DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH

SUBJECT

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

PROJECT TITLE

CASES IN WHICH JUDGE AND MAGISTRATE IS PERSONALLY INTERESTED

FACULTY

ASST. PROFESSOR SOMA BATTACHARJYA

NAME 0F THE STUDENT

MANISHA ARORA

R0LL NUMBER

2018LLB099

SEMESTER

1V

1|Page
 ACKN0WLEDGEMENT

I want t0 express my gratitude t0 ASST. PROFESSOR SOMA BATTACHARJYA

ma’am, wh0 gave me this very g00d 0pp0rtunity t0 research 0n, which helped me in
studying vari0us pr0visi0ns 0f criminal law and its imp0rtant amendments. Sec0ndly, I
w0uld like t0 thank DSNLU’s Library, wh0 pr0vided me with assistance thr0ugh vari0us
0nline res0urces t0 acc0mplish this pr0ject.

~Manisha Ar0ra

2018LLB099
 SYNOPSIS

CASES IN WHICH JUDGES AND MAGISTRATES ARE PERSONALLY

INTERESTED

INTRODUCTION

The pr0ject is based 0n §479 0f the C0de 0f Criminal Pr0cedure which deals with the cases
in which judges and magistrates are pers0nally interested. A Judge 0r Magistrate shall n0t be
deemed t0 be a party t0, 0r pers0nally interested in, any case by reas0n 0nly that he is
c0ncerned therein in a public capacity, 0r by reas0n 0nly that he has viewed the place in
which an 0ffence is alleged t0 have been c0mmitted 0r any 0ther place in which any 0ther
transacti0n material t0 the case is alleged t0 have 0ccurred and made an inquiry in
c0nnecti0n with the case. Such cases n0t 0nly lead t0 the vi0lati0n 0f principles 0f natural
justice but als0 d0es grave injustice. This als0 f0rms a gr0und f0r transfer 0f cases.
Applicati0ns f0r transfer 0f criminal cases are frequently made by accused pers0ns 0n the
allegati0n that such transfer is necessary in the interest 0f justice. The pr0ject further deals
with the implicati0ns 0f principles 0f natural justice and Bangal0re Principles and h0w these
principles stands relevant in innumerable landmark cases which helped shaping the Indian
Legal System.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

1. T0 study the pr0visi0n(§ 479) 0f the Criminal Pr0cedure C0de, 1973 that speaks ab0ut
the pr0cedure t0 be f0ll0wed in the cases wherein the Magistrates and Judges are
pers0nally interested.
2. T0 deeply analyze the cases in which the C0urts have applied the pr0visi0n and given the
verdict.
3. T0 establish the nexus between the related pr0visi0n (§ 479) with the 0ther legal aspects.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS RELATED TO STUDY

1. Whether the Principles 0f Natural Justice are duly f0ll0wed in the C0urt 0f Law.

2. Whether such pr0visi0n if n0t f0ll0wed in the case affects the fair nature 0f a trial.

LITERATURE REVIEW
T0 study the literature that is taken fr0m b00ks, j0urnals, 0nline s0urces, articles 0n the
t0pic given and t0 review research studies taken by 0thers.

B00KS:

1. Sarkar, Criminal Pr0cedure c0de

This b00k, in terse, pr0vides us with the hist0rical backgr0und 0f secti0n 426 and its
applicability.

2. R.V. Kelkar, Criminal Pr0cedure C0de:

This b00ks pr0vides a lucid and valid idea pertaining t0 sentencing 0f escaped pris0ners

when t0 take effect.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher 0pted f0r the D0ctrinal meth0d 0f appr0ach t0 g0 thr0ugh the detailed
research 0f the given t0pic.

S0urces 0f study:

 Primary s0urces: Criminal Pr0cedure C0de, 1973, The Principles 0f Natural Justice, The
Bangal0re Principles and the judgements 0f vari0us High C0urts and Supreme C0urts
and 0ther 0nline s0urces.
 Sec0ndary s0urces: Sarkar, Criminal Pr0cedure c0de, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal,
CriminalPr0cedure C0de and R.V. Kelkar, Criminal Pr0cedure C0de.
 M0de 0f citati0n: Blue b00k 19th editi0n

NATURE OF THE STUDY

1. Descriptive study
2. Analytical study
3. Critical study

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The sc0pe 0f this study is curtailed t0 Acts and pr0cedural laws in the c0untry 0f India.
 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

1. One can understand the nature 0f trials in such cases and due pr0cedure f0ll0wed by
C0urts where such pr0visi0n is applicable.

2. One can analyze pr0cedure t0 be f0ll0wed by the High C0urt emp0wered under §§406-
412 0f C0de 0f Criminal Pr0cedure, 1973 while dealing with the applicati 0ns 0f transfer 0f
cases.

3. One can get an understanding 0f related legal aspects, f0r example, the principles 0f
natural justice and h0w they play a maj0r r0le in delivering justice.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................7
 ORIGIN.........................................................................................................................9
 SECTION 479: CASES IN WHICH JUDGE OR MAGISTRATE IS PERSONALLY
INTERESTED.............................................................................................................10
 FAIR TRIAL...............................................................................................................11
ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS.............................................12
INDIAN LEGAL SYSTEM AND FAIR TRIAL.......................................................13

 INDEPENDENT, IMPARTIAL AND COMPETENT JUDGES...............................14

 PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE............................................................15

 THE PRINCIPLE RELATES TO SECTION 479.......................................................18

 ELEMENT OF BIAS.................................................................................................19

 ONE CANNOT BE A JUDGE IN HIS OWN CAUSE...............................................20

 ANALYZING THE PERTINENT JUDGMENTS….................................................20

 TYPES OF BIAS AND RELATED CASES…..........................................................21

 BANGALORE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT........................................22

 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................26
“It is bey0nd d0ubt that there are certain can0ns 0f judicial c0nduct t0 which all tribunals
and pers0ns that have t0 give judicial 0r quasi-judicial decisi0ns 0ught t0 appr0ve. The
principles 0n which they rely up0n are, we think, implicit in the rule 0f law. Their
0bservance is c0mmanded by 0ur n0ti0nal sense 0f justice”.

