Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DEPARTMENTAL BIAS
SAARTH DHINGRA
INTRODUCTION-
While every State today would like to call itself a welfare state almost up
to the end of nineteenth century most states contented themselves with
being “police” State. Their primary function was to provide law and order.
The idea of bringing a welfare state instead of police state was brought by
the great political thinker, Laski.
So far as the nature of the welfare state is concerned, the first important
thing to be kept in mind is that welfare is not a matter of charity, but a
right. Secondly, unless the minds and attitude of people are attuned to
the idea of the welfare state, they are apt to look upon the welfare as
manna from the heaven falling into the mouths of the expectant people.1
One of the most famous references to power comes from the Chinese
communist leader Mao Zedong. In his words, “Political power grows
from the barrel of a gun2.”
In any social system, it is a fact that some give orders whist others obey.
The ability to command obedience is defined as power.
1. Physical sanction.
2
Eddy Asirvatham, Political Theory, (New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.), 2006 ,p 164
3
While power ultimately rests on the threat of coercion, in most political
systems some people develop the right to give orders, which they
generally expect to be obeyed. Power thus becomes authority when it is
recognised as legitimate - the right to give the order is accepted usually
because those obeying the order believe there is some common good to
be served by obedience.
When the concept of power is discussed, the two types of power will be
discussed definitely. They are the arbitrary power and the discretionary
power.
In Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Anothers,
the constitutional power conferred on the Government cannot be
exercised by it arbitrarily or capriciously or in an unprincipled manner; it
has to be exercised for the public good. Every activity of the Government
has a public element in it and it must therefore, be informed with reason
and guided by public interest. Every action taken by the Government
must be in public interest; the Government cannot act arbitrarily and
without reason and if it does, its action would be liable to be invalidated.
The absence of arbitrary power is the first postulate of rule of law upon
which the whole Constitutional edifice is based. In a system governed by
Rule of Law, discretion when conferred upon an executive authority must
be confined within clearly defined limits. If the discretion is exercised
without any principle or without any rule, it is a situation amounting to the
antithesis of Rule of Law.7
5
(1991) 1 SCC 212.
6
AIR 1990 SC 1402.
7
Available at www.legalserviceindia.com visited on October 9, 2010.
5
On the other hand, discretionary powers are permissive, not mandatory.
They are powers granted either under statute or delegation which do not
impose a duty on the decision-maker to exercise them or to exercise them
in a particular way. Within certain constraints, decision-makers are able to
choose whether and/or how to exercise discretionary powers. Every
discretionary power vested in the executive should be exercised in a just,
reasonable and fair way. That is the essence of the Rule of Law.8
In United States v. Wunderlich9, law has reached its first finest moments
when it has freed man from the unlimited discretion of some ruler, some
civil or military official, and some bureaucrat. Where discretion is
absolute, man has always suffered. At times it has been his property that
has been invaded, at times his privacy; at times his liberty of movement;
at times his freedom of thought; at times his life. Absolute discretion is a
ruthless master. It is more destructive of freedom than any of mans other
invention.10 Discretion means sound discretion guided by law it must be
governed by rule not humour; it must not be arbitrary, vague or fanciful.
In a state of governed by the rule of Law, discretion must be confined
within clearly defined limits. A decision taken without any principle or rule
is the antithesis of a decision of a decision taken in accordance with the
rule of Law. Its exercise has always to be in conformity with rules.
Thus, power should be used reasonably in good faith and for a proper
purpose. It is said that absolute power corrupts all. So, there is a chance
8
Available at www.legalserviceindia.com visited on October 7, 2010.
9
(1951) 342 US 98.
10
John Wilkes (1770) 4 Burr 2528.
11
A.P. Aggarwal v. Govt of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2000 SC 3689.
6
that because of the unethical use of power, there can be violation of
principles of natural justice.
