ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

UNIT – 1

Q.No. 1a) ‘Administrative law has been characterized as a phenomenal outcome of the
development of the 20th century.’ Discuss.
_________________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION –
Administrative law is the law relating to the administrative operation of government. It deals with
powers and duties of administrative authorities, the procedure followed by them in exercising the
powers and discharging the duties and the remedies available to an aggrieved person when his rights
are affected by any administrative action.
According to Sir Ivor Jennings, ” Administrative law is the law relating to the administration. It
determines the organisation powers and duties of Administrative authorities.”
According to sir K.C. Davis, “Administrative Law is the law concerning the powers and procedures
of administrative agencies, including especially the law governing judicial review of administrative
action.”

REASONS FOR THE GROWTH OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW –

1. Welfare Of State
The philosophy of welfare of state is well embodied in the Indian constitution. Post-independence,
India adopted a welfare state approach, which successively increased state activities. In line with the
doctrine the basic objective of the State Administration is to attain maximum welfare for the masses.
All the policies of the state should aim at maximization of welfare of the people. With increase in
power and activity of the Government and administrative authorities, the necessity for Rule of
Law and Judicial Review of State actions also increased. In the Constitution itself, provisions were
made to secure citizens social, economic and political justice, equality of status and opportunity. The
ownership and control of material resources of the society should be so allocated as best to sub-serve
the common good.

Small steps were taken by the government for the development of the law, were, for example, the
Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act 1951, The Urban Land (ceiling and Regulation) Act
1976, The Payment of Bonus Act 1965, The Companies Act 1956, the Essential Commodities Act,
1955, the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act 1952, the Banking Companies
(Acquisition and Transfer of undertakings) Act, 1969, The Maternity Benefits Act, 1961, The Equal
Remuneration Act 1976, The Beedi Worker's Welfare Fund Act, 1976 etc.

2. Delegated Legislation
When the functions of Legislature are entrusted to organs aside from the legislature by itself, the
legislation made up by such organ is named Delegated Legislation. This power is delegated to the
executives or the administrators to resolve the issues which they face on day to day basis. Delegation
of legislation provides the chief room for experimentation. This provides for fast utilization of
experience, talent and implementation of the changes as and when needed. As an example, in matters
of an experiment through with relation to traffic norms will help the administrative/ executive
authority better understand the effect of such norms and work to cater the interests of the
stakeholders involved. If the changes made are successfully implemented, they're satisfactory and in
case there are problems, the same can be solved immediately.

3. Establishment Of Courts
The judicial system was proved to be an inadequate to determine and settle all kinds of disputes. It
was slow, costly, inept and complex. The judiciary was already overburdened, and it was not possible
to expect fast disposal of even very important matters. The important problems could not be solved by
mere interpretation of the provisions of some statutes instead they required consideration of
necessary factors which could not be done by the standard courts of law. Therefore, industrial
tribunals and labour courts were established, which possessed the techniques and proficiency to
handle these complex problems.

4. Preventive Measures
Administrative authorities can take preventive measures. The authorities do not have to wait unlike
the courts for the party to come before them with dispute. These preventive actions may prove to be
more effective, practical and useful than punishing a person after he has committed a breach of law.
It was well pointed out by Freeman that, 'Inspection and grading of meat answers the consumer's
need more adequately than does a right to sue the seller after the consumer is injured. But the
Principle of judicial review is also acknowledged in our constitution, and the order passed by the
administrative authorities can be quashed and set aside in the event that they are ultravires or
malafied or malafied the provisions or the Acts of the constitution.

CONCLUSION -
The Role of administrative law is to limit the powers of the government agencies and keep a check in
on the administrative authorities. it is not always possible to rely upon some general statutes for
rising disputes between the individuals and the public authorities thus there should be a proper law to
govern such disputes, Administrative law act as the proper law which governs the administrative
actions.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Q.No. 1a) Discuss the relevance of doctrine of separation of power in administrative law.
_________________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION –
Separation of powers divides the mechanism of governance into three branches i.e. Legislature,
Executive and the Judiciary. Although different authors give different definitions, in general, we can
frame three features of this doctrine. Each organ should have different persons in capacity, i.e., a
person with a function in one organ should not be a part of another organ.
One organ should not interfere in the functioning of the other organs. One organ should not exercise
a function of another organ (they should stick to their mandate only). Thus, these broad spheres are
determined, but in a complex country like India there often arises conflict and transgression by one
branch over the other.

ELEMENTS OF SEPARATION OF POWERS –

 Legislative
The legislative organ of the government is also known as the rule-making body. The primary function
of the legislature is to make laws for good governance of a state. It has the authority of amending the
existing rules and regulations as well. Generally, the parliament holds the power of making rules and
laws.
  Executive
This branch of government is responsible for governing the state. The executives mainly implement
and enforce the laws made by the legislature. The President and the Bureaucrats form the Executive
branch of government.
 Judiciary
Judiciary plays a very crucial role in any state. It interprets and applies the laws made by the
legislature and safeguards the rights of the individuals. It also resolves the disputes within the state or
internationally.

OBJECTIVES OF SEPARATION OF POWERS:

The following are the fundamental objectives of the doctrine of separation of powers:
1. Firstly, it aims to eliminate arbitrariness, totalitarianism and tyranny and promote an
accountable and democratic form of government.
2. Secondly, it prevents the misuse of powers within the different organs of the government. The
Indian Constitution provides certain limits and boundaries for each domain of the government
and they are supposed to perform their function within such limits. In India, the Constitution is
the ultimate sovereign and if anything goes beyond the provisions of the constitution, it will
automatically be considered as null, void and unconstitutional.
3. Thirdly, it keeps a check on all the branches of the government by making them accountable for
themselves.
4. Fourthly, separation of powers maintains a balance among the three organs of government by
dividing the powers among them so that powers do not concentrate on any one branch leading
to arbitrariness.
5. Fifthly, this principle allows all the branches to specialize themselves in their respective field
with an intention to enhance and improve the efficiency of the government.

