ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

PERSONAL BIAS

Sri Lakshmi Ghate

Reg No: 40320111096
 SYNOPSIS 2

1) Introduction

2) Principles of Natural Justice

3) Rule Against Bias

4) Personal Bias: Meaning and Nature

5) Types of Personal Bias with Case Laws

6) Conclusion

7) Bibliography/References
© 2018 Creative – Presentation template
 PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE: WHAT & WHY? 3

>> Roman Law – Jus Naturae.

>> Interchangeably used with – Jus Gentium (Law of Nations), Divine Law.

>> A law established by natural reason for all men.

>> Procedural principles which every administrative agency is expected to follow when
making any decision.

>> To ensure fairness, reasonableness & equality – procedural & administrative justice.

>> Three major Principles of Natural Justice

1. Rule Against Bias
2. Rule of Fair Hearing
3. Speaking Order
© 2018 Creative – Presentation template
 RULE AGAINST BIAS : MEANING & TYPES 4

>> Bias – Favouritism or Operative Prejudice – Conscious or Unconscious

>> Aiyar’s Judicial Dictionary – “Leaning of mind towards an object which might sway
the judgment.”

>> Rule Against Bias – Strikes against factors that improperly influence any deciding
authority.

>> Based on the principle ‘Nemo judex in causa sua’

>> No one should be made a judge in his own cause.

>> Human Psychology – People very rarely decide against their own interest.

>> To ensure public confidence in administrative adjudicatory processes

© 2018 Creative – Presentation template
 5

MANIFESTATION OF BIAS

1. Personal Bias
2. Pecuniary Bias
3. Bias of Subject Matter

>> Personal Bias – Interest towards one of the parties to dispute

>> Pecuniary Bias – Monetary interest

>> Bias of Subject Matter – Deciding authority is a party to dispute

- Also called Departmental/Ministerial Bias

© 2018 Creative – Presentation template

 >> A certain relationship equation between the deciding6
authority and the party to dispute.
PERSONAL BIAS
>> Influences the decision – favourable/unfavourable.

>> Two tests:

1) Reasonable Suspicion of Bias.
2) Real Likelihood of Bias.

>> Reasonable Suspicion of Bias - Outward appearance.

>> Real Likelihood of Bias – Court’s evaluation.

>> Difficult to prove a person’s state of mind – test for

Personal bias arises from a
relation between the party
reasonable grounds.
and deciding authority
>> Human possibilities & Ordinary course of Human
© 2018 Creative – Presentation template
conduct
OBSTINACY
 PERSONAL FRIENDSHIP
>> Influence of friendship / familiarity / association.

>> Likely that the deciding authority is inclined favourably towards his/her friend/
acquaintance.

CASE LAWS:
1) A. K. KRAIPAK v. UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1970 SC 150)
2) COTTLE v. COTTLE
3) S P KAPOOR v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
4) TATA MOTOR CHALLENGE v. GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL
 CASE LAW 1: A K KRAIPAK v UNION OF INDIA
>> Acting Chief Conservator of Forests – Member of UPSC selection committee

>> Also one of the candidates for the post

>> Influencing factor – membership of selection committee.

>> Not a part of selection when his name was considered.

>> Participated in deliberations of the rival candidates.

>> Conflict between duty & interest – impact on fairness.

>> Subtle but reasonable likelihood of bias.

EXISTENCE OF REAL LIKELIHOOD OF BIAS - VIOLATION OF NATURAL PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE

 CASE LAW 2: COTTLE v. COTTLE

>> Mrs Cottle filed a suit against Mr. Cottle with regards to matrimonial issues.

>> Told Mr Cottle that the judgement would be in her favour

>> Magistrate/Chairman of the bench was her acquaintance.

>> The magistrate’s order was disqualified – rehearing.

EXISTENCE OF REASONABLE SUSPICION OF BIAS - VIOLATION OF NATURAL PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE

CASE LAW 3: S P KAPOOR v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

>> Committee for selection of candidates for promotion

>> Member of the committee had candidature – was selected.

>> Aggrieved party questioned – selection quashed.

EXISTENCE OF REAL LIKELIHOOD OF BIAS - VIOLATION OF NATURAL PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE

CASE LAW 4: TATA MOTOR CHALLENGE v. GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL

>> Case questioning the Constitutional Validity of Singur Land Rehabilitation &
Development Act

>> Justice Saumitra Pal excused himself

>> Reason – he personally knew one of the persons named in Tata’s petition.

>> Outcome – New judge appointed to hear the case.

 PERSONAL HOSTILITY
>> Hostility/discontentment may also trigger improper influence on decisions.

>> Where the enemy/opponent of the decision-making authority is a party to

dispute.

