DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE

ADMINISTRATIVE BIAS

SUBJECT

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

NAME OF FACULTY : Dr. P. SRIDEVI

NAME OF STUDENT : Samuel Sankeerth. K

ROLL NO. : 2015057

SEMESTER : VI

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would sincerely like to put forward my heartfelt appreciation to our respected

Administrative Law Ma’am Dr.P. SRIDEVI for giving me a golden opportunity to take up
this project regarding the topic “Administrative Bias”. I have tried my best to collect
information about the project in various possible ways to depict clear picture about the given
project topic.

2|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. ABSTRACT
2. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
3. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
4. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
6. BODY OF THE PROJECT
 Introduction
 Definition
 Brief history
 Classification
 Pecuniary Bias
 Personal Bias
 Subject Matter Bias
 Departmental Bias
 Preconceived Notion Bias
 Bias on Account of Obstinacy
 Exceptions to the Rule of Natural Justice
7. DOCTORINE OF NECESSITY
8. CONCLUSION
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY

3|Page
ABSTRACT

The word Bias itself expresses its meaning that a man should not be a judge in his own case.
The concept of bias has a close connection with Administrative law. Administration pre-
supposes absence of bias in its activities. Bias makes administrative action an invalid action
and this can be challenged in a court of law on the sole basis of bias. Bias has to be excluded
in judicial process also. An essential element of judicial process is that the judge has to be
impartial and neutral and to be in a position to apply his mind objectively to the dispute
before him. Proceedings before a judge may be vitiated if he is biased, if there are factors
which may influence him to improperly favor one party at the cost of the other party in the
dispute.

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 suggests anything which
tends a person to decide a case other than on the basis of evidences.

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.

The basis for the rule against bias is the need to maintain public confidence in the legal
system. Bias can take the form of actual bias, imputed bias or apparent bias. Actual bias is
very difficult to prove in practice while imputed bias, once shown, will result in a decision
being void without the need for any investigation into the likelihood or suspicion of bias.
Cases from different jurisdictions currently apply two tests for apparent bias: the "reasonable
suspicion of bias" test and the "real likelihood of bias" test. One view that has been taken is
that the differences between these two tests are largely semantic and that they operate
similarly.

4|Page
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The main objective of the study is to analyse the propaganda of the Administrative Bias and
the reasons for the need for constitutional protection and the heights of its suppression and
violatoin that shows impact on Administrative system.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This research lets us to know about the Bias in the Administrative Law and the effect to the
Principle of Natural Justice which has the certain norms for the removal of the administrative
bias and the result of the administrative bias.

The types of bias were classified in the below classification which they were classified into
four different types. The principle of natural justice has the important role in the prevention
of the administrative bias.

The right to a fair hearing requires that individuals should not be penalized by decisions
affecting their rights or legitimate expectations unless they have been given prior notice of
the case, a fair opportunity to answer it, and the opportunity to present their own case. The
mere fact that a decision affects rights or interests is sufficient to subject the decision to the
procedures required by natural justice.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The researcher has limited the scope of the study to the country India and partially covers the
international Administrative laws and articles which were playing the prominent role in the
protection of the Principle of Natural Justice.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The methodology used for the research by the researcher is purely doctrinal which includes
descriptive, explanatory and analytical research. The resource includes various articles
published, books, journals and also web sources. The Citation methodology followed in this
project is APA (American Psychological Association). The Project is an interpretation and
analytical one.

5|Page
INTRODUCTION

The word Bias itself expresses its meaning that a man should not be a judge in his own case.
The concept of bias has a close connection with Administrative law. Administration pre-
supposes absence of bias in its activities. Bias makes administrative action an invalid action
and this can be challenged in a court of law on the sole basis of bias. Bias has to be excluded
in judicial process also. An essential element of judicial process is that the judge has to be
impartial and neutral and to be in a position to apply his mind objectively to the dispute
before him. Proceedings before a judge may be vitiated if he is biased, if there are factors
which may influence him to improperly favor one party at the cost of the other party in the
dispute.

