Legal Blog: Judicial Bias and the Doctrine of Waiver : The Law

Legal Blog on the Social Networks


Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Judicial Bias and the Doctrine of Waiver : The Law

Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan
Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar has examined the concepts of 'Judicial Bias' and the Doctrine of Waiver. The Supreme Court has held that the issue of bias should be raised by the party at the earliest, if it is aware of it and knows its right to raise the issue at the earliest, otherwise it would be deemed to have been waived. While examining various judicial authorities on the subject, the Supreme Court held as under;


10. There may be a case where allegations may be made against a Judge of having bias/prejudice at any stage of the proceedings or after the proceedings are over. There may be some substance in it or it may be made for ulterior purpose or in a pending case to avoid the Bench if a party apprehends that judgment may be delivered against him. Suspicion or bias disables an official from acting as an adjudicator. Further, if such allegation is made without any substance, it would be disastrous to the system as a whole, for the reason, that it casts doubt upon a Judge who has no personal interest in the outcome of the controversy. 

11. In respect of judicial bias, the statement made by Frank J. of the United States is worth quoting:- 
"If, however, `bias' and `partiality' be defined to mean the total absence of preconceptions in the mind of the Judge, then no one has ever had a fair trial and no one will. The human mind, even at infancy, is no blank piece of paper. We are born with predispositions ....... Much harm is done by the myth that, merely by....... taking the oath of office as a judge, a man ceases to be human and strips himself of all predilections, becomes a passionless thinking machine." [In re: Linahan, 138 F. 2nd 650 (1943)] 
(See also: State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Shivananda Pathak & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 2050). 

12. To recall the words of Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia v. Franklin S. Pollak, 343 US 451 (1952) 466: The Judicial process demands that a judge moves within the framework of relevant legal rules and the covenanted modes of thought for ascertaining them. He must think dispassionately and submerge private feeling on every aspect of a case. There is a good deal of shallow talk that the judicial robe does not change the man within it. It does. The fact is that, on the whole, judges do lay aside private views in discharging their judicial functions. This is achieved through training, professional habits, self- discipline and that fortunate alchemy by which men are loyal to the obligation with which they are entrusted. 

13. In Bhajan Lal, Chief Minister, Haryana v. M/s. Jindal Strips Ltd. & Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 19, this Court observed that there may be some consternation and apprehension in the mind of a party and undoubtedly, he has a right to have fair trial, as guaranteed by the Constitution. The apprehension of bias must be reasonable, i.e. which a reasonable person can entertain. Even in that case, he has no right to ask for a change of Bench, for the reason that such an apprehension may be inadequate and he cannot be permitted to have the Bench of his choice. The Court held as under:- 
"Bias is the second limb of natural justice. Prima facie no one should be a judge in what is to be regarded as `sua causa', whether or not he is named as a party. The decision- maker should have no interest by way of gain or detriment in the outcome of a proceeding. Interest may take many forms. It may be direct, it may be indirect, it may arise from a personal relationship or from a relationship with the subject-matter, from a close relationship or from a tenuous one." 
14. The principle in these cases is derived from the legal maxim - nemo debet esse judex in causa propria sua. It applies only when the interest attributed is such as to render the case his own cause. This principle is required to be observed by all judicial and quasi-judicial authorities as non-observance thereof, is treated as a violation of the principles of natural justice. (Vide: Rameshwar Bhartia v. The State of Assam, AIR 1952 SC 405; Mineral Development Ltd. v. The State of Bihar & Anr., AIR 1960 SC 468; Meenglas Tea Estate v. The Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719; and The Secretary to the Government, Transport Department, Madras v. Munuswamy Mudaliar & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 2232). The failure to adhere to this principle creates an apprehension of bias on the part of the Judge. The question is not whether the Judge is actually biased or, in fact, has really not decided the matter impartially, but whether 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. (Vide: A.U. Kureshi v. High Court of Gujarat & Anr., (2009) 11 SCC 84; and Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 539). 

