Central university of south Bihar

Project work of administrative law

(NAAC ACCREDITED ‘A’ GRADE UNIVERSITY)
(ESTABLISHED BY CENTRAL UNIVERSITY ACT,2009)

TOPIC: Nemo in Propria Causa Judex, Esse Debet

Submitted By: Submitted To:

Sadhna Parasher Dr. Pallavi Singh
CUSB2013125093 Assistant Professor
4th Semester Department of Law
BA.LLB(H) School of Law and Governance.
2020-2025

1|Page
 Acknowledgement

I would like to thank my faculty Dr. Pallavi Singh, who gave me project of such
unique and creative topic made me work towards knowing the subject with a
greater interest and enthusiasm and moreover respected professor guided me
throughout the project.
I owe the present accomplishment of my project to my faculty and colleagues,
who helped me throughout the project regarding the sources of the material,
needed for this assignment. I am much obliged to them.
I would like to extend my gratitude to my parents and all those unseen hands
who helped me out at every stage of my project.
THANK YOU!
Sadhna Parasher
CUSB2013125093
4th Semester
BA.LLB. (Hons)

2|Page
 Declaration
I hereby declare that the work reported in the BA.LLB (Hons) project
work entitled “Nemo in Propria Causa Judex, Esse Debet”.
Submitted at CENTRAL UNNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR. Is an
authentic record of my work carried under the supervision of Dr.
Pallavi Singh, I have not submitted this work elsewhere for any other
degree or diploma. I am fully responsible for the contents of my
project.
SADHNA PARASHER
CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR

3|Page
 Contents
Acknowledgement......................................................................................................................2
Declaration.................................................................................................................................3
Introduction................................................................................................................................5
Word Etymology........................................................................................................................6
Origin and Evolution..................................................................................................................7
Nemo in propria causa judex esse debet....................................................................................8
Rules against Bias......................................................................................................................9
Personal Bias:.........................................................................................................................9
Pecuniary Bias:.......................................................................................................................9
Subject Matter Bias:.............................................................................................................10
Institutional/Departmental Bias:..........................................................................................10
Conclusion................................................................................................................................11
Bibliography.............................................................................................................................12

4|Page
 Introduction

The principles of natural justice are the basic element of a fair hearing, the roots of natural
justice are in the innate sense of the man for fair play his desire to get justice in the correct
and true sense gives birth to the concept of natural justice, this feeling is not perverse of any
particular race or country rather it is shared by all of the humankind.
Natural Justice is another name for common sense. These principles cannot be codified or put
into a straitjacket as they are imbedded or ingrained in the conscience of human being. The
principles of natural justice apart from fairness is about equity and equality. The principles
are written by the nature in the heart of mankind, they are immutable, inviolable and
inalienable.
Any judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, determining the rights of individuals, must conform to
the principles of ‘natural justice’ in order to maintain the ‘rule of law’.1 The reason behind
such strict application of these principles is that the constitute the ‘essence of justice’ 2 hence
the principles are in need to be strictly followed by every judicial and quasi-judicial court.
In the constitution of India, the term ‘Natural Justice’ is nowhere used but the whole
constitution is bonded by the sagacious thread of these principles, Article 14 and 21 gives the
requirements that are to be complied with for the purpose of fulfillment of the principles of
natural justice.

1
Cf. Rep. of the Committee on Ministers’ Powers, (1932) Cmd. 4060, p.75.
2
Spackman v. Plumstead Board of Works, (1885) 10 App. Cas. 229 (240); General Medical Council v.
Spackman, (1943) A.C. 627 (641).

5|Page
 Word Etymology

The expression principles of natural justice take roots from two Roman Legal terms
1. Jus Naturale: it is Latin for natural law, which is a philosophical system of legal and
moral principles that are purported to be based on human nature and moralistic ideals

of right and wrong rather than on legislation, judicial action, or statutes

2. Lex Naturale: it is a percept, or general rule, found out by Reason, by which a man is
forbidden to do, that, which is destructive of his life, or taken away the means of

preserving the same; and to omit, that, by which he thinks it may be best preserved.

3. A Great Humanizing Principle: In the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. UOI3, Bhagwati J.

opined that the principles of natural justice are a great humanizing principle for
justice delivery.

3
[(1978) 1 SCC 248]

6|Page
 P.N. Bhagwati, J.

Origin and Evolution

Natural justice has found its origin in the early Greek and Roman empires, being
acknowledged even in Kautilya’s Arthashastra. In more ways than other the Indian concept
of dharma is similar to the concept of natural justice. All powers of the State including
executive, legislative and judicial were maintained by the king. Therefore, it was on the king
to reform and create the Code of law to maintain peace and equality in the State. Indian
emperor Ashok laid down the important rules as to what nature of justice should be. He had
great concern for fairness in the exercise of justice, caution and tolerance in application of
sentences, etc. Similarly, the great Babylonian king Hammurabi ensured the obligations of
officials by ruling that “any judge who reaches an incorrect decision is to be fined and
removed from the bench permanently”.
In India, this concept was introduced at an early time. In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill vs.
Chief Election Commissioner4, the court held that the concept of fairness should be in every
action whether it is judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative and or quasi-administrative work.
The Romans believed that some legal principles are self-evident, principles of natural justice
being on similar lines. Generally, no provisions mandating the application of these principles
are found in any statute. Therefore, the question arises whether the adjudicating authority is
bound to follow these principles. This was answered by the Supreme Court in the case
of Manohar s/o Manikrao Anchule v State of Maharashtra & Ors 5. The Apex Court held that
adjudicatory process has to be in consonance with the doctrine of audi alteram partem, i.e.,
no one should be condemned unheard and nemo debet esse judex in propria causa sua, i.e.,
no one should be judge in his own case. So even if there is no strait jacket formula for
application of principles of natural justice, they are indeed very important guiding tools to
prevent judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative body from doing injustice.

