT
Submitted To
Dr. GAURAV Sir
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law
Aligarh Muslim University
ALIGARH-202002 (INDIA)
SYNOPSIS
1- INTRODUCTION.
2- TESTS OF BIAS.
3- PERSONAL BIAS.
4- PECUNIARY BIAS.
6- DEPARTMENTAL BIAS:
9-CONCLUSION
10-BIBLIOGRAPHY.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
THANKING YOU
MOHAMMAD ZIYA ANSARI
BALLB-3rd Year GI-6492
17BALLB-72
1-RULE AGAINST BIAS: INTRODUCTION
“Justice must be rooted in confidence; and confidence is destroyed when right minded people
go away thinking”- Lord Denning.
Bias means an operative prejudice, whether conscious or unconscious, in relation to 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 a 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 founded on reason and is actuated by self-interest –whether pecuniary or personal1.
Bias, is a condition of mind and therefore, it may not always be possible to furnish actual proof
of bias. However, courts for this reason cannot said to be in the crippled state. The rule against
bias strikes against those factors, which may properly influence a judge in arriving at a decision
in any particular case. The requirement of this principle is that the judge must be impartial and
must decide the case objectively on the basis of evidence on record. In other words, a
predisposition to decide for or to against one party without regard to the merit of ‘bias’.
Therefore, if a person, for whatever reason, cannot take an objective decision the on basis of
evidence on record he shall said to be biased. A person cannot take an objective decision on
the basis of evidence on record he is said to be biased. A person cannot take an objective
decision in a case in which he has no interest, for, as a human psychology tells us, very rarely
can people take decisions against their own interests2.
This rule of disqualification is applied not only to avoid the possibility of a partial decision but
also to ensure public confidence in the impartiality of the administrative adjudicatory process
because not only must “no man be a judge in his own cause” but also “ justice should not only
be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” The minimal requirement
of natural justice is that the authority must be composed of impartial persons acting fairly,
without prejudice and bias.3
2-TESTS OF BIAS:
“Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper
interference with the course of justice -Lord Hewart C.J.
There was, in the past, divergence of opinion among judges in England, on test for
disqualifying bias. Some Judges laid down and applied tests of real likelihood of bias while
other judges of employed the test of reasonable suspicion of bias, the former imposing a heavier
burden of proof on the person making the allegation.
The real likelihood of bias explained that the test for disqualifying is whether the facts, as
assessed by the Court, give rise to real likelihood of bias. Likelihood was given the meaning
of possibility rather than probability. The test thus means “at least substantial possibility of
bias”. Until recently, it was for the Court to decide by their own evolution whether such
likelihood existed in the circumstances of the
3-PERSONAL BIAS:
Personal bias arises from a certain relationship equation between the deciding authority and
the parties, which incline him unfavorably or otherwise on the side of one of the parties before
him. Such equation may develop out of varied forms of personal or professional hostility or
friendship. However, no exhaustive list is possible.
Hon’ble Court’s decision in Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. V. State of Bihar7, serves
as a good illustration on the point. Here, the petitioners were granted a mining lease for 99
years in 1947. But in 1955, government quashed the license. The petitioners brought an action
against the minister passing this order on the behalf of government, on the ground that, the
petitioner in 1952 opposed the minister in General election. Therefore, on the account of
political rivalry, the minister passed such an order, and hence the order was suffered from
personal bias. Supreme Court found the allegation to be true and thus quashed the said order.
Similarly, in Baidyanath Mohapatra v. State of Orissa8, the Supreme Court quashed the order
of the tribunal confirming premature retirement on the ground that the chairperson of the
tribunal was also a member of the review committee, which had recommended premature
retirement.
Similarly, in Baidyanath Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, the Supreme Court quashed the order
of the tribunal confirming premature retirement on the ground that the chairperson of the
tribunal was also a member of the review committee, which had recommended premature
retirement.
In India also, the principle is followed that “any direct pecuniary interest, however small, in the subject-
matter of inquiry will disqualify an adjudicator. Judicial approach is unanimous and decisive on the
point that any financial interest, howsoever it may be, would vitiate administrative action. The
disqualification will not be avoided by non-participation of the biased member in the proceedings if he
was present when the decision was reached.15
In Jeejeebhoy v. Assistant Collector, Thana16 the CJ reconstituted the bench, when it was found that
one of the members of the bench was the member of the cooperative society for which the land has been
acquired. The Madras High Court also quashed the decision of the Collector who in his capacity as the
chairman of the Regional Transport Authority had granted a permit in favor of a cooperative society of
which he was also Chairman.17
However, the rule against bias will not be applied where the judge, though having a financial interest,
has no direct financial interest in the outcome of the case. This is evident from the Court of Appeal
decision in R v. Mulvihill 18, where the court refused to set aside the conviction of an accused on a
charge of robbery in a bank on the ground that the trial judge had shares in that bank. In such cases
unless there is a likelihood of bias administrative action will not be quashed.
A pecuniary or proprietary interest in the subject matter of the dispute ipso facto disqualifies the
adjudicator and it is not necessary to prove that there was a real likelihood of bias in the circumstances
of the case.19
6-DEPARTMENTAL BIAS:
The problem of departmental bias is something, which is inherent in the administrative process,
and if it is not effectively checked, it may negate the very concept of fairness in the
administrative proceeding.
In Gallipoli Nageswara Rao v. APSRTC the order of the government, nationalizing road
transport was challenged in this case. One of the grounds for challenge was that the Secretary
of the Transport Department who gave the hearing was biased, being the person who initiated
the scheme and also being the head of the department whose responsibility it was to execute it.
The court quashed the order on the ground that, under the circumstances, the Secretary was
biased, and hence no fair hearing could be expected.
Thereafter, the act was amended and the function of hearing the objection was given over to
the minister concerned. The decision of the Government was again challenged by Nageswara
Rao on the ground of departmental bias because the minister head of the department concerned
which initiated the scheme and was also ultimately responsible for its execution. However, on
this occasion the Supreme Court the challenge on the ground that the minister was not a part
of the department in the same manner as the secretary was.25The reasoning of the Court is not
very convenient perhaps because, observed earlier departmental bias is something, which is
inherent in the administrative process. In the U.S.A and in England the problem of departmental
bias has been solved, the sum extent, with the institution of hearing officers and inspectors.
The problem of departmental bias arises in different context- when the functions of judge and
prosecutor are combined in the same department. It is not uncommon to find that the same
department which initiates a matter also decides it, therefore, at times, departmental fraternity
and loyalty militates against the concept of fair hearing.
The decision of the Court may be correct in the idle perspective but it may not always prove
wise in practice. It may be suggested that the technique of internal separation which is being
followed in America and England can be profitably used in India if a certain amount of
confidence is to be developed in the minds of the People in administrative decision making.26
9-CONCLUSION:
While deriving the conclusion I would like to sum up my topic with further mention judgement.
In Rt. J. P. Linhan Inc. a very illuminating Judgement was given by J. Jerome Frank, a brief
excerpt from which reads: “Democracy must, reads: “Democracy must, indeed, fail unless our
Courts try cases fairly, and there can be no fair trial before a Judge lacking in impartiality and
disinterestedness. If, however, ‘bias’ and ‘partiality’ be defined to mean the total absence of
preconceptions in the mind of Judge, then no one has ever had a fair trial and no one ever will.’
So, it is important that there should be no bias or encouragement to bias by any judicial, quasi-
judicial and administrative body but certain PRECONCEPTIONS in the mind of judge are
essential.
4- https://www.scribd.com/.../Rule-Against-BIAS-principle-of-natural-justice.