15. In Manak Lal, Advocate v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi & Ors., AIR 1957 SC 425, this Court while dealing with the issue of bias held as under: 
"Actual proof of prejudice in such cases may make the appellant's case stronger but such proof is not necessary.... What is relevant is the reasonableness of the apprehension in that regard in the mind of the appellant." 
16. The test of real likelihood of bias is whether a reasonable person, in possession of relevant information, would have thought that bias was likely and whether the adjudicator was likely to be disposed to decide the matter only in a particular way. Public policy requires that there should be no doubt about the purity of the adjudication process/administration of justice. The Court has to proceed observing the minimal requirements of natural justice, i.e., the Judge has to act fairly and without bias and in good faith. A judgment which is the result of bias or want of impartiality, is a nullity and the trial "coram non judice". Therefore, the consequential order, if any, is liable to be quashed. (Vide: Vassiliades v. Vassiliades, AIR 1945 PC 38; S. Parthasarathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2701; and Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 2386). 

17. In Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra & Anr., (2002) 4 SCC 388, this Court observed that public confidence in the judiciary is said to be the basic criterion of judging the justice delivery system. If any act or action, even if it is a passive one, erodes or is even likely to erode the ethics of judiciary, the matter needs a further look. In the event, there is any affectation of such an administration of justice either by way of infraction of natural justice or an order being passed wholly without jurisdiction or affectation of public confidence as regards the doctrine of integrity in the justice delivery system, technicality ought not to outweigh the course of justice -- the same being the true effect of the doctrine of ex debito justitiae. It is enough if there is a ground of an appearance of bias. While deciding the said case, this Court placed reliance upon the judgment of the House of Lords in Ex Parte Pinochet Ugarte (No.2) 1999 All ER, 577, in which the House of Lords on 25.11.1998, restored warrant of arrest of Senator Pinochet who was the Head of the State of Chile and was to stand trial in Spain for some alleged offences. It came to be known later that one of the Law Lords (Lord Hoffmann), who heard the case, had links with Amnesty International (AI) which had become a party to the case. This was not disclosed by him at the time of the hearing of the case by the House. Pinochet Ugarte, on coming to know of that fact, sought reconsideration of the said judgment of the House of Lords on the ground of appearance of bias and not actual bias. On the principle of disqualification of a Judge to hear a matter on the ground of appearance of bias, it was pointed out: 
"An appeal to the House of Lords will only be reopened where a party though no fault of its own, has been subjected to an unfair procedure. A decision of the House of Lords will not be varied or rescinded merely because it is subsequently thought to be wrong." 
18. In Locabail (UK) Ltd. v. Bayfield Properties Ltd. & Anr., (2000) 1 All ER 65, the House of Lords considered the issue of disqualification of a Judge on the ground of bias and held that in applying the real danger or possibility of bias test, it is often appropriate to inquire whether the Judge knew of the matter in question. To that end, a reviewing court may receive a written statement from the Judge. A Judge must recuse himself from a case before any objection is made or if the circumstances give rise to automatic disqualification or he feels personally embarrassed in hearing the case. If, in any other case, the Judge becomes aware of any matter which can arguably be said to give rise to a real danger of bias, it is generally desirable that disclosure should be made to the parties in advance of the hearing. Where objection is then made, it will be as wrong for the Judge to yield to a tenuous or frivolous objection as it will be to ignore an objection of substance. However, if there is real ground for doubt, that doubt must be resolved in favour of recusal. Where, following appropriate disclosure by the Judge, a party raises no objection to the Judge hearing or continuing to hear a case, that party cannot subsequently complain that the matter disclosed gives rise to a real danger of bias. 

19. In Justice P.D. Dinakaran v. Hon'ble Judges Inquiry Committee, (2011) 8 SCC 380, this Court has held that in India the courts have held that, to disqualify a person as a Judge, the test of real likelihood of bias, i.e., real danger is to be applied, considering whether a fair minded and informed person, apprised of all the facts, would have a serious apprehension of bias. In other words, the courts give effect to the maxim that `justice must not only be done but be seen to be done', by examining not actual bias but real possibility of bias based on facts and materials. The Court further held: 
"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 the parties to the controversy. He cannot act as Judge of a cause in which he himself has some interest either pecuniary or 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 undetected. He should not allow his personal prejudice to go into the decision- making. The object is not merely that the scales be held even; it is also that they may not appear to be inclined. 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." 
20. Thus, it is evident that the allegations of judicial bias are required to be scrutinised taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case in hand. The court must bear in mind that a mere ground of appearance of bias and not actual bias is enough to vitiate the judgment/order. Actual proof of prejudice in such a case may make the case of the party concerned stronger, but such a proof is not required. In fact, what is relevant is the reasonableness of the apprehension in that regard in the mind of the party. However, once such an apprehension exists, the trial/judgment/order etc. stands vitiated for want of impartiality. Such judgment/order is a nullity and the trial "coram non-judice". 