SEPARATION OF POWERS AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IN INDIA

The first major judgment by the judiciary in relation to Doctrine of separation of power was in Ram
Jawaya v state of Punjab. The court in the above case was of the opinion that the doctrine of
separation of power was not fully accepted in India. Further, the view of Mukherjea J. adds weight to
the argument that the above-said doctrine is not fully accepted in India. He states that:
"The Indian Constitution has not indeed recognized the doctrine of separation of powering its
absolute rigidity but the functions of the different parts or branches of the government have been 1
AIR 1955 SC 549.sufficiently differentiated and consequently it can very well be said that our
constitution does not contemplate assumption, by one organ or part of the state, of functions that
essentially belong to another".

Then in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Nara, where the dispute regarding Prime Minister's election
was pending before the Supreme Court, it was held that adjudication of a specific dispute is a judicial
function which parliament, even under constitutional amending power, cannot exercise. So, the main
ground on which the amendment was held ultra vires was that when the constituent body declared
that the election of Prime Minister wouldn't be void, it discharged a judicial function that according
to the principle of separation it shouldn't have done.
The place of this doctrine in the Indian context was made a bit clearer after this judgment.

ADVANTAGES:
There are various advantages with the acceptance of this doctrine in the system;
1. The efficiency of the organs of state increased due to separation of works hence time
consumption decreases.
2. Since the experts will handle the matters of their parts so the degree of purity and correctness
increases.
3. There is the division of work and hence division of skill and labour occurs.
4. Due to division of work there is no overlapping remains in the system and hence nobody
interfere with others working area.
5. Since the overlapping removed then there is no possibility of the competition in between
different organs.

DISADVANTAGES:
As there are advantages attached to this doctrine, there are some disadvantages can also occur due to
this doctrine:
1. As I have said there will be increased efficiency but reverse effect can also be seen because of
the overlapping between rights of the organs if we are not following the doctrine in its strict
sense because organs may fight for the supremacy over each other.
 2. There is also a possibility of competition between organs again for proving ones supremacy
over the other organ.
3. There is also possibility of delay of process because there will not be any supervisor over other
hence the actions of the organs can become arbitrary.Provisions that Substantiate Separation
of Power Article 53(1) and Article 154 of the Indian Constitution clearly say that the Executive
powers of the Union and the States are vest in the President and Governor respectively and
shall only be exercised directly by him or through his subordinate officers.
CONCLUSION -
The doctrine of separation of powers must be interpreted in a relative form. In the era of
liberalization, privatization and globalization, separation of power has to be expounded in a wider
perspective. It should not be curb to the principle of restraint or strict classification only but a group
power exercised in the spirit of cooperation, coordination and in the interest of the welfare of the
state.
Though this doctrine is unfeasible in its rigid perception nevertheless its effectiveness lies in the
prominence on those checks and balances which are necessary in order to avert maladroit
government and to prevent abuse of powers by the different organs of the government.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Q.No. 1b) Doctrine of rule of law .

_________________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION –
The originator of the concept of rule of law was Sir Edward Coke the chief justice James I Reign. The
concept of rule of law is of old origin. The term „rule of law‟ originated in England and has taken this
concept. Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle discussed the concept of rule of law around
350 BC. The derivation of the phrase „Rule of Law‟ is from the French phrase ‘la principle de
legalite’ which implies the principle of legality. This phrase refers to a government based on
principles of law and not on men. One of the basic principles of the constitution is rule of law and this
concept is up to standard in both Indian and American constitutions. The doctrine of rule of law is the
entire basis of Administrative Law.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary: “Rule of law” means legal principles of day-to-day
application, approved by the governing bodies or authorities and expressed in the form of a logical
proposition.
According to Oxford Advance Learner’s Dictionary: “Rule of law” means the situation in which all
the citizens as well as the state are ruled by the law.

In 1885, Professor A.V Dicey developed this concept of coke and propounded three principles or
postulates of the rule of law in his classic book „Law and the constitution.‟ According to Professor
A.V Dicey, for achieving supremacy of law three principles of postulates must be followed which
are as follows:
 Supremacy of law,
 Equality before the law and
 Judge-made Constitution

 Supremacy of law
Rule of law according to Dicey means the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as
opposed to the influence of arbitrary power or wide discretionary power.
It means the exclusion of the existence of arbitrariness on part of the government.
This in essence means that no man can be arrested, punished or be lawfully made to suffer in body or
in goods except by the due process of law and for breach of a law established in the ordinary legal
manner before the ordinary courts of the land.
 Equality before law
While explaining this aspect of the doctrine, Dicey stated that there must be equality before the law or
equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary law
courts.
Dicey believed that the exemption of civil servants from the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts of law
and providing them with special tribunals was the negation of equality.
He stated that any encroachments on the jurisdiction of the courts and any restriction on the subject‟s
unimpeded access to them are bound to jeopardise his rights.
 Judge–made the constitution
Dicey observed that in many countries rights such as the right to personal liberty, freedom from
arrest, freedom to hold public meetings, etc. are guaranteed by a written constitution; in England, it
is not so.
In England, those rights are the result of judicial decisions in concrete cases that have actually arisen
between the parties.
Thus he emphasized the role of the courts of law as guarantors of liberty and suggested that the rights
would be secured more adequately if they were enforceable in the courts of law than by mere
declaration of those rights in a document.

ROLE OF INDIAN JUDICIARY

A few cases where the concept of rule of law was discussed came to light. Some of the cases are as
follows:
 ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla
This case is also known as the “Habeas Corpus case”. It is one of the most important cases when
comes to rule of law. The question that was raised before the hon‟ble court was whether there was
any rule of law in India apart from Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It was in a context relating
to the proclamation of emergency where the enforcement of Articles 14, 21 and 22 was suspended.
 Keshvananda Bharti v. State of Kerala
In this case, the Supreme Court enunciated the concept of rule of law as one of the most important
aspects of the doctrine of basic structure.
 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
In this case, Supreme Court declared that Article 14 strikes arbitrariness.