CASE LAWS:
1) R. v. HANDLEY
2) MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORP v. STATE OF BIHAR
3) WEST END SERVICE v. I T COUNCIL
4) B H KALYANI v. AIR FRANCE CALCUTTA
 CASE LAW 1: R. v. HANDLEY

>> An accused was brought for trial in front of magistrate

>> Accused had beaten up the magistrate in a previous occasion.

>> Deciding authority – imposed heavy punishment for petty offence

>> Order quashed & authority disqualified from hearing the case any further

>>Magistrate inclined towards settling the animosity.

CASE LAW 2: MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORP LTD v. STATE OF BIHAR

>> The Mineral Development Corp Ltd. – 99 Years of Licence acquired in 1947

>> A minister revoked the licence without giving any valid reasons in 1955

>> The aggrieved party claimed existence of bias – proven political rivalry.

>> Minister’s order – layered with bias – disqualified.

 CASE LAW 3: WEST END SERVICE v. IT COUNCIL
>> A person was accused of going against a by-law – for not closing his garage
early as directed in the Act

>> Accused pleaded for exemption on reasonable grounds to the Council that
had set down the by-law

>> The Council turned down the request

>> Accused claimed that the decision was biased – 3 of the Council members
were his competitors

>> The decision of the Council to not provide exemption was disqualified.
 CASE LAW 4: B H KALYANI v. AIR FRANCE CALCUTTA

>> Delinquent (accused) had previously testified against the officer conducting
the enquiry.

- Evidence during Criminal Proceedings

>> Officer thus held to be incompetent to hold a disciplinary enquiry.

 FAMILY RELATIONSHIP
>> Family ties may cause the deciding authority to incline favourably
towards someone they are related to.

>>

CASE LAWS:
1) KIRTHI DARSHAN v. UNION OF INDIA
2) LADIES OF SACRED HEART OF JESUS v. ARMSTRONG
3) KHANNA v. UNION OF INDIA
4) TATA CELLULAR v. UNION OF INDIA
5) JAVID RASOOL BHATT v. STATE OF J&K
6) RAJEEV BHARADWAJ v. STATE OF H.P.
 CASE LAW 1: KIRTHI DARSHAN v. UNION OF INDIA
>> Interview was being held for admission into Masters Degree in Medical
Science

>> One of the members in the interview panel – Mother-in-Law of one of the
candidates appearing for the interview.

>> The said candidate was selected.

>> An aggrieved party challenged the decision on the grounds of bias.

>> Bias was proven, the decision of the authority was held as void.
 CASE LAW 2: KHANNA v. UNION OF INDIA

>> Father-in-law selected Son-in-law as the MD of a Public Corp

>> “In the case of family relationship, the challenge to the proceeding need
only establish so close a degree of relationship as to give rise to the reasonable
likelihood of the Judge espousing the cause as his own.”

CASE LAW 3: LADIES OF SACRED HEART OF JESUS v. ARMSTRONG

>> Held: A decision of a tribunal can be set aside if its Chairman is the husband
of an executive officer of the body which is a party before the tribunal.
 CASE LAW 4: TATA CELLULAR v. UNION OF INDIA
>>Supreme Court stipulated that judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of
the decision but the decision-making process itself.

>> The court's duty is to confine itself to the issue of legality.

>> The aim should be:

1. Whether the decision-making authority exceeds its power.
2. Committed an error of law.
3. Committed a breach of the rules of natural justice.
4. Reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached.
5. Abuse its power.

>> There is no desirability for untrammelled judicial review.

>> Arbitrariness based on proportionality theory is still without foundation.

>> There is also no basis for not justifying the administrative action on merit. Court must
confine itself to the manner in which it made a decision or issued an order.
 CASE LAW 5: JAVID RASOOL BHATT v. STATE OF J&K

>> Admission to medical college challenged.

>> Principal – Member of Selection Committee – Parent of a candidate.

>> Order not quashed – The situation was brought to committee’s notice.

>> Court did not entertain the claim of bias – facts proved otherwise.

>> Mere existence of relationship cannot be interpreted as existence of bias.

 CASE LAW 6: RAJEEV BHARADWAJ v. STATE OF HP

>> 2021 Case

>> The Court observed that merely because persons are related do not
establish that the relationships were working or cordial.

>> Allegations also lacked material proof

>> The burden was on the aggrieved to show the approximate date of
knowledge of the relations, so as to steer clear of shady grey areas of
reasonable doubt.
 EMPLOYEE- EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIP
>> There exists a legal link between the employer and the employee

>> Such link or relationship may affect the fairness of a judgement, when
interests are involved.