Bias, in general terms is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense
of (possibly equally valid) alternatives. Anything biased generally is one-sided, and therefore
lacks a neutral point of view. Another meaning given is ‘anything which tends or may be
regarded as tending to cause such a person to decide a case otherwise on evidence must be
held to be biased.’

Bias cannot be presumed as a matter of course. In the absence of specific allegation of bias,
courts will not assume of any bias.

The traditional English law recognises two principles of natural justice:

i. Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa : No man shall be a judge in his
own cause, or no man can act as both at the one and the same time – a
party or a suitor and also a judge, or the deciding authority must be
impartial and without bias: and
ii. Audi alteram partem: Hear the other side, or both the sides must be heard,
or no man should be condemned unheard, or that there must be fairness on
the part of the deciding authority.

The first requirement of natural justice is that the judge should be impartial and neutral and
must be free from bias. He is supposed to be indifferent to parties to the controversy. He
cannot act as judge of a cause in which he himself has some interest either pecuniary or

6|Page
otherwise as it affords the strongest proof against neutrality. He must be in a position to act
judicially and to decide the matter objectively. A judge must be of sterner stuff. His mental
equipoise must always remain firm and undefelected. He should not allow his personal
prejudice to go against his decision making. He must think dispassionately and submerge
private feeling on every aspect of a case.

If the Judge is subject to bias in favour of or against either party to the dispute or is in a
position that a bias can be assumed, he is disqualified to act as a judge, and the proceedings
will be vitiated. This rule applies to the judicial and administrative authorities required to act
judicially or quasi judicially.

DEFINITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW:

-Checks and/or balances to control the exercise of delegated authority.

-A body of principles that govern the exercise of power granted by statute.
-The source of power determines whether the decision making is subject to
administrative principles.

-The courts have the ultimate supervisory control over the exercise of power delegated by
statute or regulation. i.e. if the individual or body is acting within provincial jurisdiction, the
superior court of the province supervises; i.e. in the federal sphere, the Federal Court
generally exercises supervisory control

BRIEF HISTORY

The law with regard to bias and the principles governing it are fairly well settled. In

Manak Lai v. Dr. frem Chand Singhvi, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 425—1957 S.C.R. 575,

the law was summarised by the Supreme Court as follows:—

“It is well settled that every member of a tribunal that is called upon to try issue in judicial or
quasi-judicial proceedings, must be able to act judicially, and it is of the essence of judicial
decision and judicial administration that judges should be able to act impartially, objectively
and without any bias-

In such cases, the test is not whether in fact a bias has affected the judgment. The test always
is and must be whether a litigant could reasonably apprehend that a bias attributable to a

7|Page
member of the tribunal might have operated against him in the final decision of the Tribunal.
It is in this sense that it is often said that justice must only not be done but must also appear to
be done.”

The principles governing the doctrine of bias vis-a-vis judicial tribunal are:-

(a) No man shall be judge in his own cause;

(b) Justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly seem to be done.

Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 454 (4 Judges) 1986 Lab.
I.C. 1417 that-

1. It is one of the fundamental principles of jurisprudence that no man can be a judge in his
own case and that if there is a reasonable likelihood of bias, it is “in accordance with natural
justice and commonsense that the justice likely to be so biased should be incapacitated from
sitting”.

The question is not whether the judge is actually biased or in fact decides partially, but
whether there is a real likelihood of bias.

What is objectionable in such a case is not that the decision is actually tainted with bias but
that the circumstances are such as to create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of others
that there is a likelihood of bias affecting the decision. The basic principle underlying this
rule is that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done.

2. It is also important to note that this rule in not confined to cases where judicial power
stricto sensu is exercised. It is appropriately extended to all cases where an independent mind
has to be applied to arrive at a fair and just decision between the rival claims of parties.

Justice is not the function of the courts alone; it is also the duty of all those who are expected
to decide fairly between contending parties.

