Rule Against Bias

The rule against Bias is a fundamental aspect of natural justice, requiring that any decision-making authority consists of impartial individuals who act fairly and without prejudice. 

In this context, bias refers to any preconceived opinion or predisposition that might influence a person’s judgment concerning a party or an issue. Bias encompasses anything that could lead someone to decide a case based on factors other than the presented evidence.

The rule against bias aims to prevent any improper factors from influencing a judge’s decision in a specific case. It is rooted in the understanding that it is human nature to avoid deciding against one’s own interests. 

The primary goal of this rule is to instil public confidence in the impartiality of administrative adjudication. As stated by Lord Hewart CJ in R v. Sussex, justice must not only be served but should also be perceived as being done without any doubt.

A decision tainted by bias is considered invalid, rendering the trial “Coram non judice” (before a judge lacking proper authority).

What is the Rule Against Bias?

The Rule Against Bias means that decision-makers and judges should not have any personal, financial, or preconceived feelings or opinions that could influence their judgment in a case. They should be impartial and treat everyone fairly and without favouritism to ensure a just and fair outcome.

The rule against bias is fundamental to natural justice and fair administrative proceedings. 

The “Nemo in propria causa judex” principle emphasizes that no one should act as a judge in their own case, commonly known as the rule against bias.

Types of Bias under Rule Against Bias

The rule against bias can be categorised into different types of bias, such as:

• Personal Bias: Refers to bias arising from a personal relationship between the decision-maker and one of the parties involved in the case.
• Pecuniary Bias: Occurs when a decision-maker stands to gain a financial benefit, no matter how small, from the outcome of the case.
• Subject Matter Bias: Arises when the decision-maker has a direct or indirect interest in the subject matter of the case.
• Policy Notion Bias: Relates to bias arising from preconceived notions or policy decisions made by the decision-maker.
• Pre-conceived Notion Bias: Refers to bias arising from the decision-maker’s pre-existing opinions or ideas about the case.
• Bias on Account of Obstinacy: Occurs when a decision-maker unreasonably and persistently upholds their own decision, despite valid reasons for reconsideration.

The rule against bias is an essential safeguard to uphold the principles of justice and fairness in any judicial or administrative process. It ensures that decisions are made objectively, without any undue influence or favouritism. When the rule against bias is violated, it can invalidate the decision or the entire process being declared unfair and unlawful.

Personal Bias

Personal bias occurs when there is a relationship between the decision-maker and one of the parties involved, leading the decision-maker to act unfairly and render a judgment in favour of the person to whom they are connected. Such biases can arise from various personal and professional relationships.

It is essential to provide reasonable evidence of bias to challenge an administrative action based on personal bias successfully.

In a specific case, Ramanand Prasad Singh vs. UOI, the Supreme Court held that even though one member of the selection committee had a brother participating in the competition, the entire selection procedure could not be invalidated. Instead, to avoid the act of bias, the respective panel member connected to the candidate should be asked to recuse themselves from the committee. This way, a fair and impartial decision can be reached.

In another case Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court quashed a government order due to personal bias. The challenge was based on several facts, including the owner of the Mineral Development Corporation opposing the minister in the 1952 elections, the minister filing a suit against the owner under Section 500 of the IPC and existing political rivalry.

Similarly, in G.N. Nayak v. Goa University, selecting an Associate Professor for promotion to the post of Professor was challenged on the grounds of personal bias. The Head of the Department (HOD) appreciated the work of the Associate Professor in his confidential report and was also a member of the Departmental Promotion Committee. The SC held that unless the preference is unreasonable and based on self-interest, it will not invalidate an administrative decision. A real likelihood of bias or reasonable suspicion of bias must exist to challenge the decision successfully.

Pecuniary Bias

Pecuniary bias refers to a situation where a judicial body or authority stands to gain any form of financial benefit, no matter how small, which can lead to biased decision-making.

In the case of J. Mohapatra & Co. v. State of Orissa (AIR 1984 SC 1572), the Supreme Court invalidated the decision of the Textbooks’ selection committee because some of its members were also authors of the books being considered for selection. The Court held that merely withdrawing a person while considering their own books is insufficient to eliminate the possibility of quid pro quo with other committee members.

Subject Matter Bias

Subject matter bias occurs when the deciding authority is directly or indirectly involved in the subject matter of a particular case.