EXCEPTIONS OF RULE OF LAW

 „Equality of Law‟ does not mean that the powers of private citizens are the same as the powers
of public officials. For e.g. a police officer has the power to arrest which a private citizen does
not have.
 The rule of law does not prevent certain classes of persons from being subject to special rules,
e.g. the armed forces are governed by military laws.
 Ministers and other executive bodies are given wide discretionary powers by the statute.
 Certain members of society are governed by special rules in their professions like lawyers,
doctors and nurses.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Q. No. 1b) Classification of various administrative functions.
_________________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION –
In the 21st century various functions are performed by administrative entities so much so that the
administrative process cuts across the traditional bounds of classification and combines into one the
powers exercised by all the organs, i.e. legislature, executive, judiciary. It‟s evident that a wide
variety of activities fall within the sphere of „administrative action‟ and that even administrative
authority doesn‟t restrict to courts and legislative bodies of the country. Residuary functions of
administrative bodies may themselves partake themselves of the legislative or judicial quality. The
consideration that arises is whether the function performed by executive authorities is purely
administrative, quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative in nature, since there‟s no precise or scientific test
to distinguish one from another.
Classification is essential and inevitable as many consequences flow from it, e.g. if an executive
authority exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions it must confirm with the principles of natural
justice or amenable to certiorari or prohibition [Express newspaper ltd. V. Union of India] but if it‟s
an administrative, legislative or quasi-legislative function, that‟s not the case [Union of India v.
Cynamide India ltd]. It is therefore imperative to determine what type of function the administrative
authority performs.

CLASSIFICATION –
Administrative action is classified broadly into three main organs of the government namely-
 Legislative
 Executive
 Judiciary
In Jayantilal Amritlal Shodhan V. F.N Rana and Ors
Generally an administrative action can be further bifurcated into 3 parts-
 Quasi-legislative action or Rule making: It includes the rule making power and delegated
legislation. Under this organ the administration performs the function of legislation in such
situations where it is not possible for any legislation to legislate laws for the kind of conflicts
arising.
 Quasi-Judicial action or Rule decision action: It includes such conditions under which the
administration puts on the hat of the judiciary and confers the special power of taking
 decisions in cases where legal rights of individual are effected.
 Purely administrative action or Rule application action: This includes the actions which are
neither legislative nor judiciary but purely administrative in nature.
In Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of India, the concept of natural justice is defined in case of
consequences suffered in administrative action.
1. Nemo in propria causa judex, esse debet – no one should be made a judge in his own cause, or the
rule against bias.
2. Audi alteram partem – no one should be condemned unheard.

In case of A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, the Court held that in order to determine whether the
action of the administrative authority is quasi-judicial or administrative in nature, one has to see the
power conferred, to whom power is given, the framework within which power is conferred and the
consequences.

CONCLUSION –
There is a general consensus amongst writers and lawyers alike that any attempt at classifying
administrative functions on any conceptual basis is redundant. But sometimes even an administrative
lawyer has to classify action into administrative, legislative, judicial and quasi-judicial. The fiction of
quasi has been conveniently created to distinguish acts of the three organs. Although scholars decry
such dichotomy as too artificial and superficial, such classifications are necessary especially between
purely administrative and quasi-judicial. Also the concept of fair-play in administrative actions has
discarded the distinction between the two, the fact still remains that in the present state of
administrative law requires labelling of the functions and actions.
_________________________________________________________________________________
 UNIT – 2

Q. No. 2a) Discuss the grounds on which delegated legislation may be challenged in the court.
Refer to decided cases.
_________________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION –
Under Indian Law. The delegated legislation does not go beyond the reach of the judicial review of
the Supreme Court and of the High Courts. Judiciary exercises effective control over delegated
legislation in India. The validity of delegated legislation can be examined by the courts on several
grounds. All laws made in this country shall have to conform to the provisions of the Constitution
including Chapter III thereof Whenever a law made by the Executive is found to be inconsistent with
the Constitution or ultra vires the parent Act, from which the law-making power has been derived, it
is declared null and void by the Court. The power of examining the validity of delegated legislation in
India has been rested in the Supreme Court and the High Courts.

FOLLOWING ARE THE GROUNDS ON WHICH JUDICIARY CAN CONTROL/ REVIEW

THE DELEGATED LEGISLATION WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS:
 When the Parent Act is ultra vires the Constitution: This is a situation where it is observed
that if the Parent Act violates the provisions of the Constitution, it is void and unconstitutional.

The delegation made under such Act is also void, in the case of Chintaman Rao vs. State of
M.P, AIR 1951 SC 118, the District Collector under delegated authority passes an order for
prohibiting Beedi manufacturing, where it was held that the order passed is ultra vires because
it violates the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of Indian Constitution
which talks about freedom of trade and profession which has been guaranteed to all citizens of
India.

 Delegated Legislation not authorised by the enabling act: In most countries where there is
excess of authorities it invalidated the subordinate legislation. In the case of R. v. Minister of
Health, Ex Parte Davi, (1929) 1 K.B. 618. Lord Hewart, C.J, granted the prohibition to
restrain the power of Minister if the scheme made by the Minister is ultra vires of the enabling
act which was the Housing Act, 1925. In many cases the court has made an effective
 application of its mind to seek that there is proper delegation of power and the power does not
goes beyond the scope of enabling authority by the delegated Act by defining the limits of the
law- making power.
Delegated Legislation is Ultra Vires the Constitution: In certain situations, the Parent Act
holds good and is within the limits of Constitution. However, the delegated legislation made
under the Parent Act may be ultra vires the Constitution.
In Dwaraka Prasad v. State of U.P, Clause 3(2) (b) of the U.P. Coal Control Order (issued by
government under Section 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946) was
declared ultra vires the Constitution as it was violative of Art. 19(1)(g) though the Parent Act
was intra vires the Constitution. As per Clause 3(2) (b) laid down that the State Coal
Controller can exempt any person from the license requirement for Coal business if he deems
fit, were the Supreme Court held that this clause is invalid as it give arbitrary and unguided
powers to the executive without any guidelines in the matter of exempting from license, which
violates Art. 19(1)(g).
In the case of Air India v. Nargesh Meerza, The regulation may be Air India providing for
termination of service of an air hostess on her first pregnancy, was held violative of Article 14
of Constitution. In another case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v.
Brajonath, AIR 1986 SC 1571 the Supreme Court declared that Rule 9 (1) of Central Inland
Water Transport Corporation Lt., Services and Discipline and Applied Rules, 1979 was
unconstitutional and being violative of Article 14, 39 and 41. The Court held that such rules
affected Article 14 , therefore, the impugned rules were struck down as it violated Article 14.

