Law and You > Administrative Law > Pecuniary Bias and Official Bias
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.
In Dr. Bonham (1610) 8 CO. Rep. 113b case, a doctor of Cambridge University was fined by the College of Physicians for practising in the city of London without the licence of College. The statute under which the College acted provided that the fines should go half to the King and a half to the College. The claim was disallowed by Coke, C.J. as the College had a financial interest (pecuniary bias) in its own judgment and was a judge in its own cause.
In Dimes v. Grant Junction Canal, (1852) 3 HLC 579 case the appellant was engaged in prolonged litigations against the respondent company. Against a decree passed by the V.C. Dimes he appealed before the Lord Chancellor, who gave the decision against him. It later came to the knowledge of the appellant that the Chancellor had a share in the respondent company. In the appeal, their Lordships of House of Lords held that though Lord Chancellor forgot to mention about the interest in the company by mere inadvertence, yet the interest (pecuniary bias) was sufficient to invalidate the decision given by the Lord Chancellor.
In R v. Barnsley Justices, [1960] 2 QB 167 case, there was an application by a Cooperative, and the bench to decide the application was wholly composed by members of the society and a woman whose husband was member of the society and the bench was presided over by a chairman who had interested himself actively in the conduct of the affairs of the society or was desirous to do so. Delvin LJ lying down the test of real likelihood of bias held that I couldn’t imagine anything more unsatisfactory from the public point of view than an application of this sort being dealt with by a bench, which was so composed.
In Jeejeebhoy V. Asst. Collector, Thana, AIR 1965 SC 1096 case, the Chief Justice reconstituted the bench when it was found that one of the members of the bench was a member of the cooperative society for which the land had been acquired.
In Mohapatra vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1984 SC 1572 case, it was held that when the author of a book was a member of the committee set up for selection of books, and his book was also under consideration by that committee, the possibility of bias could not be ruled out and the selection by that committee cannot be upheld.
In Manek Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand, AIR 1957 SC 425 case, the issue of pecuniary bias and personal bias come to be decided before the Supreme Court. An Advocate was charged for committing serious professional misconduct. The High Court of Rajasthan constituted a tribunal. One of the members of the tribunal was Mr. Chhangani, who was also chairman of the Tribunal. The tribunal submitted its report to the High court. On the basis of the said report, the High Court held the appellant guilty of committing serious misconduct and ordered his name to be removed from the roll of the Bar Council. It was contended that the tribunal had been wrongly constituted. Mr. Chhagani, allegedly, has been biased as he had appeared in the case that is related to the case out of which alleged professional misconduct is related. He once advocated for the respondent in some earlier cases. Therefore he was disqualified due to bias as he has appeared against the appellant in the case the said profession misconduct of the appellant is related to.
Official Bias 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 of 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.
Partiality Bias:
Partiality bias arises in a situation, where there is a direct connection between the adjudicating authority and the issue in controversy.
In State of U.P. V. Mohammad Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86 case, a departmental proceeding, was conducted against A by B. As one of the witnesses against A turned hostile B left the inquiry, gave evidence against A, resumed to complete the enquiry and passed dismissal order. The Supreme Court on appeal observed that the principles of natural justice were completely discarded and all rules of fair play were grievously violated by B.
In R v. Deal Justices ex p. Curling (1881) 45 LT 439 case, 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.
Departmental Bias:
The problem of departmental bias is something which is inherent in the administrative process, and if not effectively checked, it may negate the very concept of fairness in administrative proceedings. Departmental bias arises in a situation, where there is total nonapplication of mind or the adjudicator has pre-judged the issue or has taken the improper attitude to uphold the policy of the department, which thereby constituted a legal bias.
In Hari K. Gawali v Dy. Commr. of Police, AIR 1956 SC 559 case, an externment order was challenged on the ground that since the police department 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 separate officers, though they were affiliated to the same department, there was no bias.
In Gullapalli Nageshwara Rao Vs. A.P.S.R.T. Corporation, AIR 1959 SC 308 case, the petitioners were engaged in the motor transport business. The Andhra State Transport Undertaking published a scheme for the nationalization of motor transport in the State and invited objections. The petitioners accordingly submitted objections which were heard by the Secretary and thereafter the scheme was given approval by the Chief Minister. The Hon’ble Supreme court on challenge upheld the petitioner’s plea that the official who heard the objections was ‘in substance’ one of the parties to the dispute and hence the rules of natural justice have been violated in a calculated manner.
In Krishna Bus Service v. State of Haryana AIR 1985 SC 1651 case, some private bus operators had alleged that the General Manager of Haryana Roadways who was the rival in business in the State could not be expected to discharge his duties in a fair and reasonable manner and would be too lenient in inspecting the vehicles belonging to his own department. 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. The reason for quashing the notification according to the Supreme Court was the conflict between the duty and the interest of the department and the consequential erosion of public confidence in administrative justice.
In Viraj v. State of Orissa, 1967 SC 158 case, the Court held that the mere fact that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies has a power of general supervision over all Co-operative Societies, does not amount to inherent bias in him so as to disqualify him for the purpose of acting as an arbitrator or judge under Section 18 of the Rules made under the Co-operative Societies /Act 1912 to decide disputes between members of a Society
Policy Notion Bias:
Bias may also arise sometimes when the Minister or the official concerned pronounce beforehand the general policy of the Government which is to be followed by him.
In Kondala Rao -V- A. P. Transport Corporation, AIR 1961 SC 82 case, the Supreme Court rejected the argument of policy bias and observed that if the authority concerned acts judicially in approving or modifying the scheme, the approval or modification is not open to challenge. And the question of predetermination of the issue does not arise.
In T. Govindaraja Mudaliar v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 974 case, 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.
Dictatorial Bias:
If the authority concerned decides the matter under dictation from a superior authority the decision is not valid.
In Mahadayal v. C.T.O., AIR 1958 SC 667 case, the Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Commercial Tax Department, imposing a tax upon the petitioner. Because the Commercial Tax Officer himself considered that the petitioner was not liable to pay tax, and yet, he referred the matter to his superior officer and on instructions imposed a tax upon the petitioner.
Judicial Obstinacy:
The supreme court has discovered a new category of bias arising from thoroughly unreasonable obstinacy. 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 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 the judicial process can be applied to the administrative process as well.
Related Topics:
- Introduction to Principles of Natural Justice
- First Principle of Natural Justice: Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa
- Personal Bias
- Second Principle of Natural Justice: Audi Alterem Partem
- Third Principle of Natural Justice: Speaking Order
- Exceptions to the Principle of Natural Justice