Law and You > Administrative Law > Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa
This principle “Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa” of natural justice is also known as the Rule of Bias or the Doctrine of Bias. The first principle of impartiality roughly translated into English means nobody shall be a judge in his own cause or in a cause in which he is interested. That is the authority sitting in judgment should be impartial and act without bias.
The maxim ” Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa” is based on three well-known principles:
- No man can be judge and the prosecutor at the same time.
- It is not enough that justice is done; it is also necessary that it must be seen to be done.
- Judges, like Caesar’s wife, should always be above suspicion.
In R v. Bath Compensation Authority, (1925) 1 KB 635 case, the Court observed: “the object is not merely that the scales be held evenly; it is also necessary that they may not appear to be inclined”.
Bias:
According to the ‘Lectric Law Library’s Lexicon, “Any mental condition that would prevent a judge or juror from being fair and impartial is called bias. A particular influential power which sways the judgment; the inclination or propensity of the mind towards a particular object. It may be ground for disqualification of the judge or juror in question.”. Bias is also defined as, “A predisposition or a preconceived opinion that prevents a person from impartially evaluating facts that have been presented for determination; a prejudice.”
The concept of bias is based on the maxim “Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa”. If a judge or adjudicating authority is biased either in favour of one party or against the other, he cannot be expected to do justice in the matter. Such a person is disqualified from adjudicating and since such proceedings stand vitiated, any decision taken by him is liable to be set aside. This basic rule applies to all judicial authorities as well as to all administrative authorities who are required to act judicially or quasi-judicially. The rule is of wide application and means that a judicial or quasi-judicial authority should not only himself not be a party but must also not be interested as a party in the subject matter of the dispute which he has to decide.
Thus, in addition to the direct personal interest, the test laid down by the court is to consider the real likelihood of bias. In other words, the probability of bias is sufficient to invalidate the right to sit in judgment and there is no need to have the proof of actual bias.
In Metropolitan Properties Co (FGC) Ltd v Lannon [1969] 1 QB 577 case, the Court held that A man may be disqualified from sitting in a judicial capacity on one of the two grounds. First, a “direct pecuniary interest” in the subject matter. Second, “bias” in favour of one side or the other.
In c AIR 1976 SC 2428 case, the summary of Supreme Court judgment is as follows:
- Any inquiry conducted by a biased Inquiring Authority is ab initio void.
- If there is an actual bias, it will be sufficient to quash the inquiry.
- Courts will look at whether there is a reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have been biased.
- Some actions may themselves indicate malafide, like a disproportionate penalty. They will be by themselves constitute proof of bias.
- Even if one member of the committee is biased, the decision of the Committee will be rendered illegal
- Anybody who has a personal stake should keep himself aloof from the inquiry.
- If a person is aware of bias and does not raise that issue, he creates an estoppel against himself, and will not be allowed to raise it once the said body has taken a decision
Exceptions to the Rule of Bias:
The following exceptions are to the rule against bias:
- Necessity: Where the judge is the ultimate court. The situation is, however, rare since an alternative forum is usually created or sought.
- Statutory Authority: Those cases which are specifically exempted by the statute.
- Waiver: As in the case of arbitration where parties have agreed upon an arbitrator, who may have an interest or bias in the subject matter of the dispute.
Subject to the aforesaid exceptions, the rule against bias is applied by Common Law in England to arbitrations, enforcement of foreign judgments, as far as possible to the proceedings of domestic and administrative tribunals.
Classification of Bias:
Bias can be categorized into three categories namely personal, pecuniary, and official.
- Personal Bias: Personal bias may arise out of friendship, relationship, professional grievance or even enmity. Here again likelihood of bias is to be given more credence than for the actual bias. it is difficult to prove the state of mind of a person. Therefore, we have to see whether there is a reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have been biased.
- Pecuniary Bias: It is obvious that the decision of the adjudicator would be affected if he is having a pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the proceedings. There is a presumption that any direct financial interest, however small, in the matter in dispute, disqualifies the person from adjudicating. Membership of a company, an association or other organization in which he is financially interested may operate as a bar to adjudicate, whereas mere bare liability to costs where the decision itself will involve no pecuniary loss will not.
- Official or Subject Matter Bias: Another type of bias is as to the subject matter; such a situation arises when the judge possesses a general interest in the subject matter of dispute. It may, however, be noted that a mere general interest in the general object to be pursued would not disqualify a judge from deciding the matter. There must be a direct connection with litigation.
Test: Real Likelihood of Bias:
According to de Smith a real likelihood of bias means at least a substantial possibility of bias. In fact in assessing the real likelihood of bias the court will have to judge the matter as a reasonable man would judge any matter in the conduct of his own business.
In Manak Lai V Dr. Rrem Chand, AIR 1957 SC 425 case, a petition was submitted by A against B, an advocate for an alleged act of misconduct. A committee was appointed for an enquiry into the allegations made against B. It was also shown that the Chairman had earlier represented A in a case. According to the decision of the Supreme Court, the enquiry conducted in this case was vitiated. Even if it were assumed that the Chairman had no personal contact with his client and did not remember that he had appeared on his behalf at any time in the past, yet the fear of likelihood of bias existed in the matter.
Related Topics:
- Introduction to Principles of Natural Justice
- Personal Bias
- Pecuniary Bias and Subject Matter Bias
- Second Principle of Natural Justice: Audi Alterem Partem
- Third Principle of Natural Justice: Speaking Order
- Exceptions to the Principle of Natural Justice