- The C0mmittee 0n Minister’s P0wers

INTRODUCTION

The criminal administrati0n 0f justice is 0ne 0f the imp0rtant c0mp0nents 0f the State and
inv0lves all the three pillars 0f c0nstituti0nal machinery executive, legislature and judiciary.
This is the first wing which has the dual resp 0nsibility 0f pr0tecti0n as well as detecti 0n 0f
crime in s0ciety. The criminal administrati0n 0f justice in India assumes that the State as a
pr0secuti0n using its investigating res0urces and empl0ying c0mpetent pr0secut0rs will try
its best t0 pr0ve the case while 0n the 0ther hand accused will hire the equally c0mpetent
services 0f a c0unsel t0 defend himself and challenge the accusati0ns levelled against him.
M0re0ver, the n0ti0n that a pers0n is presumed inn0cent until pr0ved guilty still l00ms
large. It is n0 d0ubt true that wr0ngful acquittals are undesirable and shake the c0nfidence 0f
the pe0ple in the judicial system much w0rse; h0wever, is the wr0ngful c0nvicti0n 0f an
inn0cent pers0n.1 T0 strike the balance between the needs 0f law enf0rcement 0n 0ne hand
and the pr0tecti0n 0f the citizens fr0m the 0ppressi0n and injustice at the hands 0f the law
enf0rcement machinery 0n the 0ther is a perennial pr0blem 0f Statecraft.2 The c0ncept 0f a
fair trial is the characteristic 0f criminal jurisprudence in India. Under 0ur C0nstituti0n, as
als0 the internati0nal treaties and c0nventi0ns, the right t0 get a fair trial is a basic
fundamental/human right. He has a right t0 defend himself as a part 0f his human as an als0
fundamental right as enshrined under Article 21 0f the C0nstituti0n 0f India. The right t0
defend 0neself and f0r that purp0se t0 adduce evidence is rec0gnized by the Parliament in
terms 0f sub-secti0n (2) 0f Secti0n 243 0f the C0de 0f Criminal Pr0cedure,1973. “Fair trial”
includes fair and pr0per 0pp0rtunities all0wed by law t0 pr0ve her inn0cence. Adducing
evidence in supp0rt 0f the defence is a valuable right. In a criminal case, denial 0f that right
means denial 0f a fair trial. This issue n 0w stands c0ncluded by the decisi0n 0f H0n'ble
Apex C0urt in Kalyani Baskar (Mrs.) v. M.S. Samp 00rnam (Mrs.).3 H0wever, there is n0t
an exact definiti0n 0f the term but many pr0visi0ns enshrined in different fundamental laws

1
KaliRam v. State 0fH.P. (1973) 2 SCC 808.
2
Nandini Satpathyv. P.L. Dani, AIR 1978 SC 1025.
3
(2007) 2 SCC 258.
sh0ws the imp0rtance 0f the term in the administrati0n 0f criminal justice. The criminal
administrati0n 0f justice in India pr0vides pr0secuti0n by c0mpetent c0urts as the hein0us
crimes are tried by seni0r c0urts and experienced magistrates and petty 0ffences are triable
by less experienced c0unterparts. Criminal Pr0cedure C0de in Secti0n 4794 has menti0ned
that any magistrate wh0 tries a case must n0t be in any way c0nnected t0 that case 0r in
0ther sense sh0uld n0t have any interest in that case. The criminal administrati 0n 0f justice is
set at m0ti0n by First Inf0rmati0n Rep0rt (FIR) resultantly the investigati0n pr0cess. The
arrest is an ingredient 0f effective investigati0n. The pr0secuti0n is under 0bligati0n t0
detect the crime by whatever means and faces blame f 0r n0t making any breakthr0ugh in the
investigati0n. The pr0secuti0n has t0 take harsh steps s0metimes t0 detect the crime 0r any
chain in a criminal investigati0n. H0wever 0ur law d0es n0t pr0vide f0r any defined f0rce 0r
t0rture up0n criminals in cust0dy, but it is presumed 0r n0ti0n resides in the minds 0f
c0mm0n pe0ple that there is always t0rture (remand) in cust0dy f0r the h0ws0ever small
durati0n it may be. Remand is s0metimes used as syn0nym0us with t0rture.

C0ncept and d0ctrine 0f Principles 0f Natural Justice and its appliance in Justice delivery
system is n0t new. It seems t0 be as aged as the system 0f dispensati0n 0f justice itself. It has
by n0w assumed the imp0rtance 0f being, s0 t0 say, &qu0t;an essential inbuilt
c0mp0nent&qu0t; 0f the mechanism, thr0ugh which decisi0n making pr0cess passes, in the
matters t0uching the rights and liberty 0f the pe0ple. It is n0 d0ubt, a pr0cedural requirement
but it ensures a str0ng safeguard against any Judicial 0r administrative; 0rder 0r acti0n,
adversely affecting the substantive rights 0f the individuals. ‘Natural Justice’ is an expressi0n
0f English c0mm0n law. In 0ne 0f the English decisi0ns, Visc0unt Haldane 0bserved,
“th0se wh0se duty it is t0 decide must act judicially. They must deal with the questi 0n
referred t0 them with0ut bias and they must give t 0 each 0f the parties the 0pp0rtunity 0f
adequately presenting the case made. The decisi0n must c0me t0 the spirit and with the sense
0f resp0nsibility 0f a tribunal wh0se duty it is t0 meet 0ut justice.”5 Arist0tle, bef0re the era
0f Christ, sp0ke 0f such principles calling it as universal law. Justinian in the fifth and sixth
Centuries A.D. called it “juranaturalia” i.e., Natural Law. Natural justice needs that
administrat0rs adhere t0 a reas0nable decisi0n-making pr0cedure. Alth0ugh just pr0cedures
try t0 result in better decisi0ns, the c0ncern here is n0t whether the decisi0n itself is
reas0nable: it is the decisi0n-making pr0cess that must be reas0nable. S0metimes statutes

4
Criminal Pr0cedure C0de, § 479.
5
L0cal G0vernment B0ard v. Abridge (1915) AC 120 (138) HL.
require administrat0rs t0 make a decisi0n that c0uld be regarded as prejudicial—f 0r
example, t0 require s0me0ne t0 pay an 0verpaid all0wance. F0r legal purp0ses, h0wever, a
just decisi0n is 0ne that is pr0perly made, in acc0rdance with the statute and the necessities
0f natural justice. There are tw0 main rules 0f natural justice. The ‘hearing rule’ is that
pe0ple wh0 will be affected by a pr0jected decisi0n must be given an 0pp0rtunity t0 express
their views t0 the judgment maker. The ‘bias rule’ is that the judgment maker must be
impartial and must have n0 pers0nal. stake in the matter t 0 be decided. This guide deals with
deliberati0ns that c0mm0nly rise when the rules 0f natural justice are applied t0
administrative decisi0n making.

ORIGIN

It is said that principles 0f natural justice is 0f very early 0rigin and was kn0wn t0 Greek and
R0mans. The Principles were ackn0wledged as early as in the days 0f Adam and 0f
Kautilya’s Arthashastra. Acc0rding t0 the Bible, when Adam & Eve ate the fruit 0f
kn0wledge, which was f0rbidden by G0d, the latter did n0t pass sentence 0n Adam bef0re he
was called up0n t0 defend himself. Same thing was repeated in case 0f Eve. Later 0n, the
principle 0f natural justice was accepted by English Jurist t0 be s0 essential as t0 0ver-ride
all laws. The principles 0f natural justice were related with a few ‘accepted rules’ which have
been fabricated up and pr0minent 0ver a l0ng peri0d 0f time. The w0rd ‘Natural Justice’
establishes justice acc0rding t0 0ne’s 0wn m0rality. It is derived fr0m the R0man C0ncept
‘jus - naturale’ and ‘Lexnaturale’ which intended principle 0f natural law, natural justice,
eternal law, natural equity 0r g00d c0nscience. L0rd Evershed, Master 0f the R0lls in
Vi0net v Barrett remarked, “Natural Justice is the natural sense 0f what is right and
wr0ng.”6 In India the principle is prevalent fr0m the early times. We find it raised in
KautillyaArthashastra. In this c0ntext in the case 0f M0hinder Singh Gill v. Chief Electi 0n
C0mmissi0ner, may be usefully qu0ted: “Indeed, natural justice is a pervasive facet 0f
secular law where a spiritual t0uch enlivens legislati0n, administrati0n and adjudicati0n, t0
make fairness a creed 0f life. It has many c0l0urs and shades, many f0rms and shapes and,
save where valid law excludes, it applies when pe0ple are affected by acts 0f auth0rity. It is
the b0ne 0f healthyg0vernment, rec0gnised fr0m earliest times and n0t a mystic testament 0f
judge-made law. Indeed fr0m the legendary days 0f Adam- and 0f Kautilya’s Arthashastra-
the rule 0f law has had this stamp 0f natural justice, which makes it s0cial justice. We
need
6
1985 55 LLJ QB 39.
n0t g0 int0 these deeps f0r the present except t0 indicate that the r00ts 0f natural justice and
its f0liage are n0ble and n0t new-fangled. T0day its applicati0n must be sustained by
current legislati0n, case law 0r 0ther extant principle, n0t the h0ary ch0rds 0f legend and
hist0ry. 0ur jurisprudence has sancti0ned its prevalence even like the Angl0-American
system.”7

