Doctrine of Bias | Administrative Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

Introduction

• Bias is when someone is inclined to favor one side over the other without considering the true merits of a case. It can be conscious or unconscious.
• Natural justice requires judges to be impartial and free from bias, acting without personal interest in the outcome.

Types of Bias

• Pecuniary Bias: Even a slight financial interest in the case can disqualify a judge from making a decision.
• Personal Bias: Bias can arise from personal relationships, grudges, or rivalries with the parties involved.
• Official Bias: A judge may be biased if they have a general interest in the subject matter of the case.
• Judicial Obstinacy: Stubbornness or unwillingness to change a decision can also indicate bias.
• Departmental Bias: Bias stemming from departmental interests or loyalties.
• Policy Notion Bias: Preconceived notions about policy can lead to bias in decision-making.
• Preconceived Notion Bias: Making decisions based on preconceived ideas rather than evidence.
• Bias Due to Obstinacy: Refusal to consider new information or perspectives can indicate bias.

Pecuniary Bias

• Even a slight financial interest in the subject matter of litigation can disqualify a person from acting as a Judge.
• Pecuniary interest, no matter how small, can invalidate administrative action.
• Halsbury's Laws of England states that any financial interest, however minor, disqualifies a person from adjudicating.
• In the case of Dimes v. Grant Junction Canal, the Vice Chancellor's decision was quashed due to his financial interest, even though it did not affect his judgment.

Personal Bias

• Personal bias can arise when a Judge has a personal connection, such as being a relative, friend, or having a grudge against a party involved in the case.
• To challenge an administrative action on the grounds of personal bias, there must be a reasonable suspicion or real likelihood of bias.
• The reasonable suspicion test focuses on outward appearances, while the real likelihood test evaluates the possibilities of bias.
• In the case of A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, the Supreme Court found a real likelihood of bias when a candidate was on the selection board considering his own name.
• In G.N. Nayak v. Goa University, the Supreme Court ruled that personal bias would not vitiate an administrative decision unless preferences were unreasonable and based on self-interest.

Official Bias - Subject Matter Bias

• Official bias or bias as to the subject-matter occurs when the Judge has a vested interest in the subject matter of the case.
• Mere involvement in the subject matter does not invalidate administrative action unless there is a real likelihood of bias.
• A general interest in the objective of the case does not disqualify a Judge from making a decision.
• In Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. A.P.S.R.T.C., the Supreme Court held that a Secretary hearing objections was essentially a party to the dispute, violating principles of natural justice.

[Intext Quetsion]

Judicial Obstinacy

• In the case of State of West Bengal v. Shivananda Pathak, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Government to promote him. Initially, a Single Judge granted the petition, ordering the authorities to promote the petitioner "forthwith." However, this order was overturned by a Division Bench. After two years, a new petition was filed for salary and benefits based on the Single Judge's judgment, which was still under appeal. This petition was dismissed by another Single Judge. The dismissal was appealed, and the appeal was heard by a Division Bench, one member of which had previously supported the petition. The appeal was successful, and certain reliefs were granted. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court upheld the appeal and annulled the previous order, identifying a new form of bias known as judicial obstinacy. The Court emphasized that when a superior court overturns a Judge's decision, the Judge must adhere to that ruling and cannot attempt to overrule it in the same or related cases. The decision of the higher court is binding not only on the parties involved but also on the Judge who made it.

Departmental or Institutional Bias

Departmental Bias

Nagaswara Rao case:

• The Supreme Court examined departmental bias in the context of a government order nationalizing road transport.
• The challenge was based on the bias of the transport department secretary who conducted the hearing, as he had initiated the scheme and was responsible for its execution.
• The court annulled the order, stating that the secretary's involvement compromised the fairness of the hearing.

Amendment and Subsequent Challenge:

• After the Act was amended, the minister in charge of the department was given the responsibility of hearing objections.
• The government’s decision was again contested on grounds of departmental bias, but this time the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge.
• The court differentiated between the roles of the secretary and the minister, suggesting that the minister's position did not entail the same level of bias.

Krishna Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana:

• The Supreme Court addressed departmental bias regarding the powers conferred on the general manager of Haryana Roadways.
• Private bus operators alleged that the general manager, being a business competitor, could not fairly inspect vehicles.
• The court quashed the notification due to the conflict between duty and departmental interest, impacting public confidence in administrative justice.

Concept of Institutional Bias:

• Where there is no conflict between duty and departmental interest, the concept of institutional bias should be considered within the constraints of institutional requirements.

Policy Notion Bias

• Policy notion bias arises from preconceived policy ideas and poses a challenge in administrative law. Judges, being human, cannot be expected to be completely neutral. However, strong policy convictions can jeopardize the fairness of a trial.
• In Franklin v. Minister of Town and Country Planning, also known as the Stevenage case, the appellant contested the 1946 designation order for Stevenage Newtown. The challenge was based on the claim that the minister did not provide a fair hearing, influenced by his strong policy beliefs evident in his speech at Stevenage, where he expressed a desire to implement a town planning experiment.
• In Kondala Rao v. A.P.SRTC, the court upheld the minister's order regarding the nationalization of road transport, despite the minister's prior involvement in a meeting favoring nationalization. The court argued that the committee's decision was not final but a mere policy suggestion.

Preconceived Notion Bias

• Preconceived notion bias, also known as unconscious bias, affects all individuals in adjudicatory roles, regardless of their level of humanity. This bias can manifest as class bias or personality bias.
• Everyone is shaped by their class and inherits certain traits from it, which can influence their decision-making. Similarly, an individual's personality, shaped by biological and social factors, affects their values and attitudes, impacting their decisions.
• Unconscious bias is an inherent part of any adjudication process and can only be addressed if detected through overt actions by the authority. If detected, it can invalidate an administrative hearing if it directly relates to the decision. This includes instances where the deciding officer openly displays prejudice.
• Bias from preconceived notions may need to be accepted as a limitation of the administrative process. Accusing a public officer of bias simply because they favor a particular policy in the public interest is often futile.

Bias on Account of Obstinacy

• The Supreme Court identified a new type of bias stemming from unreasonable obstinacy, where a decision-maker is unreasonably persistent and unwilling to accept no for an answer.
• Obstinacy involves an unreasonable and unwavering persistence, and a deciding officer exhibiting this trait would not consider alternative viewpoints.
• This category of bias was observed when a judge of the Calcutta High Court upheld his own judgment while sitting in appeal against it, which is a direct violation of the rule that a judge cannot sit in appeal against their own judgment.
• Since direct violation of this rule is not feasible, it can only be violated indirectly.
• In a new hearing, the judge validated his earlier order in a case that had been overruled by a division bench.
• What applies to the judicial process also holds true for the administrative process.

Conclusion

• The disqualification of a Judge due to direct pecuniary interest, regardless of how minimal it may be, is a clear principle. However, in cases involving other interests, the criterion should revolve around the 'reasonable likelihood of bias.'
• This assessment should be grounded in the reasonable apprehension of a rational individual fully aware of all the circumstances.
• While it is undoubtedly preferable for all Judges to be above suspicion, akin to Caesar's wife, it would be excessive to insist that only those devoid of any suspicion of improper motives are fit to perform judicial duties.
• It would be unjust to annul decisions based on the suspicions of unreasonable or capricious individuals.
• A practical reality acknowledges that Judges are human, possessing their own preferences, biases, and influences, and expecting them to function as machines impervious to worldly matters is unrealistic.