In the case of Muralidhar vs. Kadam Singh, the court refused to quash the Election tribunal’s decision, despite the chairman’s wife being a member of the Congress party, whom the petitioner defeated. In this instance, the court did not find sufficient grounds to prove subject matter bias.

In Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. A.P.S.R.T.C (AIR 1959 SC 308), the Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Andhra Pradesh Government to nationalize road transport. The decision was invalidated because the Secretary of APSRTC, who conducted the hearing, had an interest in the subject matter, leading to subject matter bias.

Departmental Bias

The problem of departmental bias is a prevalent issue in various administrative processes, and its unchecked existence can erode the concept of fairness in proceedings. If not effectively addressed at regular intervals, it can lead to a negative perception of fairness in the entire system.

In the case of Krishna Bus Service Pvt Ltd. v. State of Haryana (AIR 1985 SC 1651), private bus operators alleged that the General Manager of Haryana Roadways, who was also involved in a rival business within the state, would not be able to perform his duties impartially. They argued that he might show leniency in inspecting vehicles belonging to his own department. The Supreme Court quashed the notification in question because it found a conflict of interest between the duty of the General Manager and the department’s interests. This conflict of interest led to a loss of public confidence in the fairness of administrative justice.

Policy Notion Bias

In the case of T. Govindaraja Mudaliar v. State of T.N. (AIR 1973 SC 974), the Tamil Nadu government made a policy decision in principle to nationalize road transport and formed a committee to devise the scheme. The Home Secretary was appointed as a member of this committee. Subsequently, the nationalization scheme was finalized, and published, and the Home Secretary heard objections.

The petitioner argued that the Home Secretary’s hearing was tainted by policy notion bias because he had already made up his mind on the question of nationalization while serving as a member of the committee that formulated the policy. However, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge, stating that as a committee member, the Secretary did not finally determine any issue that could have foreclosed his mind. Instead, he merely assisted the government in framing the scheme. The Court found no evidence of bias in the hearing process based on the Secretary’s prior involvement in the policy decision-making committee.

Pre-Conceived Notion Bias

Pre-conceived notion bias is when a judge or decision-maker already holds a pre-existing opinion or idea about a case before it is heard, potentially influencing their judgment. It is a delicate issue in administrative law, as judges are not expected to be entirely impartial like blank sheets of paper, but preconceived notions can compromise a fair trial.

In the case of Kondala Rao v. APSRTC (AIR 1961 SC 82), the Supreme Court did not quash the order of the Minister who heard objections from private operators regarding the nationalization of road transport. It was argued that the Minister had previously presided over a meeting where nationalization was favoured, suggesting a preconceived notion on the matter. 

However, the Court rejected this contention, emphasizing that the decision of the committee was not final and irrevocable but merely a policy decision. In this context, the Court implied that the Minister’s prior involvement did not necessarily imply bias in the hearing process, as the decision was still open to discussion and modification.

Bias on Account of Obstinacy

Bias on account of obstinacy refers to a situation where a decision-maker shows unreasonable and unwavering persistence in upholding their own decision or judgment, even when there are valid reasons to reconsider it. This type of bias was discovered in a case where a Calcutta High Court judge upheld his judgment while sitting in appeal against his ruling. While it is not possible for a judge to directly violate the rule of not sitting in appeal against their own judgment, they can indirectly violate it, as demonstrated in the case.

In the case of A.U. Kureshi v. High Court of Gujarat (2009) 11 SCC 84, a judicial officer (the appellant) was dismissed from service after being found guilty in a disciplinary inquiry. The appellant had previously acquitted an accused under the Gambling Act and returned the seized money. A complaint was later filed against the appellant, leading to a disciplinary inquiry. The High Court recommended the appellant’s dismissal based on the suggestion of the Disciplinary Committee.

The Supreme Court held that a judge who was part of the Disciplinary Committee should not have decided the matter on the judicial side. It was improper for a member of the Disciplinary Committee to adjudicate on a challenge against the same dismissal order while acting in a purely judicial capacity. 

Such actions create an apprehension of bias on the part of the judge. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, adhering to the principle that no judge should decide a dispute they have dealt with in any capacity other than a purely judicial one.

Conclusion

The rule against bias is a crucial principle of natural justice and fair administrative proceedings. It ensures that decision-makers remain impartial and free from any personal, financial, or preconceived biases that could influence their judgment. 

The rule guards against different forms of bias, such as personal bias, pecuniary bias, subject matter bias, policy notion bias, pre-conceived notion bias, and bias on account of obstinacy.