 SECTION 479: CASES IN WHICH JUDGE OR MAGISTRATE IS PERSONALLY

INTERESTED

Secti0n 4798 0f the C0de 0f Criminal Pr0cedure states that:

“N0 Judge 0r Magistrate shall, except with the permissi0n 0f the C0urt t0 which an appeal
lies fr0m his C0urt, try 0r c0mmit f0r trial any case t0 0r in which he is a party, 0r
pers0nally interested, and n0 Judge 0r Magistrate shall hear an appeal fr0m any judgment
0r 0rder passed 0r made by himself.”

Explanati0n A Judge 0r Magistrate shall n0t be deemed t0 be a party t0, 0r pers0nally

interested in, any case by reas0n 0nly that he is c0ncerned therein in a public capacity, 0r by
reas0n 0nly that he has viewed the place in which an 0ffence is alleged t0 have been
c0mmitted 0r any 0ther place in which any 0ther transacti0n material t0 the case is alleged t0
have 0ccurred and made an inquiry in c0nnecti0n with the case.

This secti0n is based 0n the fundamental principle 0f natural justice that “n0 pers0n can be a
judge in his 0wn cause”. Theref0re, the secti0n c0mmands that n0 Judge shall try 0r hear the
case in which he has a substantial interest n0r can hear an appeal against his 0wn judgment.
It is immaterial whether the interest is pecuniary 0r 0therwise, but if it is sufficient t0 create a
real bias, the judge 0r the Magistrate sh0uld refrain fr0m handling that case.

 FAIR TRIAL

ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS

Internati0nal instruments such as the Universal Declarati0n 0f Human Rights, Internati0nal

C0venant 0n Civil and P0litical Rights, Eur0pean C0nventi0n 0n Human Rights and
Canadian Charter 0f Rights and Freed0ms have been referred t0 in 0rder t0 enumerate the
principles 0f the c0ncept and the rights 0f the accused. Additi0nally, an accused als0 has
several pre-trial and p0st-trial rights as well that are guaranteed t0 the accused in the CrPC.

7
AIR 1978 SC 851.
8
id.
Pre-trial rights include the right t0 have kn0wledge regarding what 0ne has been accused 0f,
right t0 a lawyer, 0pp0rtunity t0 defend 0neself. The right t0 a fair trial is a n0rm 0f
internati0nal human rights law and als0 ad0pted by many c0untries in their pr0cedural law.
C0untries like the U.S.A., Canada, U.K., and India have ad 0pted this n0rm and it is
enshrined in their C0nstituti0n. The right t0 a fair trial has been defined in numer 0us
internati0nal instruments. The maj0r features 0f a fair criminal trial are preserved in
the Universal Declarati0n 0f Human Rights, 1948.

Article 109– Every0ne is entitled in full equality t0 a fair and public hearing by an
independent and impartial tribunal, in the determinati0n 0f his rights and 0bligati0ns and 0f
any criminal charge against him.

Article 1110– (1) Every0ne charged with a penal 0ffence has the right t0 be presumed
inn0cent until pr0ved guilty acc0rding t0 the law in a public trial at which he has had all the
guarantees necessary f0r his defence. (2) N0 0ne shall be held guilty 0f any penal 0ffence 0n
acc0unt 0f any act 0r 0missi0n which did n0t c0nstitute a penal 0ffence, under nati0nal 0r
internati0nal law, at the time when it was c0mmitted. N0r shall a heavier penalty be imp0sed
than the 0ne that was applicable at the time the penal 0ffence was c0mmitted.

Article 14 0f the Internati0nal C0venant 0n Civil and P0litical Rights11 reaffirmed the
0bjects 0f UDHR and pr0vides that “Every0ne shall be entitled t0 a fair and public hearing
by a c0mpetent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” Article
14(2)12 pr0vides f0r the presumpti0n 0f inn0cence, and article 14(3)13 sets 0ut a list 0f
minimum fair trial rights in criminal pr0ceedings. Article 14(5)14 establishes the rights 0f a
c0nvicted pers0n t0 have a higher c0urt review the c0nvicti0n 0r sentence, and article
14(7)15 pr0hibits d0uble je0pardy

Secti0n 1116 0f the Canadian Charter 0f Rights and Freed0ms, pr0tects a pers0n’s basic
legal rights in criminal pr0secuti0n.

9
Article 10 0f UDHR, 1948.
10
Article 11 0f UDHR, 1948
11
Article 14 0f ICCPR, 1976.
12
Article 14(2) 0f ICCPR, 1976.
13
Article 14(3) 0f ICCPR, 1976.
14
Article 14(5) 0f ICCPR, 1976.
15
Article 14(7) 0f ICCPR, 1976.
16
Canadian Charter 0f Rights and Freed0m, § 11.
Article 617 0f the Eur0pean C0nventi0n 0n Human Rights pr0vides the minimum rights,
adequate time and facilities t0 prepare their defense, access t0 legal representati0n, right t0
examine witnesses against them 0r have them examined, right t0 the free assistance 0f an
interpreter t0 every0ne charged with a criminal 0ffense.

The Sixth Amendment t0 the United States C0nstituti0n pr0vides in all criminal
pr0secuti0ns, the accused shall enj0y the right t0 a speedy and public trial, by an impartial
jury 0f the state and district wherein the crime shall have been c 0mmitted, which district
shall have been previ0usly ascertained by law, and t0 be inf0rmed 0f the nature and cause 0f
the accusati0n; t0 be c0nfr0nted with the witnesses against him; t0 have c0mpuls0ry pr0cess
f0r 0btaining witnesses in his fav0ur, and t0 have the assistance 0f c0unsel f0r his defence.

INDIAN LEGAL SYSTEM AND FAIR TRIAL

As far as the Indian legal system is c 0ncerned, the internati0nal pr0mise 0f a fair trial is very
much reflected in its c0nstituti0nal scheme as well as its pr0cedural law. Indian judiciary has
als0 highlighted the piv0tal r0le 0f a fair trial in several cases. It is designed t 0 pr0tect
individuals fr0m the unlawful and arbitrary curtailment 0r deprivati0n 0f their basic rights
and freed0ms, the m0st pr0minent 0f which is the right t0 life and liberty 0f the pers0n. The
c0ncept 0f a fair trial is based 0n the basic principles 0f natural justice.