CLASSIFICATION

1. Personal bias
2. Pecuniary bias
3. Subject matter Bias
8|Page
 4. Departmental Bias
5. Preconceived Notional Bias
6. Bias on Account od Obstinacy

PECUNIARY BIAS,

Pecuniary is defined as something related to money or that can be valued in money. Bias is an
operative prejudice, whether conscious or unconscious, as a result of some preconceived
opinion or predisposition, in relation to a party or an issue. The maxim Nemo in propria causa
judex, esse debet, broadly governs the rule against pecuniary bias. Thus, Pecuniary Bias in
the ambit of Administrative Law would deal with any operative prejudice that the authority
may have against an individual which vitiates the latter’s interests.

In R v. Hendon Rular District Council1, the court in England quashed the decision of the
planning commission, where one of the members was an estate agent who was acting for the
applicant to whom permission was granted.

In Jeejeebhoy vs. Astt. Collector,Thana2 the CJ reconstituted the bench ,when it was found
that one of the members of the bench was the member of the cooperative society for which
the land has been acquired.

PERSONAL BIAS

By attributing inter alia bad faith or ill-will operating in the mind of the tribunal as against the
litigant or Where the officer is acting with a view to satisfy some private or personal grudge
against the litigant. It becomes necessary to see whether there is reasonable ground for
assuming the possibility of bias because a man’s state of mind is very difficult to prove by
direct evidence.

Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. V. State of Bihar3, serves as a good illustration

on the point. Here, the petitioners were granted a mining lease for 99 years in 1947. But in

1
(1993) 2 KB 696

2
AIR 1965 SC 1096

9|Page
1955, government quashed the license. The petitioners brought an action against the minister
passing this order on the behalf of government, on the ground that, the petitioner in 1952
opposed the minister in General election. Therefore, on the account of political rivalry, the
minister passed such an order, and hence the order was suffered from personal bias. Supreme
Court found the allegation to be true and thus quashed the said order.

Baidyanath Mohapatra v. state of Orissa4, the Supreme Court quashed the order of the
tribunal confirming premature retirement on the ground that the chairman of the tribunal was
also a member of the review committee which had recommended premature retirement.

BIAS AS TO SUBJECT MATTER OR POLICY BIAS.

The situations where the deciding officer is directly or indirectly in the subject matter of the
case.

R v. Deal Justices ex p. Curling5, 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 the
prevention of cruelty to animals as this did not prove a real likelihood of bias.

But in Gulla palli Nageshwara Rao v. APSRTC6, the Supreme Court quashed the decision
of A.P. government . nationalizing road transport on the ground that the secratery of the
transport department who was given a hearing was interested in the subject matter.

DEPARTMENTAL BIAS

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.

Hari v. Dy. Commr. of Police. In this case an externment order was challenged n 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

3
AIR 1960 SC 468

4
[3] (1989)4 SCC 664
5
1881) 45 LT 439
6
AIR 1959 SC 308

10 | P a g e
functions (initiation and decision) were discharged by two separate officers, though they were
affiliated to the same department, there was no bias.

Krishna Bus Service v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court quashed the notification of
the government which had conferred powers of a Deputy Superintendent of Police on the
General Manager, Haryana Roadways in matters of inspection of vehicles on the ground of
departmental bias.

PRECONCEIVED NOTION BIAS

Bias arising out of preconceived notions is a very delicate problem of administrative law. On
the one hand, no judge as a human being is expected to sit as a blank sheet of paper, on the
other hand, preconceived notions would vitiate a fair trial.

T. Govindaraja Mudaliar v. State of T.N, the government decided in principle to

nationalize road transport and appointed a committee to frame the scheme. The Home
Secretary was made a member of this committee. Later on, the scheme of nationalization was
finalized, published and objections were heard by the Home Secretary. It was contended that
the hearing was vitiated by the rule against bias because the Secretary had already made up
his mind on the question of nationalization as he was a member of the committee which took
this policy decision. The court rejected the challenge on the ground that the Secretary as a
member of the committee did not finally determine any issue as to foreclose his mind. He
simply helped the government in framing the scheme.

Kondala Rao v. APSRTC the court did not quash the nationalization of the road transport
order of the Minister who had heard the objections of private operators on the ground that the
same Minister had presided over a meeting only a few days earlier in which nationalization
was favored. The court rejected the contention on the ground that the decision of the
committee was not final and irrevocable but merely a policy decision.