 Delegated Legislation is Ultra vires the Parent Act: The validity of delegated legislation can
be questioned on the ground that it is ultra vires of the Parent Act. It was observed in the case
of Ram Prasad v. State of U.P, ,the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Rule 87 framed under the
Parent Act (U.P Panchayat Act, 1947) was held to be ultra vires of the Parent Act.
In the case of Additional District Magistrate (Rev.) v. Sri Ram, the Supreme Court held that
the conferment of rulemaking power by an Act does not enable the rule- making authority to
make a rule which travels beyond the scope of enabling Act. In this case Delhi Land Revenue
Act and Delhi Reforms Act did not empower rule making authority to classify land or to
exclude any area from preparation of record of right and annual register. The Court held that
the rules are ultra-virus the parent/ enabling act.
 Delegated Legislation Ultra Vires any General Law/ Rule of Law: The validity of the
Delegated Legislation can be challenged on the ground that it is ultra vires the general law. It
takes place, when the delegated makes a law in force unlawful and unlawful act lawful.
In A.V. Nachane v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1126 in this case the rules framed by the
Union Government under delegated authority by L.I.C. with regard to bonus to Class-III and
Class- IV employees was held ultra vires since it supersedes the terms of the Bonus Settlement
1974.

 Unreasonableness: Generally, a statute cannot be challenged on the ground of

unreasonableness. The leading case on unreasonableness is Kruse v. Johnson, (1898) 2 QB
91, in this case the Parent Act conferred power on the County Council of Kent to make bye-
laws. A bye- law was made prohibiting any person from playing music or singing in any public
place or highway within fifty years of any dwelling house. As it was reasonable, the same was
therefore held ultra vires.

 Mala fide (Bad Faith): In simple words, the meaning of Mala fide is bad faith or ulterior
motive. In A.K. Ray v. India, AIR 1982 SC 710, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that
the government’s failure to bring into force certain provisions of the 44th Amendment of the
Constitution was mala fides. It is extremely difficult to prove mala fide before the Court.
Hence, the malafide for challenging a delegated legislation is resorted to in rate cases where
strong proof of bad faith is available. In UK and in the USA, the rule to exclude enquiry into
good faith of a legislature is applied to all subordinate legislative bodies as well.

 Excessive Delegation: In India, only in few cases, delegation of law making power is struck
down by the Courts on the ground of excessive delegation.

 Sub- delegation: A general and a basic rule from the law of agency is that a delegate cannot
re- delegate its authority, but in certain cases it is not applied to the countries who have written
constitution. The principle of sub delegation is subject to criticism and not accepted, unless
there is a provision express or implied to that effect. Hence, the validity of an act under sub-
 delegation can be questioned ultra vires.

 Non-compliance of Courts order: If it has been observed that the government tries to escape
and avid the direction given by the Supreme Court, then the Court has the power to struck
down that particular act.

 Non-application of Mind: Delegated legislation can also be struck down by the judiciary if it
is observed that the delegatee has not made an application of their mind in delegating the
powers to the relevant facts and situations while taking the decisions.

CONCLUSION -
Ultra vires means beyond powers, when a subordinate legislation goes beyond the scope of authority
conferred on the delegate to enact, it is known as substantive ultra vires. It is a fundamental principle
of law that a public authority cannot act outside the powers and if the authority acts, such act
becomes ultra vires and, accordingly void It has been rightly described as the central principle and
foundation of large part of administrative law. An act which is done in excess of power is ultra vires.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Q. No. 2a) Examine the constitutionality of delegated legislation in India.

_________________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION –
It basically means the limits that are permissible within a Constitution of a country through which
Legislature with all his right can delegate its power of rulemaking to other agencies of
administration. The aim of extending the power of the government is to handle socio-economic
problem.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DELEGATED LEGISLATION : POSITION IN INDIA

The position and Constitutionality of delegated legislation in India can be seen in various cases. It is
divided into two phases i.e., before independence or we can say it as pre-independence and post-
independence.
  Pre Independence: In Queen v. Burah, only Conditional Legislation has been validated by the
Privy Council and therefore delegated legislation is not permitted as per its reasoning. The
administration of civil and criminal justice of a territory can be vested in the hands of those
officers who were appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor from time to time.
The Privy Council has stated that it is better to take help from the subordinate agency in framing the
rules and regulations that are going to be the part of the law and giving another body the essential
legislative features that has only given to the Legislature through the Constitution. He also stated
about the essential legislative function that included in determining the legislation policy.
In King v. Benori Lal Sharma, Condition legislative was again applied by the Privy Council, the
same as in the case of Queen v. Burah. In this case the validity of the Emergency Ordinance given by
Governor-General of India was challenged inter alia. It was challenged on the ground that he is
taking the power of the Provincial Government. He was setting up special criminal courts for
particular kind of offences but for the settling of any court, power has been given only to the
Provincial Government. The judicial committee held that this is not delegated legislation. Privy
Council also held that it is an example of an uncommon legislative power by which the local
application of the provision of State determined by the local administrative body when it is necessary.
 Post Independence: The Constitution of India does not provide the same position as the
prominent British Parliament provide to the delegation of legislative powers and also how far
delegation is permissible has got to be confirmed in India as a matter of construction from the
express provisions of the Indian Constitution. It cannot be said that an exhaustible right of
delegation is inherited in the legislative power itself.
In the case of Raj Narain Singh v. Chairman, Patna Administration Committee Air, the Supreme
Court of India upheld the delegation of power given to the executive by the legislature.

Lachmi Narain v. Union of India

Facts: The Central Government exercising the power that it has got from Section 2 of the Part State
(Laws) Act, 1950, which extended the Bengal Finances (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 to the Part State of
Delhi with certain modification in Section 6 through a notification. By various notifications, the
granted sales tax on various commodities was exempted but subsequently, the exemption was
withdrawn by another notification. Dealers who are indulging in those commodities, challenges the
validity of that withdrawal.
Judgment: It was held in this case that the notification issued by the Central Government is beyond
its power conferred on it by Section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws) Act,1950 and in consequence of
any type of notification issued by the Central Government is invalid and ineffective.