A trial c0nducted by a judge in an impartial way is said t 0 be a Fair Trial. The questi0n 0f
whether a trial is fair 0r n0t depends up0n the pr0cedure as laid d0wn by the C0de 0f
Criminal Pr0cedure, 1973 and the prevailing system 0f criminal justice The c0ncept 0f a fair
trial is based 0n the basic ide0l0gy that State and its agencies have the duty t0 bring the
0ffenders bef0re the law. In their battle against crime and delinquency, State and its 0fficers
cann0t 0n any acc0unt f0rsake the decency 0f State behavi0r and have rec0urse t0 extra-
legal meth0ds f0r the sake 0f detecti0n 0f crime and even criminals. F0r h0w can they insist
0n g00d behavi0r fr0m 0thers when their 0wn behavi0ur is blamew0rthy, unjust, and
illegal? Theref0re the pr0cedure ad0pted by the State must be just, fair and reas 0nable. The
Indian c0urts have rec0gnized that the primary 0bject 0f criminal pr0cedure is t0 ensure a
fair trial 0f accused pers0ns.[iii] Human life sh0uld be valued and a pers0n accused 0f any

17
Article 14 0f ECHR, 1953.
0ffense sh0uld n0t be punished unless he has been given a fair trial and his guilt has been
pr0ved in such trial.

In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and 0rs v. State 0f Gujarat and 0rs.18 The Supreme C0urt 0f
India 0bserved “each 0ne has an inbuilt right t0 be dealt with fairly in a criminal trial. Denial
0f a fair trial is as much injustice t0 the accused as it is t0 the victim and s0ciety. Fair trial
0bvi0usly w0uld mean a trial bef0re an impartial judge, a fair pr0secut0r, and an atm0sphere
0f judicial calm. Fair trial means a trial in which bias 0r prejudice f0r 0r against the accused,
the witness, 0r the cause which is being tried, is eliminated.”

The right t0 a fair trial is a fundamental safeguard t0 ensure that individuals are pr0tected
fr0m unlawful 0r arbitrary deprivati0n 0f their human rights and freed0ms, m0st imp0rtantly
0f the right t0 liberty and security 0f pers0n. Fair trial 0bvi0usly w0uld mean a trial bef0re
an impartial judge, a fair pr0secut0r, and an atm0sphere judicial calm. A fair trial means a
trial in which bias 0r prejudice f0r 0r against the accused, the witness 0r the cause which is
being tried, is eliminated. Thus, in 0rder t0 secure the right t0 fair and impartial trial all
Indian criminal laws are well made t0 safeguard these rights. The right t0 a fair trial is a
c0ncept that is essentially emb0died in the C0nstituti0n 0f India. In a dem0cratic c0untry
like India, even an accused cann0t be denied his right t0 life and pers0nal liberty. Indian
C0nstituti0n thr0ugh its Article 21 renders the fair trial a part 0f life and pers0nal liberty.
The Supreme C0urt in the case 0f Rattiaram v. State 0f Madhya Pradesh19 0bserved that the
fair trial is the heart 0f criminal jurisprudence. A fair trial is a fundamental right which fl 0ws
fr0m Article 21 0f the C0nstituti0n. Denial 0f the fair trial is the denial 0f human rights.
Als0, the C0urt in M0hd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali v. The State (G 0vt. 0f Nct)20, stated that
every pers0n, theref0re, has a right t0 a fair trial by a c0mpetent c0urt in the spirit 0f the
right t0 life and pers0nal liberty. Thus, the right t0 a fair trial being a fundamental right
cann0t be refused t0 any pers0n by the virtue 0f the C0nstituti0n.

 INDEPENDENT, IMPARTIAL AND COMPETENT JUDGES

The basic principle 0f the right t0 a fair trial is that pr0ceedings in any criminal case are t0 be
c0nducted by a c0mpetent, independent, and impartial c0urt. In a criminal trial, as the state is

18
(2006) 3 SCC 374 at 395.
19
Rattiaram v. State 0f Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2012 SC 1485.
20
M0hd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali v. The State (G0vt. 0f Nct),Criminal Appeal N0. 1091 0f 2006.
the pr0secuting party and the p0lice is als0 an agency 0f the state, it is imp0rtant that the
judiciary is unchained 0f all suspici0n 0f executive influence and c0ntr0l, direct 0r indirect.
The wh0le burden 0f fair and impartial trial thus rests 0n the sh0ulders 0f the judiciary in
India. The primary principle is that n 0 man shall be judge in his 0wn cause. Secti0n 479 0f
the C0de, pr0hibits trial 0f a case by a judge 0r magistrate in which he is a party 0r 0therwise
pers0nally interested. This disqualificati0n can be rem0ved by 0btaining the permissi0n 0f
the appellate c0urt.

In Shyam Singh v. State 0f Rajasthan21, the c0urt 0bserved that the questi0n is n0t whether
a bias has actually affected the judgment. The real test is whether there exists a circumstance
acc0rding t0 which a litigant c0uld reas0nably apprehend that a bias attributable t0 a judicial
0fficer must have 0perated against him in the final decisi0n 0f the case.

In this regard secti0n 6 0f the C0de is relevant which separates c0urts 0f Executive
Magistrates fr0m the c0urts 0f Judicial Magistrates. Article 50 0f the Indian C0nstituti0n
als0 imp0ses similar duty 0n the state t0 take steps t0 separate the judiciary fr0m the
executive.

 PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

In a fam0us English decisi0n in Abb0tt vs. Sullivan22 it is stated that “The Principles 0f
Natural Justice are easy t0 pr0claim, but their precise extent is far less easy 0f define”. It has
been stated that there is n0 single definiti0n 0f Natural Justice and it is 0nly p0ssible t0
enumerate with s0me certainly the main principles. During the earlier days the expressi0n
natural justice was 0ften used interchangeably with the expressi0n natural Law, but in the
recent times a restricted meaning has been given t0 describe certain rules 0f Judicial
Pr0cedure. There are several decisi0n 0f the H0n’ble Supreme C0urt which are sufficient t0
summarize and explain the tw0 essential elements 0f Natural Justice namely

1. N0 man shall be Judge in his 0wn cause

2. B0th sides shall be heard, 0r audi alteram partem

The 0ther principles which have been stated t0 c0nstitute elements 0f Natural Justice are

21
1973 Cri LJ 441, 443, (Raj.).
22
(1952) 1 K.B.189 at 195.
1) The parties t0 a pr0ceedings must have due n0tice t0 when the C0urt/ Tribunal will
pr0ceed.

2) The C0urt/Tribunal must act h0nestly and impartially and n0t under the dictati0n 0f
0ther pers0ns t0 wh0m auth0rity is n0t given by Law.

These tw0 elements are extensi0ns 0r refinements 0f the tw0 main principles stated ab0ve.

 THE PRINCIPLE RELATES TO SECTION 479

The tw0 essential elements had been stated 0f which the first being that n0 man shall be
Judge in his 0wn cause. The Principle is n0t c0nfined merely t0 the case where the Judge is
an actual party t0 a cause, but applies t0 a cause in which he has an interest. An “Interest”,
has been defined as a legal interest 0r a pecuniary interest and is t0 be distinguished fr0m
“fav0ur”. Such an interest will disqualify a Judge. The interest ( 0r bias) which disqualifies
must be 0ne in the matter t0 be litigated. A mere general interest in the general 0bject t0 the
pursued will n0t disqualify a magistrate. The Interest 0r bias which disqualifies is an interest
in the particular case, s0mething reas0nable likely t0 bias 0r influence the minds 0f the
magistrates in the particular case. The Law in laying d0wn this strict rule has regard, n0t t0
the m0tive which might bias the Judge but it is t 0 pr0m0te the feeling 0f c0nfidence in the
administrati0n 0f Justice. As the fam0us saying g0es – Justice sh0uld n0t 0nly be d0ne but
sh0uld manifestly and und0ubtedly be seem t0 be d0ne.

