Q5. Explain the doctrine of bias with the help of decided cases.

ANS- 5Doctrine of Bias:

Introduction:
The rule of natural justice is to followed by every court proceeding, is an implied
rule. One of such rules is fair hearing and impartial adjudication.
The two-basic principle of natural justice are:
1.Nemo Judex in Re Sua : It means no man can be a judge in his own case
2.Audi alteram partem : hear the other party
The doctrine of bias related to first principle if natural justice. It applies when the
interest in the matter is such that would make the judge decide in favour of
someone or to further his own interest. So, the rule of natural justice is against
bias.A person cannot take an objective decision in a case in which he has an
interest, for, as human psychology tells us, very rarely can people take decisions
against their own interest.
Bias:
Bias means any kind of prejudice, whether conscious or unconscious, in relation
to a party or issue. Such prejudice may be the result of a preconceived notion or a
predetermination to decide a case in a particular manner, so much so that it does
not leave the mind free from influence.
Types of Bias:
Subject-Matter Bias:
Bias may arise because the adjudicator may have a general interest in the subject
matter of dispute.It may be due to his association as a member of otherwise with
a private body or with the administration in his official company. An adjudicator
cannot develop the same kind of neutrality and objectivity towards the issues and
institution being presented before him as is the characteristic of a judge.
Also, in many adjudicatory proceedings before bureaucratic authorities one of the
parties is usually the administration itself. Therefore, an authority may have
official bias towards the department to which it has attached in a dispute
between the department and a private party or may have a policy bias i.e. it may
be interested in projecting and pursuing policies of the department.
Personal Bias
Circumstances may give rise to personal bias. Here a judge may be a relative or
business associate of a party involved. He may have some personal grudge,
enmity or grievance or professional issues against him. In view of these factors
there is every likelihood that the judge may be biased towards one party or
prejudiced towards the other. Section 30, of Court management of Country code,
talks about personal bias.
Pecuniary Bias:
There is a presumption that any direct financial interest howsoever small in the
matter in dispute disqualifies person from adjudicating. So, a direct pecuniary
interest however small will disqualify a person from acting as a judge.
Departmental Bias:
The problem of departmental bias is something that is inherent in the
administrative process, and if it is not effectively checked, it may negate the very
concept of fairness in administrative proceeding.
In GullapalliNagewara Rao v. APSRTC (AIR 1959), the Indian SC quashed the
decision of the Andhra Pradesh government to nationalize road transportation.
One of the grounds for challenge was that the Secretary who gave the hearing
was biased, being the person who initiated the scheme and also being the head of
the department whose responsibility it was to execute it.
Thereafter the Act was amended and the function of hearing the objection was
given to the minister concerned. The Gov. decision was again challenged
In GullapalliNagewara Rao. However, on this occasion the Supreme Court
rejected the challenge on the ground that the minister was not a part of the
department in the same manner as the Secretary was.
The problem of department bias also arises in a different context- when the
functions of judge and prosecutor are combined in the same department. It is not
uncommon to find that the same department which initiates a matter also
decides it.
In the US and England, there have partially resolved this issue with the institution
of hearing officers and inspectors.
Preconceived notion Bias:
Bias arising out of preconceived notions is a very delicate problem of
administrative law. On the one hand, no judge as a human being is expected to sit
as blank sheet of paper, and on the other hand, preconceived notions would
vitiate a fair trial.
The decision-maker must remain open to persuasion. This may seem especially
unlikely in circumstances where the minister has formulated a policy and then
hears representations against that policy. The courts accept that in such
circumstances an element of bias must be accepted.
Doctrine of Necessity:
Bias would not disqualify an officer from taking an action if no other person is
competent to act in his place. This exception is based on the doctrine of
necessity. The doctrine of necessity makes it imperative for the authority to
decide, and considerations of judicial propriety must yield.