CONCLUSION –
The Constitutional Validity of the Delegated Legislation in India has been a point of discussion for a
long time. Amid the centre of the 18th century, Montesquieu stated, “There would be an end of
everything where a similar man or a similar body, regardless of whether of the nobles or of the
general population, to practice those three powers, that of removing law, that of executing the
general population resolutions and of attempting the reasons for individuals.”
_________________________________________________________________________________
Q.No. 2b) Sub delegated legislation.
_________________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION –
When a statute confers legislative powers on an administrative authority and that authority further
delegates those powers to another subordinate authority or agency, it is called sub-delegation. Thus,
what happens in sub-delegation is that a delegate further delegates. This process of sub-delegation
may go through one stage to another stage. If the enabling Act is called the „Parent‟ then the
delegated and the sub-delegated act is called the Children.

ILLUSTRATION
A good illustration of the process of sub-delegation is provided by the Essential Commodities Act,
1955. Section 3 of the Act confers rule-making power on the Central Government. This can be called
as the first stage of Delegation. Under Section 5, the Central Government is empowered to delegate
powers to its officers, the State Governments and their officers. Frequently under this provision, the
powers are delegated to State Governments.
This may be regarded as the second stage of Delegation. When the power is further sub-delegated by
the State Government to their officers, it may be characterised as the third stage of Delegation. The
working of the process can be seen in the context of the Cotton Control Order, 1955, The order is
made by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Act (this can be called the first stage of
delegation).
Under the Order, the functions and powers are conferred on the Textile Commissioner (this can be
called the second stage of delegation). Under clause 10, the Textile Commissioner is empowered to
authorise any officer to exercise on his behalf all or any of his functions and powers under the Order
(third stage of Delegation).

OBJECTS OF SUB-DELEGATION
The need of sub-delegation is sought to be supported on the basis of the following factors-
 Power of delegation necessarily carries with it the power of further delegation and hence, the
delegate has power to further delegate; and
 Sub-delegation is ancillary to delegated legislation, and objection to such process is likely to
subvert the authority which the legislature delegates to the Executive.

DELEGATUS NON-POTEST DELEGARE

The legal maxim „Delegatus Non-Potest Delegare’ does not lay down a rule of law. It merely states a
rule of construction of a statute. Generally, sub-delegation of legislative power is impermissible, yet it
can be permitted either when such power is expressly conferred under the statute or can be inferred
by necessary implication. This is so because there is a well-established principle that a sub-delegate
cannot act beyond the scope of power delegated to him.

EXPRESS POWER
There is no difficulty as regards the validity of sub-delegation where the statute itself authorises the
administrative agency to sub-delegate its powers because such a sub-delegation is within the terms of
the statute itself.
Thus in Central Talkies v. Dwarka Prasad, under the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, it
was provided that no suit shall be filed for the eviction of a tenant without the permission of either a
District Magistrate or any Officer authorized by him to perform any of his functions under the Act.
The Additional Magistrate to whom the powers were delegated made an order granting permission.
The Supreme Court held the order valid. But in Allingham v. Minister of Agriculture, under the
Defence Regulations, 1939, the Committee was authorized by the Minister of Agriculture “to give
such directions with respect to the cultivation, management or use of land for agricultural purposes
as he thinks necessary.” The committee sub-delegated its power to its Subordinate Officer, who
issued a direction, which was challenged. Holding the direction ultra vires, the Court ruled that the
sub-delegation of power by the committee was not permissible.
IMPLIED POWER
The point is not clear as to what would be the position if there is no specific or express provision in
the statute for sub-delegation of power. In Jackson v. Butterworth, it was held that the method of
sub-delegating power to issue circulars to local authorities was convenient and desirable but the
power to sub-delegate was absent. However, the other view is that although there is no provision
enabling Act authorizing sub-delegation of power by the delegate, the same may be inferred by
necessary implication.
According to Griffith, “If the statute is so wisely phrased that two or more „tiers‟ of sub-delegation
are necessary to reduce it to specialized rules on which action can be based, then it may be that the
Courts will imply the power to make the necessary sub-delegated legislation.”
In States v. Bareno the enabling Act empowered the President to make regulations concerning
exports and provided that unless otherwise directed the functions of President should be performed by
the Board of Economic Welfare.
The Board sub-delegated the power to its Executive Director who further sub-delegated to his
assistant, who in turn delegated it to some officials. All the sub-delegations were held valid by the
Court. On the other hand, in State v. Amir Chand, the Punjab High Court held that the power of sub-
delegation cannot be inferred.

PUBLICATION OF SUB-DELEGATED LEGISLATION

There arises the question of the publication of sub-delegated legislation. It may, however, be pointed
out that by the decision of the Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar v. Union of India, the publication
of sub-delegated legislation has been declared to be necessary to give it legal force when the Parent
statute contains the formula i.e requiring the notification of rules in Gazzette.
CONCLUSION –
The practice of sub-delegation has been subjected to considerable criticism by jurists. The position is
well established that the maxim „Delegatus Non-Potest Delegare‟ applies in the area of delegated
legislation also and sub-delegation of power is not permissible unless that power is conferred either
expressly or impliedly.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Q. NO. 2b) A state law empowered the deputy commissioners of the district to make rules for
the sanitation at fairs. One of the rules required a permit from the District magistrate. In
issuing the permit the District magistrate was given discretionary powers to issue or refuse
permits. Affected by the action of refusal, Mr. Vijay challenged the order of the deputy
commissioner. Decide.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Yes, the district magistrate has discretionary power. It is valid delegancy and Mr. Vijay challenged
the order of deputy commissioner is not valid.

