INTRODUCTION
The principles of natural justice are classic examples of judicial activitism as they are juridical laws which were developed by the courts to prevent accidents in the exercise of power vested into the hands of administrative authorities or governmental bodies.
In the case of India, there does not exist a single statute which lays down the minimum procedure which administrative agencies must follow while exercising decision-making powers. At times a statute provides for a procedure with regards to administrative agency, and sometimes the statute does not provide any sort of procedure by which the administrative agency must adhere too. In these cases, the administrative agency has a discretion to you can see has a discretion to device its own procedure. However, the courts of law, have always maintained a position that administrative agencies must follow a minimum fair procedure this minimum fair procedure is referred to as the principles of natural justice.
The rule of natural justice is divided into various rules of bias, which are briefly discussed as follows:-
1. PERSONAL BIAS
The bias that arises from a certain relationship equation between deciding authority and the parties is known as personal bias as it might incline him unfavourably or otherwise on the site of one parties before him. This situation may develop out of varied forms of personal or professional hostility or friendship. Thus, no exhaustive list of personal bias is possible.
Real likelihood of bias or reasonable suspicion of bias
It is essential to prove that there is a reasonable suspicion or a real likelihood of bias in order to challenge an administrative action successfully on the ground of personal bias. The test of
reasonable suspicion mainly focuses on outward appearance. The test of real likelihood mainly focuses on the court’s own evaluation of possibilities. However, in practical sense, both tests have much more in common than expected. Because it is impossible to read the mind of a person. The courts do not question whether or not a person was biased. They instead focus on whether there is a ground to believe that the deciding officer had a likelihood of being biased. In order to ascertain whether a deciding officer was likely to have been biased, the judges take into consideration the human possibilities and the ordinary course of human conduct.
2. PECUNIARY BIAS
With regards to pecuniary bias, any financial interest, however small would vitiate administrative action. Such disqualification would not be avoided by non-participation of the biased member in the proceedings if he was present when the decision was reached.
In the case of R. v. Hendon Rural District Council (1993) 2 KB 696 (DC), The chief justice constituted the bench after it was found that one of the members of the bench was a member of a corporative society for which the land had been acquired. In this case. The existence pecuniary bias was observed by the chief justice, which went against the principle of natural justice.
The House of Commons were of the view that the rule against bias has two very similar but not identical implications:
1) A judge is automatically disqualified to act as a judge without investigation, if he has financial or property interest in the case or is a party to the suit, as this would indicate, real likelihood of bias or suspicion of bias unless the judge makes a voluntary disclosure
2) A judge cannot be automatically disqualified. If the judge has no financial or property proprietary interest and is also not a party to the case even though his conduct of behaviour gives rise to a suspicion of bias.
3. SUBJECT MATTER BIAS
In cases where the deciding officer is directly or otherwise involved in the subject matter of the case. The case falls within the category of subject matter by bias. In this case a mere involvement would not appreciate the administrative action unless there is a real likelihood of bias.
In an illustration the court held that real likelihood of buyers did not exist as the magistrate was not declared disqualified to try a case of cruelty to an animal on the ground that he was a member of the royal society for prevention of cruelty to animals.
Also in the case of Murli Vasakadam Singh, AIR 1954 MP 111, the court decided that the decision of the election tribunal on the ground that wife the chairman was a member of the congress party who candidate the petitioner defeated do not fall under bias.
Similarly, in another case, the court held that mere suspicion of bias against speaker for his actions under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968 on the basis that he was affiliated to a political party does not attract the rule of subject matter bias.
4. DEPARTMENTAL BIAS
The departmental bias if not effectively checked might destroy the very concept of fairness in administrative proceedings as it is something which is inherent in administrative processes. In the case of Nageswara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh, A. P. SRTC AIR 1959 SC 308, the Supreme Court considered the question of departmental bias. In this case, the petitioner had challenged the order of the government nationalising road transport. The ground for which the soldier was challenged was that the secretary of the Department of Transport who gave the hearing was biased as he was yes, as he was a person who initiated the scheme and also later the scheme and also was the head of the department the department whose responsibility was to execute it. The court quashed the order on the ground that the circumstances suggested that the secretary was biased, inspired, which violated the principles of natural justice as the question of departmental Bias was established.in cases where the functions of the judge and prosecutor are accompanied in the same department. In cases where the same department initiates a matter and also decides, it leads to the problem of departmental bias and suggests the violation of natural justice as it violates the concept of fair hearing.
5. POLICY NOTION BIAS
Policy notion bias is a bias that arises out of preconceived policy notions. On one hand we can observe that no judge as a human being is expected to be completely free of any kinds of bias while on the other hand any preconceived policy notions vitiate a fair trial and thereby goes against the concept of natural justice.
Recent judgements suggest that policy bias is not considered as bias which violates administrative action. In the case of Bajaj Hindustan Limited v. sir Shadilal enterprises limited (2011)1 SCC 640, the court decided that it would not challenge an administrative action on the ground of policy bias.
6. PRECONCEIVED NOTION BIAS
Preconceived notion bias is also known as unconscious bias. The reason for this is because persons exercising adjudication powers are human beings at the end of the day and they do have human prejudices which cannot be completely removed. These prejudices may include class bias and personality bias.
Class is a concept which affects every human being as the result of the product of a particular class or inherit characteristics of a particular class, which may also reflect in his decision-making process. Similarly, personality of a person is a combination of his biological and social heredity, which determine his values and attitudes that may condition his decision-making process. Unconscious bias is only regarded as a problem if the deciding authority is found to is found to show these bias by some overt action. Such a detection might vitiate an administrative hearing if the bias has a direct relation with the decision. For example, the deciding officer openly expresses his prejudices.
Lord Devlin, stated, “The judge who is confident that he has no prejudices or bias at all is more certain to be a bad judge. Prejudice cannot be exorcised, but like a weakness of the flesh it can be subdued but it has to be first detected.”
7. BIAS ON ACCOUNT OF OBSTINACY
Bias on account of obstinacy is a new category of bias arising from thoroughly unreasonable obstinacy, which was discovered by the Supreme Court of India. This bias was discovered in a case where the judge of the Calcutta High Court sat in appeal against his old judgment and upheld his own judgment. There was no direct violation of any profession. That does not exist a provision that states that no judge can sit in appeal against his own judgement. This rule can only be violated indirectly. In this case, the judge validated his own order in an earlier writ petition, which was which had been overruled by the division bench.
Obstinacy refers to an unreasonable and unwavering persistence by the deciding officer who does not take no for an answer.
An exception to this is the doctrine of necessity as law itself permits where it is imperative for an authority to decide. This doctrine of necessity can be invoked in cases of bias where there is no authority to decide the issue. The reason for this doctrine is that if the doctrine is not allowed to fully place in certain unavoidable situations it would lead to injustice as the defaulting party would benefit from it.