The term Natural Justice has not been defined in any enactment, rules or
regulations. Eminent Jurists and courts in England and India have defined
and explained the concept of Natural Justice in various decisions.12
The term Natural Justice has been evolved in contrast to legal justice. It is
said that Natural Justice is justice in deed and in truth while legal justice is
justice declared and recognized by law and enforced by courts in
accordance with the procedure established by law. Natural Justice is
justice based on human values and good conscience following a just and
fair procedure. Legal justice is justice based on technicalities of law
following the procedure established by law. Principles of Natural Justice
are principles analogous to principles of equity.13
12
P.V. Ramakrishna, ‘Principles of Natural Justice’,
http://www.aapssindia.org/articles/vpII3/vpII3h.html, visited on October 7,
2010.
13
P.V. Ramakrishna, ‘Principles of Natural Justice’,
http://www.aapssindia.org/articles/vpII3/vpII3h.html, visited on October 7,
2010.
14
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480.
7
Generally, no provision is found in any statute for the observance of the
principles of natural justice by the adjudicating authorities. The question
then arises whether the adjudicating authority is bound to follow the
principles of natural justice. The law has been settled that they are the
mandatory requirement and that the justice of the common law will
supply the omission of the legislature.15 This principle is accepted in India
also.16
Principles of Natural Justice are the rules laid down by courts for the
purpose of protecting the right of an individual against adoption of
arbitrary procedure in determining questions affecting his rights by a
judicial or quasi-judicial authority.17
In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India18, the Supreme Court laid down the
following guidelines regarding the scope and object of the principles of
Natural Justice.
(a) These rules operate in areas not covered by any law validly made. In
other words, they do not supplant the law but supplement the law.
(c) In view of their nature it is not possible to cast them in a narrow mould
or fit them into a straight jacket, because that would deprive them of their
flexibility or adaptability to the innumerable situations that may arise
during the course of the enquiry.
15
R. v. University of Cambridge, (1723) 1 Str 557.
16
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248: AIR 1978 SC 597: (1978)2 SCR 621, Beg, C.J.
observed: “It is well established that even where there is no specific provision in a statute or rules made
there under for showing cause against action proposed to be taken against an individual, which affects the
rights of that individual, the duty to give reasonable opportunity to be heard will be implied from the nature
of the function to be performed by the authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action.”
17
Pitchaiah v. Andhra University, AIR 1961 AP 465.
18
AIR 1976 SC 150.
8
(d) Whether a particular principle of Natural Justice is applicable to a
particular situation will depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case.
(e) Whenever a complaint is made before the court that some principle of
Natural Justice is contravened, the court has to decide whether the
observance of the rule was necessary for a just decision of the case.
(f) The concept of Natural Justice has undergone a great deal of change in
recent years. In the past it was thought that it included just two rules
namely (1) no one shall be a judge in his own cause and (2) no decision
shall be given against party without affording him a reasonable hearing.
Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged that quasi-judicial
enquiries must be held in good faith without bias and not arbitrarily or
unreasonably. In the course of years many more subsidiary rules came to
be added to the rules of Natural Justice.
(g) Till very recently it was the opinion of the courts that unless the
authority concerned was required by the law under which it functioned to
act judicially there was no room for the application of the rules of Natural
Justice. The validity of that limitation is now questioned.
(i) Often times it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates
administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial enquiries. Enquiries which are
considered administrative at one time are now being considered as quasi-
judicial in character.
9
First basic principle– ‘No one shall be a judge in his own
cause.’
The main contention of the Constable before the Supreme Court was that
Sri B.N.Bhalla, who presided over the trial, also gave his own evidence in
the proceedings at two stages and had thus become disqualified from
continuing as the judge, as he was found to be biased against the
respondent. The examination of Shri Bhalla became necessary to
contradict a witness who denied at the inquiry a statement he had made
earlier in the presence of Shri Bhalla. Accordingly, Shri Bhalla had his
testimony recorded by a Deputy Superintendent of Police.
19
Available on http://lawreports.wordpress.com/ visited on October 10, 2010.
20
AIR 1958 SC 86.