UNIT – 3
Q.No. 3a) ‘Audi alterum partem’ is sin quanon of fair hearing. Substantiate with judicial
decision.
_________________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION -
Audi alteram partem means „ hear the other side‟, or „no man should be condemned unheared‟ or
„both the sides must be heard before passing any order‟.
Article 21 in its judgment of Maneka Gandhi vs. The Union of India, it has been held that the law
and procedure must be of a fair, just and reasonable kind. The principle of natural justice comes into
force when no prejudice is caused to anyone in any administrative action. The principle of Audi
Alteram Partemis the basic concept of the principle of natural justice. This doctrine states the no one
shall be condemned unheard. This ensures a fair hearing and fair justice to both the parties. Under
this doctrine, both the parties have the right to speak. No decision can be declared without hearing
both the parties. The aim of this principle is to give an opportunity to both the parties to defend
themselves.
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
The essential elements of this maxim are as follow:
 Notice - Before any action is taken against the party who is affected. A notice must be provided
to them in order to present a cause against the proposed action and pursue his application. If
any order is passed without giving notice then it is against the principle of natural justice and
is void ab initio which means void from the beginning. It is a right of person to know about the
 facts before any action is taken and without knowing the proper facts, a person cannot protect
himself. The right to notice means right to be known. The facts should be known by the party
before the hearing of the case. Notice is essential to begin any hearing. Notice must contain the
date, time, place of hearing and also the jurisdiction under which a case is filed. It must also
contain the charges and proposed against the person. If any of the thing is missing in the notice
then notice will be considered invalid. Non issuance of notice does not affect the jurisdiction
but affects the rules of natural justice.
Case – Punjab National Bank v. All India Bank Employees Federation In this case the notice
which was given to the party contain certain charges but it was not mentioned anywhere that
penalty was imposed on the charges. Hence, the charges on which penalty was imposed was
not served as a notice to the parties concerned. The notice was not proper and thus, the penalty
which was imposed was invalid.
Case – Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India The notice which is given to the parties should
be clear and unambiguous. If it is ambiguous and it is not clear then the notice will not be
considered as reasonable and proper.
 Hearing - The second most essential element of audi alteram partem is fair hearing. If the
order passed by the authority without hearing the party or without giving him an opportunity of
being heard then it will be considered as an invalid.
Case – Harbans Lal v Commissioner, National Co-operative Bank v. Ajay Kumar and Fateh
Singh v State of Rajasthan In this case, it was held that if a person gets a reasonable
opportunity of being heard or fair hearing it is an essential ingredient of the principal of audi
alteram partem. This condition is accompanied by the authority providing written or oral
hearing which is discretion of the authority, unless the statute under which action is taken by
the authority provides otherwise. It is the duty of authority to ensure that affected parties
should get a chance of oral or personal hearing or not.
 Evidence - Evidence is considered as a most important part which is brought before the court
when both the parties are present there and the judicial or quasi judicial authority will act
upon the evidence which is produced before the court.
Case – Stafford v Minister of Health In this case, it was held that no evidence should be
received in the absence of the other party and if any such evidence is recorded then it is the
duty of authority to make it available to the other party.
 Case – Hira Nath v Principal In this case, it was held that this principle is not restricted to the
mainly formal evidence but any information regarding previous conviction on which court may
rely without giving a chance to the affected party to deny it.
 Cross examination - The court should not require to reveal the person concerned or material
to be taken against him, but an opportunity is provided them to deny the evidence. The question
arises that will witness will be cross examined
Case – Kanungo & Co. v Collector of Customs In this case, the business property of a person
was investigated and some watches were seized by the police who was in power under the Sea
Customs Act. A person who gave the information was not allowed for cross examination. The
principle of natural justice was not violated and the court held that principle of natural justice
does not allow the concerned person to cross examine against the witness in the matter where
goods are seized under the Sea Custom Act.
 Legal Representation - Genuinely, the representation through a legal advisor in the
authoritative arbitration isn‟t considered as an imperative piece of the reasonable hearing. Be
that as it may, in specific circumstances in the event that the privilege to legal representation is
not rejected and at that point it adds up to infringement of natural justice.
Case – J.J Mody v State of Bombay and Krishna Chandra v Union of India In this case, it
was held that refusal of legal representation amounts to the violation of natural justice because
the party was not able to understand the rules of law effectively and they should get a chance of
being heard once again.
EXCEPTIONS
The rule of audi alteram partem is held inapplicable not by method for a special case to “reasonable
play in real life”, but since nothing unjustifiable can be derived by not managing a chance to present
a case.
 Statutory exclusion
Natural justice is submitted by the Courts when the parent statutes under which an action is made by
the administration is quiet as to its application. Exclusion to make reference to one side of hearing in
the statutory arrangement does not reject the hearing of the other party.
Case – Maneka Gandhi versus Association of India, Karnataka Public Service Commission versus
B.M. Vijay Shankar and Ram Krishna Verma versus Province of U.P.
A rule could be bar natural justice either explicitly or by necessary implication.
However, such a rule might be tested under Article 14 so it ought to be legitimate.
  Legislative function
There are certain circumstances in which hearing might be prohibited. It is just that the activity of the
Administrative being referred to is authoritative and not regulatory in character. Generally, an order
which is of general nature is not applied to one or more specified person and is regarded as
legislative in nature.
Administrative activity, entire , isn‟t liable to the guidelines of natural justice. In light of the fact that
these standards set out an approach without reference to a specific person. On a similar rationale,
standards of natural justice can likewise be prohibited by an arrangement of the Constitution too. The
Indian Constitution rejects the standards of natural justice in Art. 22, 31(A), (B), (C) and 311(2) as an
issue of arrangement. However, if the legislative exclusion is mainly concerned with arbitrary,
unreasonable and unfair, courts may cancel such a provision under Article 14 and Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
 Impractibility
The concept of natural justice is involved when it is practicable to do so but it is not applied in the
case where it is impracticable to apply the rule and in such a situation it is excluded.
 Academic Evolution
Where nature of power are absolutely regulatory then no privilege of hearing can be asserted.
Case – Jawaharlal Nehru University v. B.S. Narwal, B.S Narwal,
In this case, a student of Jawaharlal Nehru University was expelled from the class because his
academic performance was not satisfactory and it was done without being given any pre decisional
hearing. The Supreme Court held that the idea of academic adjudication seems to be negative. In this
way, if the skilled scholarly experts look at work crafted by student over some duration and declare
his work unacceptable, principle of natural justice might be rejected.
 Inter-Disciplinary Action
The words like suspension etc. which is inter-disciplinary action in such cases there is no need of the
rule of natural justice.
Case – S.A. Khan v. State of Haryana
In this case, Mr. Khan was at the post of deputy inspector general haryana and was IPS officer. He
was suspended by the haryana government because many complaints were made against him. He filed
a suit in the Supreme Court that he does not get an opportunity of being heard. The Supreme Court
held that suspension was because of interdisciplinary approach and there is no requirement of
hearing once.
CONCLUSION –
Rule of natural justice has advanced by human progress. It has not developed from the Indian
Constitution but rather from humankind itself. Each individual has the privilege to talk and be heard
when charges are being put towards the person in question. The Latin maxim, “Audi Alteram
Partem” is the standard of characteristic equity where each individual gets an opportunity of being
heard. The significance of a proverb itself says no individual will be denounced unheard. Thus,
judgement of a case will be not given in the absence of another party. There are numerous situations
where this rule of natural justice is barred, and no opportunity is given to the party of being heard.
Natural justice implies that equity ought to be given to both parties in a simple, reasonable and
sensible way. Under the watchful eye of the Court, both the parties are equivalent and have an
equivalent chance to speak and to prove themselves.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Q.No. 3a) Any action taken in violation of principles of natural justice is void. Explain. Are
there any exceptions.
_________________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION –
This rule is also not absolute and contains within itself some restrictions which have developed over
the time. Applications of natural justice have been excluded during various occasions which are as
follow –
EXCEPTIONS OF THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE –
 Doctrine of necessity and absolute necessity
Doctrine of necessity is an exception to the rule of bias under natural justice. It allows authorities to
do certain things which are necessary to be done at the moment, and those acts which would in a
normal situation not be allowed by the law. It is invoked in situations where there is no definite
authority to decide on a matter. The Supreme Court has although established that the Doctrine of
Necessity should not be invoked every now and then for even small matters, which might lead to
absence of rule of law. If there is a choice to whether let a biased person act on a matter or whether
to stop the matter itself, the preference will be given to the biased person to act on it to get definite
decisions, although which may be affected by the bias of that particular person or authority, but
nonetheless, the decision of that biased authority is necessary to come to a conclusion under a said
matter.
In Ashok Kumar Yadav and others vs. State of Haryana and others, it was decided by the court that
a member of Public Service Commission can‟t exclude himself from the selection process completely
just because they might be related to some of the candidates, and may exclude themselves only during
the selection process of those candidates to whom he might be related.
In doctrine of necessity, there are options to decide whether a biased person should be allowed or
not. Under the doctrine of absolute necessity, it is absolutely necessary to let the case of a biased
person be decided. In the modern times, there is not much difference between the two and are
overlapped in many circumstances.