4
1978 AIR 851
5
Manohar v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 13 SCC 14.

7|Page
 Nemo in propria causa judex esse debet

The Latin expression translates as ‘No one should be made a judge in his own cause, or the
rule against bias.
The whole concept of the ‘Nemo in propria causa judex esse debet’ revolves around Rules of
Bias, ‘Bias’ means an operative prejudice, whether unconscious or conscious in relation to a
party or an issue. This operative prejudice may create a situation where the decision of the
judge gets biased either for the undue benefit or undue loss for either of the party.
Bias may be generally defined as partiality or preference which is not founded on reason and
is actuated by self – interest – whether pecuniary or personal. 6 The Supreme Court in
Crawford Bayley & Co. v. Union of India7 restated that the doctrine of rule against bias
comes into play if it is shown that the officer concerned has a personal connection or
personal interest or has personally acted in the matter concerned or has already taken a
decision one way or the other which he may be interested in supporting.
“Justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be
done”.8
The principle cannot be applied to places where there is no vested personal interest of the
judge, the department of investigation can be same as long as the presiding officer is
different in both the cases. If a preference is rational and are unaccompanied by personal
interest or pecuniary bias the administrative action would not amount to vitiation.
This aspect of procedural fairness, the rule against bias, surfaced in 1610 in Dr Bonham's
Case where Chief Justice Coke went so far as to say that the Court could declare an Act of
Parliament void if it made a man as judge in his own cause, or otherwise ‘against common

right and reason’.

Map of Cambridge Uni. Chief Justice Coke.

6
G.N, Nayak v. Goa University, (2002) 2 SCC 712.
7
(2006) 6 SCC 25.
8
Per Lord Hewart CJ in R. v. Sussex Justices, ex p McCarthy, (1924) I KB 256, 259.

8|Page
 Rules against Bias

Personal Bias:
It arises out of the personal or professional relationship of friendship or hostility between the
authority and the parties. It is the human nature that we try to give favorable decision to our
friends or relatives, whereas use the same as a weapon against the enemies.
Such relationship may develop out of various forms of professional or personal friendships or
even hostilities. However, there cannot be an exhaustive list for the same.9
Mineral Development Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar10
Facts:
1. Petitioners were granted a mining license for 99 years in 1947.
2. In 1953, the Secretary of the Revenue Board sent a notice to the petitioners to show
cause within 15 days as to why the license should not be cancelled for violating some
sections of a relevant Act.
3. The Petitioners submitted the written reply denying the allegation.
4. Two years later the government cancelled their license
5. The Raja Kamkhya Narain Singh, the owner of the mineral development corporation
ltd.., had opposed the Minister in the General Election of 1952;
6. That Minister had filed a criminal case under Section 500 of IPC.
Judgement:
The court quashed the order of the government, among other grounds, on the ground of
personal bias.
Pecuniary Bias:

Any financial interest howsoever small it may be is bound to vitiate the administrative action.
The judicial opinion is unanimous as to it. The disqualification will not be avoided by non-
participation of the biased member in the proceedings if he was present when the decision
was reached11.
Jeejeebhoy v collector12
Judgement:
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. The
Madras High Court also quashed the decision of the decision of the collector who in capacity
as the chairman of the Regional Transport Authority had granted a permit in favor of a
cooperative society of which he was also a chairman.

9
G.N. Nayak v Goa University, (2002) 2 SCC 712.
10
AIR 1960 SC 468.
11
R. v. Hendon Rural Distt. Council, ex p Chorley, (1933) 2 KB 696 (DC).
12
AIR 1965 SC 1096

9|Page
Subject Matter Bias:

Those cases fall within this category where the deciding officer is directly, or otherwise,
involved in the subject-matter of the case. Here again mere involvement would not vitiate the
administrative action unless there is a real likelihood of bias.
Muralidhar v kadam singh 13
Judgement:
The court refused to quash the decision of Election tribunal on the ground that the chairman’s
wife was a member of Congress party whom the petitioner defeated.
Institutional/Departmental Bias:

The problem or issue of departmental bias is very common in every administrative process
and it is not checked effectively and on every small interval period it will lead to negative
concept of fairness will get vanished in the proceeding.
Hari K. Gawali v Dy. Commr. of Police14
Judgement:
In this case, an externment order was challenged on 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 separate officers, though
they were affiliated to the same department, there was no bias.


13
AIR1954 MP III
14
AIR 1956 SC 559

10 | 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 vague suspicion of whimsical capricious and unreasonable people.
As the justice rooted in the minds of the people and it is destroyed when the right-minded
people go away thinking that the judge is biased.
In normal conditions, an action or a decision, judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative, is
affecting the rights of an individual is unthinkable. Currently, there can be no process
without affording both the parties a chance of fair hearing before an impartial, rational judge.
This is necessary for a society, which is governed by rule of law; and the principles of natural
justice promote the notion of the rule of law. The principles of natural justice are great
humanizing tools with endows law with fairness and secure justice to prevent miscarriage of
justice.

11 | P a g e
 Bibliography

1. Michael Pakaluk, “ARISTOTLE, NATURAL LAW and the FOUNDERS”, available

at http://www.nlnrac.org/classical/aristotle
2. M.P. Jain, “Evolving Indian Administrative Law”, pp. 78.
3. Prof. U.P.D. Kesari & Dr. Aditya Kesari, “LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW”, Twentieth Edition, 2014, p. 178.
4. I.P. Massey “ADMINISTRATIVE LAW’. Ninth Edition, 2020, pp. 184 – 205.
5. Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India on 25 January, 1978 AIR 597

12 | P a g e