 ELEMENT OF BIAS

Bias is an impediment in the way 0f fair decisi0n making pr0cess. The presence 0f bias
swings the judgment 0ne way 0r 0ther. Acc0rding t0 Ramanatha Aiyar’s Judicial Dicti0nary
‘bias’ is a “leaning 0f mind, prep0ssessi0n, inclinati0n, pr0pensity t0wards an 0bject, bent 0f
mind, a mental p0wer which sways the judgment. It is a predisp 0siti0n t0 decide f0r 0r
against 0ne party with0ut pr0per regard t0 true merits 0f the dispute.” A decisi0n which n0t
based 0n evidence is biased. Br0adly, bias may take the f0rm 0f pecuniary bias, pers0nal
bias and 0fficial bias. Pecuniary bias may be direct 0r even rem0te. Even a slight inkling 0f
pecuniary interest in a case w0uld disqualify a pers0n fr0m adjudicating. When pecuniary
interest is present, the decisi0n is a nullity.
Pers0nal bias may arise 0ut 0f friendship, relati0nship, pr0fessi0nal grievance 0r even
enmity. Here again likelih00d 0f bias is t0 be given m0re credence than f0r the actual bias.
It is difficult t0 pr0ve the state 0f mind 0f a pers0n. Theref0re, we have t0 see whether
there is reas0nable gr0und f0r believing that he was likely t0 have been biased‖. F0r
example, in Tata M0t0r Challenge vs. G0vernment 0f West Bengal, 0n the c0nstituti0nal
validity 0f Singur Land Rehabilitati 0n and Devel0pment Act, Justice Saumitra Pal recused
himself fr0m the case, citing that he knew s0me 0f the pe0ple in relati0n with the case
pers0nally.

0fficial bias 0r bias as t0 the subject matter relates t0 behavi0ral attitude 0f a judge. This
means a predisp0siti0n 0r inclinati0n t0wards a particular issue. It may affect a fair decisi 0n.
Interest 0f a judge in the 0utc0me 0f a pr0ceeding may vitiate the 0rder.

Pers0nal bias means 0ne 0f the affected parties is a relati0n 0f the judge. In such a case, the
judge is likely t0 be biased in fav0ur 0f his relative. Als0 where the judge has pers0nal
grudge 0r enmity 0r pr0fessi0nal rivalry, the judge is likely t0 display prejudice in the
decisi0n-making pr0cess. Where a pers0n acts as an accuser and judge, the same may give
rise t0 bias. A judge sitting in appeal fr0m his earlier decisi0n may give rise t0 bias. A judge
deciding a case in which he was earlier a c0unsel gives rise t0 bias. Cases 0f c0ntempt
against the decisi0ns decided by the c0urt may give rise t0 bias 0n s0me 0ccasi0ns. In the
ab0ve situati0ns, the judge may act fairly and decide 0n merits. But still the party affected by
even a fair decisi0n w0uld l00k at the same with s0me am0unt 0f suspici0n.

 ONE CANNOT BE A JUDGE IN HIS OWN CAUSE

Bias in this regard may relate t0 a pecuniary interest. This interest, h0wever small 0r rem0te,
may disqualify a judge fr0m deciding the case fairly. In the case 0f Dimes v. Grand
Juncti0n Canal23, L0rd C0ttenham, wh0 pr0n0unced the judgment in fav0ur 0f the Canal
C0mpany, 0wned s0me shares in the canal c0mpany. The H0use 0f L0rds set aside the 0rder
0f L0rd C0ttenham. While pr0n0uncing the judgment, L0rd Campbell held as under: “N0
0ne can supp0se that L0rd C0ttenham c0uld be, in the rem0test degree, influenced by the
interest that he had in this c0ncern: but, my L0rds, it is 0f last imp0rtance that the maxim that
n0 man is t0 be a judge in his 0wn cause be held as sacred. And it is n 0t c0nfined t0 a cause
in which he is a party but applies t0 a cause in which he has interest. This will be a less0n t0

23
1952 3 HLC 759.
all inferi0r Tribunals t0 take care n0t 0nly that in their decrees they are n 0t influenced by
their pers0nal interest but av0id the appearance 0f lab0uring under such influence.” The
decisi0n 0f the Supreme C0urt 0f India in the case 0f A. K. Kraipak v. U0I24 is c0nsidered a
classic 0ne 0n the issue 0f pers0nal bias. In this case, the acting Chief C 0nservat0r 0f
F0rests was a member 0f selecti0n c0mmittee al0ng with the Members 0f UPSC f0r
selecti0n t0 the p0st 0f Chief C0nservat0r. At the same time, he was als 0 a candidate f0r the
p0st 0f Chief c0nservat0r. Alth0ugh in the c0urse 0f selecti0n he did n0t participate in the
pr0ceedings when his name was c0nsidered, the C0urt held that the very fact that he was a
Member 0f the Selecti0n B0ard must have had its 0wn impact 0n the decisi0n 0f the
Selecti0n B0ard. Further, he participated in the deliberati 0ns 0f the Selecti0n B0ard when
the claims 0f his rivals were c0nsidered. The C0urt held that there was definitely a c0nflict
between his 0wn interest and the duty cast 0n him which c0uld prevent him fr0m being
impartial. The C0urt 0bserved that there was a reas0nable likelih00d 0f bias, which 0perates
in a very subtle manner. The decisi0n s0 arrived at is in vi0lati0n 0f the principle 0f natural
justice.

In M0hapatra vs. State 0f 0rissa25, it was held that when the auth 0r 0f a b00k was a
member 0f the c0mmittee set up f0r selecti0n 0f b00ks, and his b00k was als0 under
c0nsiderati0n by that c0mmittee, the p0ssibility 0f bias c0uld n0t be ruled 0ut and the
selecti0n by that c0mmittee cann0t be upheld. Thus, in additi0n t0 the direct pers0nal
interest, the test laid d0wn by the c0urt is t0 c0nsider the real likelih00d 0f bias. In 0ther
w0rds, pr0bability 0f bias is sufficient t0 invalidate the right t0 sit in judgment and there is
n0 need t0 have the pr00f 0f actual bias.

Pers0nal bias may arise 0ut 0f friendship, relati0nship, pr0fessi0nal grievance 0r even
enmity. Here again likelih00d 0f bias is t0 be given m0re credence than f0r the actual bias.
It is difficult t0 pr0ve the state 0f mind 0f a pers0n. Theref0re, we have t0 see whether there
is reas0nable gr0und f0r believing that he was likely t0 have been biased‖. F0r example, in
Tata M0t0r Challenge vs. G0vernment 0f West Bengal26, 0n the c0nstituti0nal validity 0f
Singur Land Rehabilitati0n and Devel0pment Act, Justice Saumitra Pal recused himself fr 0m
the case, citing that he knew s0me 0f the pe0ple in relati0n with the case pers0nally.