 Statutory exceptions to the rule of natural justice

The principle of natural justice can be excused by certain acts of the parliament. Parliament may
through its powers get rid of the procedures that are otherwise necessary for any administrative
action. It must also be noted here that any action of the parliament which does not permit the
individuals certain rights during the time period of the act, such act is bound to come under the
scrutiny of the courts and may be challenged under Article 14 of the Constitution. A statute may
exclude natural justice either expressly or by necessary implication
In Charan Lal Sahu vs. Union of India, the central government, under the Bhopal Gas Disaster Act
(Processing of Claims) Act, 1985, authorized itself to represent all the victims. This was challenged
on the fact that the govt. held 22% share in the Union Carbide Company, and the interests of the
government and the company overlapped while there was a conflict of interests between the victims
and the government. The court said that even though the agreement might be true, no other body can
represent the victims. Statutory exception to natural justice might not be expressed but it is implied in
the application, along with the doctrine of necessity.

 Exception during situations of emergency

India has witnessed its share in situations of emergencies. It is generally observed in India that
during a situation of emergency, in those cases where the right to be heard will affect the government
process, it will be excluded by the law for the time being. This means that any hearing or any process
which may jeopardize the interest of the public at large would not be needed under the principle of
natural justice and any such right would be obviated for the time being. It is necessary in those
situations where the process of fair hearing may take too much and in consequence put the society in
trouble either due to any external force, natural force or any internal troubles.
In Mohinder Singh Gill vs. CEC, there were constituency elections going on in Ferozpur, which were
interrupted by mob violence, which caused some ballot papers and boxes to be destroyed, while the
elections were still underway in some places. The ECI ignored the right to be heard and without any
notice ordered re-elections. The court did not interrupt the work of the ECI and dismissed the claims
for notice by saying that the said act was necessary in an emergency situation and Audi alteram
partem can be ignored can be excluded in this situation.

 Exception where no right of an individual has been infringed

Where a person does not have any right, and neither can he derive any right from any statute or any
common law provision, he cannot ask for a remedy in that case under the principles of natural justice,
and he may in such case forfeit procedural fairness. The Latin principle Ebi Jus ebiremedium stands
for where there is a right, there is a remedy. So naturally, in cases where there arises no right, no
remedy can be granted.
In J.R Vohra vs. Indian Export House (P) Ltd. Provisions for termination and creation for limited
tenancies were made under the Delhi Rent Control Act. The result of these provisions was that after
the end of the term of the limited tenancy, it can be terminated by the authorized office and can serve
warrant of possession to the landlord without notifying the tenant. The Supreme Court of India,
upholding the validity of these warrants, said that once the term of tenancy is over, the said person
has no right to possession over that particular place and that such a warrant will not affect any of the
rights conferred on him. Hence, in this case the exception is explained very well by the court, that no
right can be infringed if it was not available to a particular individual or an office in the first place.

 Exception in cases where public interest is of importance

In those situations, considering the welfare of the public at large, it is important to not dispense any
such information which may put the safety of the public at threat. State must make sure that it should
not compromise the security of its territory, and that it should protect all the information that it has
which is of public importance. In Balco Employees Union vs. UOI, the Supreme Court established
that the principles of natural justice had no role to play in those situations where policies considering
the public at large were to be undertaken.
It was held by the court in this case that unless any action of the government is arbitrary, illegal or
unenforceable due to any valid reason, the decision of the government cannot be challenged as a
violation of the principles of natural justice. In this particular case, the employees had challenged the
decision of the government regarding disinvestment in PSUs. The petition was dismissed on the basis
of the reasoning given above.