10
The Supreme Court, while laying down that a person cannot act both as a
Judge and witness, observed as follows:
11
The concept of reasonable opportunity extends throughout the
disciplinary proceedings from the stage of framing of charges till the final
order is issued.
Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry to impose upon him
any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the
evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to
give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty
proposed.”
21
Available at http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l25-Nemo-in-propria-causa-judex,-
esse-debet-THE-RULE-AGAINST-BIAS.html visited on October 9, 2010.
12
characteristic of a judicial or quasi judicial process is the impartiality of
the tribunal giving se as a corollary, to juridical qualities between the
parties before it, and the latter is apt to be gravely imperilled when one of
the parties has not been given opportunity to appear before it thus
disturbing the equilibrium between them. The essence of the rule is
notice, adequate opportunity to be heard consideration and solemn
judgment.
In the past there were only two rules comprised in the principles of natural
justice. The first was that no one will be judge in his own cause and
second that no decision can be given against a party without affording
him a reasonable hearing. Soon a third rule was envisaged that enquiry
must be held in good faith without bias and not arbitrarily or
unreasonably. In the course of years many more subsidiary rules came up
to be added to the rules of natural justice. The rules are now extended to
administrative enquiries also. The rules are also not embodied rules and
what particular rule of natural justice should apply in a given case would
depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case, frame work of the
law under which the enquiry is held and the situation of tribunal or body
of persons appointed for the purpose and, therefore, in each case a
decision has to be taken whether a particular rule of natural justice was
necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case.22
Nemo in propria causa judex , esse debet, i.e. no one should be made a
judge in his own cause. It is popularly known as the rule against bias. It is
the minimal requirement of the natural justice that the authority giving
decision must be composed of impartial persons acting fairly, without
prejudice and bias. Bias means an operative prejudice, whether conscious
or unconscious, as result of some preconceived opinion or predisposition,
in relation to a party or an issue. Dictionary meaning of the term “bias”
22
Gangadharan v. Kerala Rsheries Corpn. Ltd., (1983) 2 115 360 (Ker HC).
13
suggests anything which tends a person to decide a case other than on
the basis of evidences.23
The rule against bias strikes against those factors which may improperly
influence a judge against arriving at a decision in a particular case. This
rule is based on the premises that it is against the human psychology to
decide a case against his own interest. The basic objective of this rule is
to ensure public confidence in the impartiality of the administrative
adjudicatory process, for as per Lord Hewart CJ, in R v. Sussex24, “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”.
• Personal Bias
• Pecuniary Bias
• Departmental Bias
DEPARTMENTAL BIAS-
23
Available at http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l25-Nemo-in-propria-causa-judex,-
esse-debet-THE-RULE-AGAINST-BIAS.html visited on October 9, 2010.
24
(1924)1 KB 256.
14
The problem of departmental bias is something which is inherent in the
administrative process, and if it is not effectively checked, it may negate
the very concept of fairness in the administrative proceeding. The
problem of departmental bias arises in different context- when the
functions of judge and prosecutor are combined in the same department.
It is not uncommon to find that the same department which initiates a
matter also decides it, therefore, at times, departmental fraternity and
loyalty militates against the concept of fair hearing.25
This problem came up before the Supreme Court in Hari Khemu v. Dy.
Commr. of Police26. In this case an order was challenged on the ground
that since the police department which initiated the proceedings and the
department which heard and decided the case were the same, the
element of departmental bias vitiated administrative action. The Court
rejected the challenge on the ground that so long as the two functions
(initiation and decision) were discharged by two separate officers, though
they were affiliated to the same department, there was no bias.
25
Available at www.legalserviceindia.com visited on October 9, 2010.
26
AIR 1956 SC 559.
27
AIR 1959 SC 308.
28
(1985) 3 SCC 711.
15
Roadways in matters of inspection of vehicles on the ground of
departmental bias.
