DOCTRINE OF BIASNESS AND

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

NAME – RAKASHREE KARMAKAR

ROLL NO. – UG/03/BALLB/2021/011
SEMESTER- 4th SEMESTER
SUB.- ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
SUB. CODE- LWJ52102
SCHOOL- SCHOOL OF LAW AND JUSTICE, ADAMAS UNIVERSITY
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 

2. DOCTRINE OF BIASNESS

3. TYPES OF BIAS

4. CASE LAW

5. JUDGEMENT

6. CONCLUSION 

1|Page
INTRODUCTION 
The area of law that regulates the operations of governmental bodies in the executive branch is known
as administrative law. Administrative law deals with adjudication, the enforcement of laws, and the
creation of executive branch rules (executive branch rules are typically referred to as "regulations"). A
subset of public law is administrative law.
Administrative law is concerned with how the executive branch's administrative agencies make
decisions in areas including foreign trade, manufacturing, the environment, taxation, broadcasting,
immigration, and transportation.
The 20th century saw significant growth in administrative law as governments all over the world
established more institutions to control social, economic, and political interactions.

DOCTRINE OF BAISNESS
The first principle of natural justice was related to the notion of prejudice. It is relevant when the
judge might be motivated to rule in someone's favour or advance his own interests by the matter. The
law of natural justice therefore prohibits partiality.Because human psychology informs us that people
rarely make decisions that are not in their own best interests, a person cannot make an impartial
decision in a situation in which they have an interest.
Any form of bias, whether conscious or unconscious, towards a group or cause is referred to as bias.
Such prejudice may be brought on by preconceived ideas or a predetermined decision to rule a case in
a certain way, so much so that it interferes with mental independence.
Natural Justice is taken from the Roman law term ‘Jus Natural,’ and is closely tied to common law
and moral principles, however it is not codified. A natural law is unrelated to any statute or
constitution. The Indian constitution’s body, on the other hand, was cleverly weaved with a golden
thread of natural justice. The words “social, economic, and political justice” appear in the preamble of
the constitution, along with “liberty of thought, belief, worship… and equality of status and
opportunity,” which not only ensures fairness in people’s social and economic activities, but also acts
as a shield for individual liberty against arbitrary action, which is the foundation for Natural Justice
principles. Natural justice denotes “natural sense of right and wrong” in layman’s terms, and it is
synonymous with “fairness” in technical terms. In administrative discretion, natural justice has a wide
range of applications. It tries to prevent administrative authorities from acting arbitrarily or
inequitably towards citizens.
Principles of Natural Justice:

English law in form of two principles recognizes natural justice:

 Nemo judex in causa sua  or rule against bias

 Audi Alteram Partem or rule of fair hearing

Nemo judex causa in sua:

It is a Latin phrase that means, “Rule against bias.” "Nemo judex in causa sua" is a Latin legal
principle that translates to "no one should be a judge in their own cause." It is a fundamental principle

2|Page
of natural justice or procedural fairness, ensuring that there is impartiality and independence in the
decision-making process.

The principle states that a person who has a personal or financial interest in a case should not be
allowed to act as a judge or decision-maker in that particular case. This rule is based on the notion that
a fair and just decision can only be reached if the decision-maker is impartial and free from any bias
or conflict of interest.

The principle applies to various legal contexts, including judicial proceedings, administrative
hearings, and arbitration. It ensures that the decision-maker's integrity and objectivity are maintained
and prevents any perception of bias or unfairness.

To uphold the principle of "nemo judex in causa sua," courts and other decision-making bodies
typically have rules and procedures in place to identify and address conflicts of interest. Judges,
arbitrators, or administrators are required to disclose any potential conflicts and recuse themselves
from the case if such conflicts exist. This allows for the appointment of an unbiased and impartial
decision-maker to ensure a fair and just outcome.

The principle serves to protect the integrity of the legal system and maintain public trust in the
administration of justice. It ensures that decisions are based solely on the merits of the case and not
influenced by personal interests or biases.

Audi Alteram Partem

Audi Alteram Partem, which is Latin for "hear the other side," refers to the principle of natural justice
that ensures both parties involved in a dispute or legal proceeding have the right to be heard and
present their case before a decision is made. It is also known as the rule of fair hearing.

The principle of Audi Alteram Partem is a fundamental aspect of due process and is commonly
applied in various legal systems around the world. It is based on the belief that all parties involved
should have an opportunity to present their arguments, evidence, and perspectives before a fair and
impartial decision-maker.

The principle encompasses several key elements:

1. Notice: The parties must be provided with adequate notice regarding the nature and details of the
case against them. This allows them to prepare their defense and gather relevant evidence.

2. Opportunity to be heard: The parties have the right to present their case, including their arguments,
evidence, witnesses, and legal submissions, before the decision-maker or tribunal. This can be done
through oral hearings, written submissions, or a combination of both.