 Exception in cases of impracticality

This is one of the simplest exceptions to the rule of natural justice. Natural justice can be applied only
when it is practical in nature to apply it. But natural justice can be excluded when there is no
practicality to the situation in it. In Bihar School Examination Board vs. Subhash Chandra, the
examination board conducted class X board exams. But it was alleged that there was mass copying in
the exams, and during the checking it was on first view found that there has been mass copying.
Following this, the board issued a fresh notice which directed the students to appear for fresh exams
again, without giving any chance to the students to have themselves heard. This was challenged in the
High Court by students, and the High Court quashed the boards‟ notice saying that the principle of
Audi Alteram Partem has been violated and the students have not been heard. In response to this
decree, the board approached the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court struck down the order of
the High Court, saying that it is impractical to hear issues of all students in such a small time and it
was held that on the grounds of impracticality, the principle can be excluded in this particular case.
This case may also be read in the context of another exception, i.e. exception in case of academic
evaluation.

 Exception in cases of academic evaluation

In cases where the authority involved is academic in nature, or if the authority is of complete
administrative nature, in such cases, their evaluations may be excluded from the ambit of the rule of
natural justice. In JNU vs. B.S. Narwal, the respondent was a student of Jawaharlal Nehru
University. The student was removed from the university on the basis of his academic performances,
without being given any hearing prior to the notice. The case reached the Supreme Court where the
court observed that the nature of the decision is academic authority in nature and that decisions from
such an authority automatically declines any right to be heard, and it was held that if the assessment
of the authority is competent and it decides that the work of the particular student is unsatisfactory,
then the rule of natural justice may not be applied.
CONCLUSION
There are various exceptions to the rule of Natural Justice, courts in India have applied the
exceptions in various situations where the principles of Natural Justice can be put aside. However,
these exceptions are completely circumstantial and not definite in nature. There are no documents or
legislatures that regulate natural justice or its exceptions. The list itself is not exhaustive in nature.
Exceptions to the rule of natural justice can be studied from other dimensions which may give us even
more situations where other exceptions may arise.
In cases where natural justice principles are excluded by the judiciary, it implies that the courts have
adopted that particular notion regarding the dimension of the exception of natural justice even if the
law-making bodies have not adopted it. It is also an important point to be noted that the principles of
natural justice should not be overruled unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. It is necessary to
make sure that these exceptions don‟t take over the actual law of the land.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Q.No. 3b) Pecuniary bias.
_________________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION –
The term bias means anything which tends to or may be regarded as tending to cause such a person
to decide a case otherwise than on evidence must be held to be biased. In simple words, bias means
deciding a case otherwise than on the principles of evidence.
The principle of natural justice is based on the following rules -
 No one should be a judge in his own cause. [ Doctrine of bias ]
 Justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. [ doctrine
of Audi Alteram Partem]
The above rules make it clear that judiciary must be free from bias and should deliver pure and
impartial justice. Judges must act judicially and decide the case without considering anything other
than the principles of evidence.

KINDS OF BIAS:
 Pecuniary bias
 Personal bias
 Bias as to subject matter.
PECUNIARY BIAS:
Pecuniary bias arises, when the adjudicator/ judge have monetary/ economic interest in the subject
matter of the dispute/ case. The judge, while deciding a case should not have any pecuniary or
economic interest. In other words, pecuniary interest in the subject matter of litigation disqualifies a
person from acting as a judge.

RELEVANT LEADING CASES ON THIS POINT ARE:

Dr. Benham's case - Dr. Benham was fined for practicing in the city of London without license of the
college of Physicians. According to the statute, the college is entitled to half of the amount and the
remaining goes to the King. Coke CJ. Dis- allowed the claim (fine) on the ground that the college had
a pecuniary interest. (Fine against Dr. Benham was dismissed). The rule of pecuniary bias was laid
down in the case of: Dimes v. D. J Canal .

A company filed a suit against a landowner. Lord Chancellor (judge), who was a shareholder of the
plaintiff company heard the case and decided in favour of the company. On appeal, the House of
Lords quashed this decision on the ground that no man shall be judge of his own cause. R. v. Hendon
Rural District Council, Ex parte charley.

In this case, one of the members of the planning commission was an estate agent and he was acting
for the applicant to whom permission was granted by the planning commission. The decision of the
planning commission granting the permission was quashed on the ground of pecuniary bias.

Jeejeebhoy v. Asst. Collector . In this case, it was found that one of the members of the bench of the
court was also a member of the co-operative society for which the disputed land had been acquired.

The bench was reconstituted. Similarly, Visakhapatnam Co-operative Motor Transport Ltd. v. G.
Bangar Raju . In this case, the district collector as the chairman of the regional transport authority
granted motor permit to the above co-operative society, to which he was also the president. The court
set aside the collector's action on the ground of pecuniary bias.
CONCLUSION –
Natural justice is an expression of English common law, and involves a procedural requirement of
fairness. The principles of natural justice have great significance in the study of Administrative law. It
is also known has substantial justice or fundamental justice or Universal justice or fair play in action.
The principles of natural justice are not embodied rules and are not codified. They are judge made
rules and are regarded has counterpart of the American procedural due process.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Q.No. 3b) ‘A’ a workman of ‘X’ factory had assaulted the manager of the factory. The manager
himself conducted the enquiry and dismissed the workman. Decided the validity of the order of
dismissals.
_________________________________________________________________________________
The order is invalid as we know that under the concept on natural justice we have the doctrine of bias
which says that no person should be the judge in its own case. So, the order is invalid as it is a bias
decision.
Nemo Judex In Causa Sua – [ Latin term]
“No one should be a judge in his own case” because it leads to rule of biases. Bias means an act
which leads to unfair activity whether in a conscious or unconscious stage in relation to the party or
a particular case. Therefore, the necessity of this rule is to make the judge impartial and given
judgement on the basis of evidence recorded as per the case.

In R v. Sussex, justice should not only be done, but also manifestly and undoubtedly seen to be done.
A decision which is a result of bias is a nullity and the trial is Coram non judice.

_________________________________________________________________________________