21. In Manak Lal (Supra), this Court held that alleged bias of a Judge/official/Tribunal does not render the proceedings invalid if it is shown that the objection in that regard and particularly against the presence of the said official in question, had not been taken by the party even though the party knew about the circumstances giving rise to the allegations about the alleged bias and was aware of its right to challenge the presence of such official. The Court further observed that waiver cannot always and in every case be inferred merely from the failure of the party to take the objection. "Waiver can be inferred only if and after it is shown that the party knew about the relevant facts and was aware of his right to take the objection in question." Thus, in a given case if a party knows the material facts and is conscious of his legal rights in that matter, but fails to take the plea of bias at the earlier stage of the proceedings, it creates an effective bar of waiver against him. In such facts and circumstances, it would be clear that the party wanted to take a chance to secure a favourable order from the official/court and when he found that he was confronted with an unfavourable order, he adopted the device of raising the issue of bias. The issue of bias must be raised by the party at the earliest. (See: M/s. Pannalal Binjraj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1957 SC 397; and Justice P.D. Dinakaran (Supra)) 

22. In M/s. Power Control Appliances & Ors. v. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd., (1994) 2 SCC 448 this Court held as under:- 
"Acquiescence is sitting by, when another is invading the rights.... It is a course of conduct inconsistent with the claim... It implies positive acts; not merely silence or inaction such as involved in laches. ........ The acquiescence must be such as to lead to the inference of a licence sufficient to create a new right in the defendant......" Inaction in every case does not lead to an inference of implied consent or acquiescence as has been held by this Court in P. John Chandy & Co. (P) Ltd. v. John P. Thomas, AIR 2002 SC 2057. Thus, the Court has to examine the facts and circumstances in an individual case. 
23. Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a right. It involves conscious abandonment of an existing legal right, advantage, benefit, claim or privilege, which except for such a waiver, a party could have enjoyed. In fact, it is an agreement not to assert a right. There can be no waiver unless the person who is said to have waived, is fully informed as to his rights and with full knowledge about the same, he intentionally abandons them. (Vide: Dawsons Bank Ltd. v. Nippon Menkwa Kabushihi Kaish, AIR 1935 PC 79; Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Rajasthan & Anr., AIR 1959 SC 149; Mademsetty Satyanarayana v. G. Yelloji Rao & Ors., AIR 1965 SC 1405; Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. S. B. Sardar Ranjit Singh, AIR 1968 SC 933; Jaswantsingh Mathurasingh & Anr. v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Ors., (1992) Suppl 1 SCC 5; M/s. Sikkim Subba Associates v. State of Sikkim, AIR 2001 SC 2062; and Krishna Bahadur v. M/s. Purna Theatre & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 4282). 

24. This Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants' Association & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 233 considered the issue of waiver/acquiescence by the non- parties to the proceedings and held: 
"In order to constitute waiver, there must be voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a right. The essence of a waiver is an estoppel and where there is no estoppel, there is no waiver. Estoppel and waiver are questions of conduct and must necessarily be determined on the facts of each case....... 
There is no question of estoppel, waiver or abandonment. There is no specific plea of waiver, acquiescence or estoppel, much less a plea of abandonment of right. That apart, the question of waiver really does not arise in the case. Admittedly, the tenants were not parties to the earlier proceedings. There is, therefore, no question of waiver of rights, by Respondents 4-7 nor would this disentitle the tenants from maintaining the writ petition." 
25. Thus, from the above, it is apparent that the issue of bias should be raised by the party at the earliest, if it is aware of it and knows its right to raise the issue at the earliest, otherwise it would be deemed to have been waived. However, it is to be kept in mind that acquiescence, being a principle of equity must be made applicable where a party knowing all the facts of bias etc., surrenders to the authority of the Court/Tribunal without raising any objection. Acquiescence, in fact, is sitting by, when another is invading the rights. The acquiescence must be such as to lead to the inference of a licence sufficient to create rights in other party. Needless to say that question of waiver/acquiescence would arise in a case provided the person apprehending the bias/prejudice is a party to the case. The question of waiver would not arise against a person who is not a party to the case as such person has no opportunity to raise the issue of bias.

1 comment:

  1. Please accept my kudos.This blog contains really well-researched and highly informative articles.I came across this blog only today by serendipity.
    Keep it up.

    Parmanand Pandey


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
There was an error in this gadget