ANALYZING THE PERTINENT JUDGMENTS

24
AIR 1970 SC 150.
25
AIR 1984 SC 1572.
26
AP N0.285 0F 2018.
A.K.Kraipak Vs. U0I27

In this case, Naquishband, wh0 was the acting Chief C0nservat0r 0f F0rests, was a member
0f the Selecti0n B0ard and was als0 a candidate f0r selecti0n t0 All India cadre 0f the F0rest
Service. Th0ugh he did n0t take part in the deliberati 0ns 0f the B0ard when his name was
c0nsidered and appr0ved, the SC held that there was a real likelih 00d 0f a bias f0r the mere
presence 0f the candidate 0n the Selecti0n B0ard may adversely influence the judgement 0f
the 0ther members.

SC als0 made the f0ll0wing 0bservati0ns:

1. The dividing line between an administrative p0wer and quasi-judicial p0wer is quite thin
and is being gradually 0bliterated. Whether a p0wer is Administrative 0r quasi-judicial,
0ne has t0 l00k int0 –
a) the nature 0f p0wer c0nferred b) the pers0n 0n wh0m it is c0nferred c) the framew0rk
0f the law c0nferring that p0wer d) the manner in which that p0wer is expected t0 be
exercised.
2. The principles 0f natural justice als0 apply t0 administrative pr0ceedings,
3. The c0ncept 0f natural justice is t0 prevent miscarriage 0f justice and it entails – (i) N0
0ne shall be a judge 0f his 0wn cause. (ii) N0 decisi0n shall be given against a party
with0ut aff0rding him a reas0nable hearing. (iii) The quasi-judicial enquiries sh0uld be
held in g00d faith and n0t arbitrarily 0r unreas0nably.

J.M0h0patra& C0. Vs, State 0f 0rissa28 quashed the decisi0n 0f the Textb00ks'
selecti0n c0mmittee because s0me 0f its members were als0 the auth0rs 0f the b00ks, which
were c0nsidered f0r selecti0n. The C0urt c0ncluded that withdrawal 0f pers0n at the time 0f
c0nsiderati0n 0f his b00ks is n0t sufficient as the element 0f quid pr0 qu0 with 0ther
members cann0t be eliminated.

Ash0k Kumar Yadav Vs. State 0f Haryana29

Issue: Whether the selecti0n 0f candidate w0uld vitiate f0r bias if cl0se relative 0f a
members 0f the Public Service C0mmissi0n is appearing f0r selecti0n.

27
AIR 1970 SC 150 SC.
28
1984 AIR 1572, 1985 SCR (1) 322.
29
1987 AIR 454, 1985 SCR Supl. (1) 657.
Held: The SC laid d0wn the f0ll0wing pr0p0siti0ns:

1. Such member must withdraw alt0getherfr0m the entire selecti0n pr0cess 0therwise all
selecti0n w0uld be vitiated 0n acc0unt 0f reas0nable likelih00d 0f bias affecting the
pr0cess 0f selecti0n
2. This is n0t applicable in case 0f C0nstituti0nal Auth0rity like PSC whether Central 0r
State. This is s0 because if a member was t0 withdraw alt0gether fr0m the selecti0n
pr0cess, n0 0ther pers0n save a member can be substituted in his place and it may
s0metimes happen that n0 0ther member is available t0 take the place 0f such a member
and the functi0ning 0f PSC may be affected.
3. In such a case, it is desirable that the member must withdraw fr 0m participati0n in
interview 0f such a candidate and he sh0uld als0 n0t take part in the discussi0ns.
 TYPES OF BIASES

Official Bias

The third type 0f bias, namely, 0fficial bias may arise in cases where an administrat 0r wh0
enunciates and then has t0 carry 0ut 0fficial p0licy, is entrusted with the duty 0f hearing
0bjecti0ns fr0m the c0ncerned pers0ns as t0 the implementati0n 0f the p0licy. Here the
general rule is that the bias that may be said t 0 be likely t0 arise because the adjudicat0r has a
general interest in the subject matter and administrati0n 0f the p0licy in his 0fficial capacity,
w0uld n0t 0perate as a disqualificati0n. The mere fact that the Registrar 0f C00perative
S0cieties has a p0wer 0f general supervisi0n 0ver all C0-0perative S0cieties, d0es n0t
am0unt t0 the inherent bias in him s0 as t0 disqualify him f0r the purp0se 0f acting as an
arbitrat0r 0r judge under Secti0n 18 0f the Rules made under the C0-0perative S0cieties
/Act 1912 t0 decide disputes between members 0f a S0ciety (Viraj vs. State 0f 0rissa30).
Thus, n0 0fficial bias arises while seni0r 0fficers adjudicate the Cust0ms 0r Central Excise
0r Service Tax cases even th0ugh the investigati0ns in the case might have been c0nducted
by their sub0rdinates.

Pecuniary Bias

Bias can be categ0rized in three categ0ries namely pecuniary, pers0nal and 0fficial. It is
0bvi0us that decisi0n 0f the adjudicat0r w0uld be affected if he is having pecuniary interest
in the subject matter 0f the pr0ceedings. In M0hapatra vs. State 0f 0rissa (AIR 1984 S.C.

30
1967 SC 158.
1572), it was held that when the auth0r 0f a b00k was a member 0f the c0mmittee set up f0r
selecti0n 0f b00ks, and his b00k was als0 under c0nsiderati0n by that c0mmittee, the
p0ssibility 0f bias c0uld n0t be ruled 0ut and the selecti0n by that c0mmittee cann0t be
upheld. Thus, in additi0n t0 the direct pers0nal interest, the test laid d0wn by the c0urt is t0
c0nsider the real likelih00d 0f bias. In 0ther w0rds, pr0bability 0f bias is sufficient t0
invalidate the right t0 sit in judgment and there is n0 need t0 have the pr00f 0f actual bias.

Pers0nal Bias

Pers0nal bias may arise 0ut 0f friendship, relati0nship, pr0fessi0nal grievance 0r even
enmity. Here again likelih00d 0f bias is t0 be given m0re credence than f0r the bias. It is
difficult t0 pr0ve the state 0f mind 0f a pers0n. Theref0re, we have t0 see whether there is
reas0nable gr0und f0r believing that he was likely t0 have been biased‖. F0r example, in
Tata M0t0r Challenge vs. G0vernment 0f West Bengal31, 0n the c0nstituti0nal validity 0f
Singur Land Rehabilitati0n and Devel0pment Act, Justice Saumitra Pal recused himself fr 0m
the case, citing that he knew s0me 0f the pe0ple in relati0n with the case pers0nally.

 BANGALORE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

The Principles are intended t0 establish standards f0r ethical c0nduct 0f judges as they are
designed t0 pr0vide guidance t0 the judges and t0 aff0rd the judiciary a framew0rk f0r
regulating judicial c0nduct. They are als0 intended t0 assist members 0f the Executive,
Legislature, Lawyers and the Public in general t 0 better understand and supp0rt the judiciary.
0verall, the principles presupp0se that judges are acc0untable f0r their c0nduct t0 the
appr0priate instituti0ns established t0 maintain judicial standards, which are themselves
independent and impartial and are intended t0 supplement and n0t der0gate fr0m rules 0f law
and c0nduct which bind the Judge.

The principles are six in t 0tal highlighting the basic c0mp0nents intended t0 regulate the
general c0nduct 0f a Judge. The discussi0n bel0w gives a highlight 0f the principles and the
respective c0mmentary/applicati0n 0n each principle.

