Category: Rule Against Bias

ISSUE:

Whether Shri P.P. Rao’s inclusion in the Committee was sufficient to raise a reasonable apprehension of bias?

Whether the Petitioner waived their right to object to Shri Rao’s inclusion by raising the issue belatedly?

RULE:

No Court can provide assistance in a petition filed with the sole object of delaying finalisation of the inquiry.

To disqualify a person from adjudicating on the ground of interest in the subject matter, the test of real likelihood of the bias is to be applied.

ISSUE:

Whether the Court could declare Judge Burrell’s decision void due to his financial interest in the Grand Junction Canal Company?

Whether a judge with a pecuniary interest in a case violates the principles of natural justice?

Whether the Court should disqualify a judge to maintain public confidence in the judiciary's impartiality?

RULE:

A judge must not preside over a case in which they have a financial interest, as it violates the duty of impartiality and the principle of natural justice, "no man shall be a judge in his own cause."

ISSUE:

Whether the allocation of government jobs and educational seats based on caste quotas under the OBC (Other Backward Classes) category is constitutional?

Whether the creamy layer should be excluded from the socially and educationally backward class?

Whether the delegation of power to the Union Government regarding criteria for identification of backward class was constitutionally valid?

RULE:

The Constitution of India allows for special provisions to advance the education and employment opportunities of socially and educationally backward classes.

The concept of the “creamy layer” refers to economically advanced individuals within backward classes who should be excluded from the benefits of reservation.

ISSUE:

Whether the approval of the nationalization scheme by the State Government violated the principles of natural justice?

Whether the procedure adopted in delegating the hearing of objections to the Secretary, instead of the decision-making authority, was legally valid?

Whether Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, amounted to colourable legislation infringing on the petitioners’ fundamental rights?

RULE:

Principles of natural justice require an impartial authority to hear and decide disputes.

Delegation of duties in quasi-judicial acts must comply with statutory requirements.

A law is termed "colourable legislation" if it indirectly achieves what cannot be done directly.

Administrative actions affecting fundamental rights must adhere to due process.

The Constitution allows reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights in the public interest, but such restrictions must meet proportionality tests.

ISSUE:

Whether the presence of author-members in the committee violates the principle of impartiality and fairness?

Whether the doctrine of necessity applies to justify the participation of author-members in the selection process?

Whether the method of selecting books under administrative resolutions is fair and unbiased?

RULE:

The principle of nemo judex in causa sua (no one shall be a judge in their own cause) ensures that individuals with a vested interest in a matter should not participate in decisions where they have a personal stake, maintaining fairness and impartiality in judicial and decision-making processes.

The doctrine of necessity applies only if there is no alternative course of action available.

ISSUE:

Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to reopen a case after final judgment has been delivered to prevent significant injustice?

Whether the test for apparent bias, as applied in this case, was correctly assessed in light of the judge’s undisclosed relationship with the claimants' solicitors?

Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify the admission of fresh evidence challenging the impartiality of the original judgment?

RULE:

Residual Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal: The Court of Appeal has a residual jurisdiction to reopen appeals in exceptional circumstances to prevent significant injustice, provided that no alternative effective remedy exists. This power is exercised with discretion to ensure finality in litigation is not unnecessarily compromised.

Fair-Minded and Informed Observer Test for Bias: Apparent bias is established if, based on all the circumstances, a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there is a real possibility of bias. Judges should make full and appropriate disclosures when circumstances could reasonably raise questions about impartiality.

ISSUE:

Whether the inquiry officer’s bias invalidates the disciplinary proceedings?

Whether the inquiry officer was authorized to conduct the inquiry after his demotion from Director-in-Charge to Deputy Director?

Whether denial of access to relevant documents amounts to a violation of the right to a reasonable defence?

RULE:

A real likelihood of bias exists if reasonable and right-minded individuals, upon considering the facts, would conclude that the inquiring officer was prejudiced.

It is not necessary to prove actual bias; the perception of bias based on objective circumstances suffices to render the inquiry invalid.