The facts of this case were that some private bus operators had
alleged that the General Manager of Haryana Roadways who was the rival
in business in the State could not be expected to discharge his duties in a
fair and reasonable manner and would be too lenient in inspecting the
vehicles belonging to his own department. The reason for quashing the
notification according to the Supreme Court was the conflict between the
duty and the interest of the department and the consequential erosion of
public confidence in administrative justice.
The test of likelihood of bias which has been applied in a number of cases
is based on the reasonable apprehension of a reasonable man fully
cognizant of the facts. The courts have quashed on the strength of the
‘reasonable suspicion’ of the party aggrieved without any finding that a
real likelihood of bias in fact existed. The tests of “real likelihood” and
“reasonable suspicion” are really inconsistent with each other. The
reviewing authority must take a determination on the basis of the whole
evidence before it whether a reasonable man would in the circumstances
infer that there is real likelihood of bias. The Court must look at the
impression which other people have. This follows from the principle that
justice must not only be done but seem to be done. If right-minded
persons would think that there is real likelihood of bias on the part of an
enquiry officer, he must not conduct the enquiry; nevertheless there must
be a real likelihood of bias. Surmise or conjuncture would not be enough.29
There must exist circumstances from which reasonable men would think it
probable or likely that the inquiring officer will be prejudiced against the
delinquent. The court will not enquire whether he was really prejudiced. If
a reasonable man would think on the basis of the existing circumstances
that he is likely to be prejudiced, that is sufficient to quash the decision.30
29
P.V. Ramakrishna, ‘Principles of Natural Justice’,
http://www.aapssindia.org/articles/vpII3/vpII3h.html, visited on October 7,
2010.
30
S. Parthasarathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2701.
16
Where members of the Public Service Commission directly participated in
the selection of candidates where their own relatives have actually been
selected with high ratings in the interview, test, it was held that the
selection suffers from bias and is liable to be struck down. It was held that
in a fair recruitment to the Civil Services the selection must not only be
devoid of bias but there must also be no reasonable likelihood of bias. It is
not necessary for the petitioners to prove beyond reasonable doubt the
factum of bias or unfairness. It is sufficient if they can show a reasonable
possibility or likelihood of bias and partisanship.31
31
Subhash Chandar Sharma v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 454.
32
1997(3) ALT 68.
17
6. Bias may arise under various circumstances viz., pecuniary, affinity,
consanguinity, friendship or hostility, subordinate status etc. It may be
personal bias or departmental or administrative bias or objectionable bias
(e.g. prejudging the issue).
Lord Denning, once said that ‘the reason is plain enough. Justice
must be rooted in confidence: and confidence is destroyed when
right-minded people go away thinking ‘the judge was biased.’
Being prejudiced or exhibiting favouritism is but a human nature and it is
no conundrum that it is a regular feature in the deliverance of justice.
Administrative law has always been considered to be an informal form of
19
justice as it has no necessity for adherence to specific procedures or rules
laid down in a statute book. This feature has made administration more
realistic and accessible forum for addressing citizen grievances. But often,
the lack of a guiding force is apparent when we witness the slip of the
judiciary to eliminate bias that comes in unknowingly. Bias can be called
an uncertainty that plagues administrative law.
According to me, if the rule against bias is applied blindly, then it will be
no surprise that almost all adjudicators will be disqualified on that account
and the decisions will be invalidated consequently. So what occupies a
greater priority is not the disqualification of a judge per se but the
identification of such a bias in decision-making. The most often asked
question is that how can the general public perceive bias in the mind of
the judges, despite the various tests for identification of bias. The public is
entitled to have confidence in the judiciary and is also entitled to impartial
adjudication. This confidence is perceivable when the facts of the case are
such that they create a cloud of doubt in the mind of the public. That
would be the cardinal identification of bias.
20
BIBLIOGRAPHY-
WEBSITES REFERRED-
1. www.legalserviceindia.com
2. www.vakilno1.com
3. www.expertlaw.com
21
4. www.indlaw.com
5. www.manupatra.com
6. www.onlinedictionary.com
7. www.wordpress.com
22