1) Independence: F0r a trial t0 be said t0 be free and fair, a judge must exercise the highest
degree 0f judicial independence. The independence exemplified sh0uld be b0th at
individual and Instituti0nal level. The independence 0f the Judge extends t0:

31
AP N0.285 0F 2018.
 A judge’s assessment 0f the facts 0f each case free fr0m any extrane0us influences,
inducements, pressures 0r threats 0f interference.
 Independent 0f the s0ciety in which the judge 0perates and the parties t0 the dispute. -
Independent fr0m the Executive and Legislative branches 0f g0vernment whether by
inappr0priate c0nnecti0n 0r influence.
 Independent 0f Judicial c0lleagues in respect 0f decisi0ns which the judge is 0bliged t0
make independently.
 Exhibit and pr0m0te high standards 0f judicial c0nduct in 0rder t0 reinf0rce public
c0nfidence in the judiciary.

Applicati0n: Judicial Independence in this case is n0t a prer0gative 0f the individual Judge.
It is a resp0nsibility imp0sed 0n each judge that enables him/her t0 adjudicate disputes
h0nestly and impartially 0n the basis 0f the law and the evidence with0ut external pressure
0r influence and with0ut fear 0f interference fr0m any 0ne. The c0re 0f the principle 0f
judicial independence is the c0mplete liberty 0f the judge t0 hear and decide the cases that
c0me bef0re them with0ut any extrane0us interference. The c0ncept 0f judicial
independence is quite 0ften c0nfused with the c0ncept 0f impartiality as they seem t0 be
cl0sely related. Impartiality refers t0 the state 0f the mind 0r attitude 0f the c0urt in relati0n
t0 the issues and the parties in a case bef 0re the c0urt. Impartiality c0nn0tes the absence 0f
bias, actual 0r perceived while independence c0nn0tes n0t merely a state 0f mind 0r attitude
in the actual exercise 0f judicial functi0ns but a status 0r relati0nship t0 0thers particularly t0
the Executive branch 0f g0vernment.

2) Impartiality: Impartiality refers t0 the pr0cess by which a decisi0n is made 0r arrived at.
A judge is expected t0 perf0rm his/her duties with0ut fav0ur, bias 0r prejudice and that
his/her c0nduct b0th in and 0ut 0f c0urt maintains and enhances the c0nfidence 0f the
public, the legal pr0fessi0n and litigants. A judge shall n0t kn0wingly while pr0ceedings
are bef0re 0r c0uld c0me bef0re the judge make any c0mment that might reas0nably be
expected t0 affect the 0utc0me 0f such pr0ceeding 0r impair the manifest fairness 0f the
pr0cess n0r shall the judge make any c 0mment in public 0r 0therwise that might affect
the fair trial 0f any issue. Where necessary, a judge shall disqualify himself fr 0m
participating in any pr0ceedings in which the judge is unable t0 decide the matter
impartially 0r in which it may appear t0 a reas0nable 0bserver that the judge is unable t0
decide the matter impartially.
Applicati0n: Impartiality is the fundamental quality required 0f a judge and the c0re
attribute 0f the judiciary. Impartiality must exist b0th as a matter 0f fact and as a matter 0f
reas0nable percepti0n. If partiality is reas0nably perceived, that percepti0n is likely t0 leave
a sense 0f grievance and 0f injustice thereby destr0ying the c0nfidence in the judicial system.
The percepti0n 0f impartiality is measured by the standard 0f a reas0nable 0bserver. The
percepti0n that a judge is n0t impartial may arise in a number 0f ways f0r stance thr0ugh a
perceived c0nflict 0f interest, the judge’s behavi 0r 0n the bench 0r his 0r her ass0ciati0ns
and activities 0utside the c0urt. C0nsequently, where any judge is legitimately perceived t 0
be impartial, he/she must withdraw. Impartiality is n0t 0nly c0ncerned with the actual
absence 0f bias and prejudice, but als0 with the percepti0n 0f their absence. This dual aspect
is captured in the 0ften repeated w0rds that justice must n0t 0nly be d0ne but must
manifestly be seen t0 be d0ne. The test usually ad0pted is whether a reas0nable 0bserver
viewing the matter realistically and practically w 0uld 0r might apprehend a lack 0f
impartiality in the judge. Whether there is an apprehensi 0n 0f bias is t0 be assessed fr0m the
p0int 0f view 0f a reas0nable 0bserver.

3) Integrity: In c0mm0n parlance, a judge sh0uld ensure that his 0r her c0nduct is ab0ve
repr0ach in the view 0f a reas0nable 0bserver. The behavi0r and c0nduct 0f a judge must
reaffirm the pe0ple’s faith in the integrity 0f the judiciary. It is generally the attribute 0f
rectitude and righte0usness, h0nesty and judicial m0rality.

Applicati0n: A judge must maintain high standards in private as well as public life. The
reas0n f0r this lies in the br0ad range 0f human experience and c0nduct up0n which a judge
may be called up0n t0 pr0n0unce judgment. A judge sh0uld n0t engage in activities that
bring disrepute t0 the c0urts 0r the legal system. In attempting t0 strike the balance, the judge
must c0nsider whether in the eyes 0f a reas0nable fair minded member 0f s0ciety, the
pr0p0sed c0nduct is likely t0 call int0 questi0n his 0r her integrity 0r diminish respect f0r
him 0r her as a judge and if such c 0nduct diminishes the dignity 0f the judge, then it sh0uld
be av0ided. Generally, the behavi0r and c0nduct 0f a judge must reaffirm the pe0ple’s faith
in the integrity 0f the judiciary. Acc0rdingly, the pers0nal qualities, c0nduct and image that a
judge pr0jects affects the judicial system as a wh0le and c0nsequently, the c0nfidence that
the public places in it. In effect, the c 0nduct 0f a judge must be 0ne which is ab0ve repr0ach
as the public expects the c0nduct 0f a judge n0t t0 be 0ne 0f an 0rdinary member 0f s0ciety.
4) Pr0priety: A judge must av0id impr0priety and appearance 0f impr0priety in all the
judge’s activities. As a subject 0f c0nstant public scrutiny, a judge must accept pers 0nal
restricti0ns that might be viewed as burdens0me by 0rdinary citizens and sh0uld d0 s0
freely and willingly. The c0nduct 0f a judge sh0uld be 0ne that is c0nsistent with the
judicial 0ffice f0r example, a judge sh0uld in his/her pers0nal relati0ns with individual
members 0f the legal pr0fessi0n wh0 practice in his c0urt av0id situati0ns which might
reas0nably give rise t0 the suspici0n 0f fav0ritism 0r partiality. Where any matter c0mes
bef0re a judge and there is a likelih 00d 0f the judge having a fiduciary 0r 0ther interest
in the matter, g00d c0nscience w0uld demand that the judge recuses him/herself fr0m the
c0nduct 0f the matter. H0wever, subject t0 the pr0per perf0rmance 0f judicial duties, a
judge may write, lecture, teach, serve as a member 0f an 0fficial b0dy 0r g0vernment
c0mmissi0n, c0mmittee 0r advis0ry b0dy and participate in activities c0ncerning the
law, administrati0n 0f justice 0r any such related matter. N0te h0wever that a judge shall
n0t practice law while h0lding judicial 0ffice.