BIAS ON ACCOUNT OF OBSTINACY

The word Obstinacy implies unreasonable and unwavering persistence and the deciding
officer would not take ‘no’ for an answer. This new category of bias was discovered in a
situation where a judge of the Calcutta High Court upheld his own judgment while sitting in
appeal against his own judgment. Of course a direct violation of the rule that no judge can sit
in appeal against his own judgment is not possible, therefore, this rule can only be violated

11 | P a g e
indirectly. In this case in a fresh writ petition the judge validated his own order in an earlier
writ petition which had been overruled by the Division Bench. What applies to judicial
process can be applied to administrative process as well.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE OF NATURAL JUSTICE

The rule of fair hearing can be ignored in certain cases like:

(a) Emergency – if a prompt action has to be taken where it is not expedient to hear all
evidence, the rule may be dispensed with.

(b) Confidentiality – confidential documents need not be shown to a party.

(c) Purely administrative matters – in purely administrative actions, it may be expedient to

leave these rules to provide order.

(d) Impracticability – the application of the rules are not feasible in cases of administrative
impracticability.

(e) Interim preventive action – if the order is an interim order and not the final decision, thr
rule may be avoided.

(f) Legislative action – legislative actions are not subject to the rules of natural justice.

(g) Where no right of the person is infringed – when no statutory or common law right is
infringed, the application of the principle is unnecessary.

(h) Statutory exception or necessity – cases requiring a quick action, where only one judge
is available, even a biased judge can take the decision and in such cases, it would not vitiate
the administrative action.

(i) Contractual agreement – termination of an agreement does not attract the principles of
natural justice.

(j) Useless formality theory – where there is an undisputed fact and only one consequence
would flow from enquiry, the rule may be avoided.

Thus, the rules of natural justice state that an administrative action should be free from all
forms of arbitrariness. It provides that there should be a sense of fairness and justice in all
administrative actions.

12 | P a g e
DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY:

Bias would not disqualify an officer from taking an action if no other person is competent to
act in his place. This exception is based on the doctrine which it would otherwise not
countenance on the touchstone of judicial propriety. The doctrine of necessity makes it
imperative for the authority to decide and considerations of judicial propriety must yield. It
can be invoked in cases of bias where there is no authority to decide the issue. If the doctrine
of necessity is not allowed full play in certain unavoidable situations, it would impede the
course of justice itself and the defaulting party would benefit from it. If the choice is between
either to allow a biased person to act or to stifle the action altogether, the choice must fall in
favor of the former as it is the only way to promote decision-making. Therefore, the Court
held that bias would not vitiate the action of the Speaker in impeachment proceedings and the
action of the Chief Election Commissioner in election matters.
However, the term ‘bias’ must be confined to its proper place. If bias arising out of
preconceived notions means the total absence of preconceptions in the mind of the judge,
then no one has ever had a fair trial, and no one ever will. Therefore, unless the strength of
the preconceived notions is such that it has the capacity of foreclosing the mind of the judge,
administrative action would not be vitiated.

13 | P a g e
CONCLUSION:
Every kind of preference is not sufficient to vitiate an administrative action. If the preference
is rational and unaccompanied by consideration of rational interest, pecuniary or otherwise, it
would not vitiate the decision. Similarly, there must be a real likelihood and not a mere
suspicion of bias, before the proceedings can be quashed on the ground of bias. This
apprehension must be judged from a healthy, reasonable and average point of view and not a
mere apprehension and a vague suspicion of whimsical capricious and unreasonable people.
The proper approach for court in such cases is not to look into his own mind and ask am I
biased? But to look into the mind of the party before it. The court must look at the impression
which would be given to the other party. Therefore the test is not what actually happened but
the substantial possibility of that which appeared to have happened .As the justice is rooted in
the minds of the people and it is destroyed and it is destroyed when the right minded people
go away thinking that the judge is biased.

14 | P a g e
BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Neil Prapworth, constitutional and administrative law ,(Butterworth’s publication,

2000)
 B. Schwartz, Administrative Law, 4th edition,(Little Brown and co., 1994)
 I.P. Massey Administrative Law, 6th edition, (Eastern Book and Co.,2007)

15 | P a g e