CASE LAWS:
1) MEENGLASS TEA ESTATE v. WORKMEN
2) RANJITH THAKUR v. UNION OF INDIA
3) R. v. HOSCASAN
 CASE LAW 1: MEENGLASS TEA ESTATE v. WORKMEN
>> The manager had beaten up a workman causing physical injury

>> The inquiry was also conducted by the manager himself

>> Outright clear that manager would preserve his own interests, and decide against
the workman

>> Inquiry was held vitiated

 CASE LAW 2: RANJITH THAKUR v. UNION OF INDIA
>> Ranjith Thakur – a signal man in the Army – imprisoned by CO for 28 years

>> Reason – He had testified against the ill-treatment in the hands of the same CO

>> When in prison refused to take food despite an order by the Orderly Officer.

>> Dismissed and subjected to 1 year of rigorous imprisonment

>> CO – Member of the Court Martial Tribunal

>> Sec 130 of Army Act – Tribunal did not seek objection

>> SC – Sentence has to suit the offence and the offender – should not be vindictive
or unduly harsh.
 CASE LAW 3: R. v. HOSCASAN

>> Magistrate cannot convict his own employee for a breach of contract on the
complaint filed by the bailiff of the Magistrate.
 JUDICIAL ABSTINACY
>> It is a type of personal bias where there is a professional interest of the
deciding authority involved, which in turn has a questionable influence on
the decision taken or judgement given

CASE LAWS:
1) MANAK LAL v. PREMCHAND
2) BAIDYANATH MAHAPATRA v. STATE OF ORISSA
3) SHARMA v. LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY
 CASE LAW 1: MANAK LAL v. PREMCHAND
>> An advocate was accused of professional misconduct

>> Advocates’ Act of 1961 – Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council – to hear and
decide such cases towards removal

>> One of the members of the Committee had lost a case against the accused
advocate earlier – Professional Rivalry – Reasonable Likelihood of Bias

>> Accused was held guilty - approached the court stating bias on professional
grounds

>> Order of the Committee quashed – Case was set to be reheard

 CASE LAW 2: BAIDYANATH MAHAPATRA v. STATE OF ORISSA
>> Tribunal was constituted for confirming the premature retirement of employees

>> The Chairman of the Tribunal was also a member of the review committee that
recommended the provision for premature retirement

>> Supreme Court quashed the order – There is a real likelihood of bias – The
Chairman of the Tribunal would not go against his own recommendation

>> Judicial Obstinacy involved

 CASE LAW 3: SHARMA v. LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY
>> Selection Committee constituted to review the appraisals/promotions and
increments to the Professors of the University

>> One of the candidates had a professional feud with one of the members of the
selection committee

>> Candidate voluntarily appeared before the committee for interview – Disqualified

>> Candidate approached the Court stating involvement of professional bias – Court
decided against the claims

>> Court: Candidate has not suffered because despite the knowledge of probability
of bias, he willingly appeared before the committee. Such willingness makes the claim
seem of existence of bias invalid. However, it would have been considered had he
approached the court with the same claim before appearing for the said interview
 CONCLUSION 32

>> A biased decision is null – ‘Coram non judice’.

>> Inference of bias – factual matrix – not on basis of conjectures, insinuations, etc.

>> Lord Denning – “Justice must be rooted in the confidence and the confidence is
destroyed when right minded people go away thinking that the judge is biased.”

>> R. v. Secretary of State for the Environment – One cannot be expected to approach the
matter with ‘an empty mind’ but, in the words of the court, the mind should ‘at least be ajar’. 

>> For proceedings to be quashed – Existence of real likelihood of bias & not mere
suspicion.

>> Apprehension to be healthy & reasonable – not whimsical/capricious.

© 2018 Creative – Presentation template
 REFERENCES 33

1. THE FACT FACTOR – PERSONAL BIAS

https://thefactfactor.com/facts/law/civil_law/administrative-law/personal-bias/4393/

2. RAMA UNIVERSITY - STUDY MATERIAL ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

https://www.ramauniversity.ac.in/online-study-material/law/ballb/iiisemester/admininstrativelaw/lecture-30.pdf

3. JUS NATURAE – ORIGIN, MEANING AND EXPLANATION – SAHAJPREET BHUSARI

https://www.legalbites.in/jus-naturale/

4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF OPEN SCHOOLING - MODULE 2 - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

https://nios.ac.in/media/documents/SrSec338New/338_Introduction_To_Law_Eng/338_Introduction_To_Law_Eng_L6.pdf

5. https://nacin.gov.in/resources/file/e-books/Principles%20of%20natural%20justice.pdf

6. PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE – JUSTICE BRIJESH KUMAR (ALLAHABAD HC)

http://ijtr.nic.in/articles/art36.pdf

7. https://www.taxmann.com/bookstore/bookshop/bookfiles/Law%20Relating%20to%20Search%20%
20Seizure--GC%20Das--Page%20Number%20256%20to%20268-sample%20chapter.pdf
© 2018 Creative – Presentation template
THANK YOU