3. Impartial decision-maker: The decision-maker must be unbiased and impartial, ensuring that the
proceedings are conducted fairly and without any preconceived notions or biases.

4. Right to legal representation: The parties generally have the right to be represented by legal counsel
who can advocate on their behalf and assist in presenting their case effectively.

By adhering to the principle of Audi Alteram Partem, the legal system seeks to promote fairness,
transparency, and justice. It prevents arbitrary or one-sided decisions and ensures that all parties
involved have an equal opportunity to participate in the process and have their arguments considered
before a ruling is made.

3|Page
TYPE OF BIAS

Personal Bias

Personal bias originates from a relation between a deciding authority and the party. This can place the
deciding administration in a questionable situation to undertake an unfair act and deliver judgement in
his person’s favour.

Pecuniary Bias

In case there is any kind of financial interest on the judicial body’s part, notwithstanding the amount,
it will lead to biases for the administrative authority.

Subject Matter Bias

This bias is applicable when the deciding administration falls under the subject matter of a specific
case, directly or indirectly.

Policy Notion Bias

Issues emerging from preconceived policy notions is a very dedicated problem. The mob in a
courtroom does not anticipate judges to deliver a fair judgement and trial with a clean sheet of paper.

Other Bias

• Preconceived Notion Bias

• Departmental Bias or Institutional Bias
• Bias on account of the Obstinacy

1. Preconceived Notion Bias: This bias refers to a situation where the decision-maker has
preconceived ideas, beliefs, or prejudices about the parties involved or the subject matter of the case.
These preconceived notions can affect their ability to make an impartial decision based on the
evidence and arguments presented. It undermines the principle of fairness and objectivity in the
decision-making process.

2. Departmental Bias or Institutional Bias: Departmental bias occurs when a decision-maker is

influenced by the interests or policies of their own department or institution. This bias can arise due to
loyalty to colleagues, superiors, or the organization itself, and it can impact the impartiality of the
decision-making process. It is important to ensure that decision-makers are free from such biases and
make decisions solely based on the merits of the case.

3. Bias on account of Obstinacy: This bias refers to a situation where the decision-maker is
unreasonably stubborn or resistant to considering alternative viewpoints or evidence. It occurs when a
decision-maker holds firmly to a particular position or belief, regardless of the merits of the
arguments or evidence presented. This bias can prevent a fair and open-minded evaluation of the case
and undermine the principle of impartiality.

4|Page
It is crucial to identify and address these biases to maintain the integrity of the decision-making
process. By recognizing and mitigating these biases, decision-makers can ensure that their judgments
are based on fairness, objectivity, and the rule of law.

CASE LAW

A. K. Kripak v. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 150 case:

In 1966, the Indian forest service was constituted, the selection for which was to be made from among
the officers serving in the forest department of the State. The rule made under Section 2(A) of the All
India Services Act, 1951 by the Central Government provided for setting up of a Special Selection
Board whose function would be to recommend officers for selection to the central service and it was
to be headed by the chief conservator of forest of that state. The final selections were to be made by
the UPSC.

In the state of Jammu & Kashmir, one Naquishbund was appointed as acting chief conservator of
forest and hence was appointed as the ex-officio chairman of the Selection Committee. Two persons
senior to him had been superseded and they had filed petitions against this to higher authorities
regarding this. Meanwhile, the selection committee had to recommend names and it so happened that
they recommended the names of the person in which Naquishbund was included but excluding the
two senior officers who had been superseded, who were all candidates to the Indian forest service.
The recommendations of the Board were submitted to the UPSC.
The recommendation was challenged on the ground that a person who had been recommended was
the chairman of the board and that it had violated the requisites of fair hearing and apparently violated
the principles of natural justice.

JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court struck down the selection and held that a person who sits on a Committee for
selection of candidates for a certain job must not be a candidate himself for the Job. The logic is that
Judges could be impartial and neutral. He must be free from any controversy, suspicion of bias in
rendering Justice. Court also opined that the administrative authorities also ought to comply with
certain rules and principles of natural justice to lend credence to his decision.

CONCLUSION

The idea of natural justice was initially restricted to judicial processes, but as the welfare state
emerged, the power of administrative authorities greatly grew, making it impossible for the law to
specify the fair process that each authority should follow when resolving any disputes or quasi-
judicial proceedings. As a result, courts have established a standard that administrative officers must
adhere to when using their authority and carrying out their responsibilities. Administrative authorities
must benefit the populace in their capacity as law enforcers, but this objective cannot be met without
competent oversight of the authority that has been given to them. The ideas of natural justice have
developed as essential barriers against injustice in order to stop abuse of power and assess its
boundaries. Natural justice is to ensure fair treatment of citizens and stop injustice from going
unpunished. Any judgement that conflicts with natural justice is void.

5|Page