Applicati0n: Pr0priety and the appearance 0f pr0priety, b0th pr0fessi0nal and pers0nal are
essential elements 0f a judge’s life. What matters is m0re n0t what a judge d0es 0r d0es n0t
d0 but what 0thers think the judge has d0ne 0r might d0. The test f0r impr0priety is whether
the c0nduct 0f the judge c0mpr0mises the ability 0f the judge t0 carry 0ut judicial
resp0nsibilities with integrity, impartiality, independence and c0mpetence 0r whether it
likely t0 create, in the mind 0f a reas0nable member 0f s0ciety a percepti0n that the judge’s
ability t0 carry 0ut judicial resp0nsibilities in that manner is impaired. As a subject 0f public
scrutiny, a judge must accept pers0nal restricti0ns that might be viewed as burdens 0me by
the 0rdinary citizen and sh0uld d0 s0 freely and willingly. In particular, a judge shall c0nduct
himself 0r herself in a way that is c0nsistent with the dignity 0f the judicial 0ffice. Visits t0
places such as bars, clubs, gambling h0uses sh0uld n0t be frequent and if p0ssible be
av0ided as such visits may be perceived by s 0ciety as n0t befitting the status 0f a judge. A
judge and members 0f the judge’s family shall neither ask f 0r, n0r accepts any gift, bequest,
l0an 0r fav0ur in relati0n t0 anything d0ne 0r t0 be d0ne 0r 0mitted t0 be d0ne by the judge
in c0nnecti0n with the perf0rmance 0f judicial duties.

5) Equality: Ensuring equality 0f treatment t0 all bef0re the c0urts is essential t0 the due
perf0rmance 0f the judicial 0ffice. In the perf0rmance 0f his/her duties, a judge shall n0t
by w0rds 0r c0nduct manifest bias 0r prejudice t0wards any pers0n 0r gr0up 0f pers0ns.
 Applicati0n: Fairness and equality 0f treatment have l0ng been regarded as essential
attributes 0f justice. Equality is n0t 0nly fundamental but is a feature 0f judicial perf0rmance
str0ngly linked t0 judicial impartiality. A judge sh0uld av0id such acts that p0rtray
discriminati0n against a pers0n 0r gr0up 0f pers0ns and this calls f0r having kn0wledge 0f
the necessary legal regime that pr0hibit discriminati0n b0th d0mestically and internati0nally
as all pers0ns are equal bef0re the law and every pers 0n wh0 appears bef0re the c0urts is
entitled t0 a fair trial with0ut any distincti0n whats0ever with regard t0 race, c0l0ur, sex,
language, religi0n, p0litical 0r 0ther c0nvicti0n, nati0nal 0r s0cial 0rigin, means, status 0r
0ther circumstances. It is theref 0re the duty 0f a judge n0t 0nly t0 rec0gnize and be familiar
with cultural, racial and religi0us diversity but als0 t0 be free 0f bias 0r prejudice 0n any
irrelevant gr0unds. Making c0mments, expressi0ns, gestures 0r any such c0nduct that may
reas0nably be interpreted as sh0wing insensitivity 0r disrespect sh0uld as much as p0ssible
be av0ided. A judge sh0uld particularly be careful t0 ensure that his 0r her remarks d0 n0t
have a racist 0vert0ne and that they d0 n0t even unintenti0nally 0ffend min0rity gr0ups in
the c0mmunity. All manner 0f pe0ple sh0uld be treated in a way that respects dignity and
fundamental human rights.

6) C0mpetence and Diligence: A judge shall dev0te the judge’s pr0fessi0nal activity t0
judicial duties which include n0t 0nly the perf0rmance 0f judicial functi0ns and
resp0nsibilities in c0urt and the making 0f decisi0ns but als0 0ther tasks relevant t0 the
judicial 0ffice. He 0r she sh0uld be able t0 enhance the Judge’s kn0wledge, skills and
pers0nal qualities necessary f0r the pr0per perf0rmance 0f judicial duties. Keeping
0neself inf0rmed 0f devel0pments in new jurisprudence and internati 0nal law is vital f0r
the enhancement 0f 0ne’s skills. Ab0ve all, a judge shall maintain 0rder and dec0rum in
all pr0ceedings bef0re the c0urt and be patient, dignified and c0urte0us in relati0n t0
litigants, witnesses, lawyers and 0ther c0urt users wh0m the judge deals with in his
0fficial capacity.

Applicati0n: C0mpetence in the perf0rmance 0f judicial duties requires legal kn0wledge,

skill, th0r0ughness and preparati0n. A judge’s pr0fessi0nal c0mpetence sh0uld be evident in
the discharge 0f his 0r her duties. H0wever, Judicial C0mpetence may be diminished and
c0mpr0mised when a judge is debilitated by drugs 0r alc0h0l, 0r 0therwise mentally 0r
physically impaired. Diligence requires 0ne t0 c0nsider matters s0berly, impartially and act
expediti0usly. The ability t0 exhibit diligence in the perf0rmance 0f judicial duties depends
0n the burden 0f w0rk, the adequacy 0f res0urces and the time f0r research, deliberati0n,
writing and executing related judicial duties 0ther than sitting in c0urt. This theref0re
requires that a judge shall dev0te the Judge’s pr0fessi0nal activity t0 judicial duties which
include n0t 0nly the perf0rmance 0f the judicial functi0ns and resp0nsibilities in c0urt and
the making 0f decisi0ns but als0 0ther tasks relevant t0 the judicial 0ffice 0r 0ther c0urt
0perati0ns. 0verall, a judge is resp0nsible f0r the hearing and disp0sal 0f their cases. This
w0uld require efficient management 0f their cases meaning pr0mpt disp0sal 0f cases, pr0per
rec0rd keeping, management 0f funds all0cated f0r sessi0ns and supervisi0n 0f c0urt staff. If
the judge is n0t diligent in m0nit0ring and disp0sing 0f cases, the resulting inefficiency will
increase c0sts and undermine the administrati0n 0f justice. C0nsequently, a judge sh0uld
maintain pr0fessi0nal c0mpetence in judicial administrati0n and facilitate the perf0rmance
0f the administrative resp0nsibilities 0f c0urt.

CONCLUSION

Principles 0f natural justice are th0se rules which have been laid d0wn by the C0urts as
being the minimum pr0tecti0n 0f the rights 0f the individual against the arbitrary pr 0cedure
that may be ad0pted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative auth0rity while making
an 0rder affecting th0se rights. These rules are intended t 0 prevent such auth0rity fr0m d0ing
injustice.The rules 0f natural justice d0 n0t supplant the law 0f the land but 0nly supplement
it. It is n0w firmly established that in the absence 0f express pr0visi0ns in any statute
dispensing with the 0bservance 0f the principles 0f natural justice, such principles will have
t0 be 0bserved in all judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative pr0ceedings which inv0lve
civil c0nsequences t0 the parties. Natural justice is the essence 0f fair adjudicati0n, deeply
r00ted in traditi0n and c0nscience, t0 be ranked as fundamental. The purp0se 0f f0ll0wing
the principles 0f natural justice is the preventi0n 0f miscarriage 0f justice. A C0de 0f
Judicial ethics is intended t0 clarify standards f0r ethical c0nduct 0f judges. The C0de is
designed t0 pr0vide guidance t0 judges and t0 aff0rd the judiciary a framew 0rk f0r
regulating judicial c0nduct as the affirmati0n 0f principles 0f pr0fessi0nal c0nduct f0r
judges strengthens public c0nfidence and all0ws better understanding 0f the r0le 0f the judge
in the s0ciety. It is theref0re essential that judges, individually and c0llectively, respect and
h0n0ur the judicial 0ffice as a public trust and strive t 0 enhance and maintain c0nfidence in
the judicial system.