A Judge Cannot Judge His Own Case
(Significance of the principles of Natural Justice is nothing but keeping the Justice alive)

Advocate Arjun *

Statue of Lady Justice depicted as Themis above the Old Supreme Court building in Hong Kong :: Pix - Wikipedia/ChvhLR10

The principles of Natural Justice are very fundamental. They are regarded as very important part of the legal and Judcial procedures. They are applicable not only to Judicial or Quasi Judicial Bodies but also to the Administrative Bodies in its process of Judicial or Administrative Justice. Nothing is to be done creating suspicious and improper interference with the cause of Justice.

It is a well known Rule that Justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. That means that Judges cannot be suspected. They are required to be above or out of suspicion. Therefore, there arose a rule in Jurisprudence that No man (Judge) shall be a Judge in his own cause. NEMO DEBUT CASE JUDEX IN PROPERIA CAUSA IN PROPRIA CAUSA. Therefore, the first principle of Natural Justice consists of the Rule against Bias or Intent.

In A.K. Kraipak V. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC A), the Supreme Court held that a person who sits on a Committee for selection of candidates for 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.

Firstly, it is well settled that as regards pecuniary interest, the least pecuniary interest in the subject matter of litigation will disqualify any person from acting as a Judge. A Judge or Lawyer could not instigate the parties to come settlement between them by gaining pecuniary benefits from both sides. It will be considered to be misconduct. Secondly, it is also well settled that Personal Bias is against the Justice.

A number of circumstances may give rise to personal bias. If a Judge be a relative, friend or business partner or associate he might have some personal grudge, enmity, professional rivalry against such party. In view of these factors, there is very likelihood that the Judge may be biased towards one party or prejudiced towards others. Thirdly, Official Bias is also very serious one.

An official appointed for acting as an Adjudicator cannot be disqualified from a mere official loophole or policy weak in his role and responsibility. There shall be total application of minds on his part or he shall not be acting under some one’s dictation instead of deciding the matter independently. Then, out of these three bias, the first one (Pecuniary Bias) is very danger that it can disqualify a person from acting as a Judge. But the remaining two is indeed needed to test whether there is a real likelihood of Bias in the Judgment.

Dimes vs Grant Junction Canal, an english case was considered to be a classic example of the application of the rule against pecuniary bias/interest. In the case, the suits were decreed by the vice-chancellor and the appeals against those decrees were filed in the court of lord chancellor cottenham. The appeals were dismissed by him and decrees were confirmed in favour of the canal company in which he was a substantial shareholder. The court of lord chancellor, qottenham agreed with the vice-chancellor and affirmed the decrees on merits. In fact, Lord Cottonham’s decision was not in any way affected his interest as a shareholder in future. But, the House of Lords quashed the decision of Lord Cottonham at the end.

In India, there is no general statutory provision which requires the adjudicatory authority to give reasons for their decisions. However, on the basis of natural justice and some Constitutional provisions, the Court has imposed a general obligation on the adjudicatory authorities to give reasons for their decisions. It is now well established that the adjudicatory authority must give reasons in support of its decisions. At present, the requirement to give reason is considered as one virtue of the Principles of Natural Justice. If a particular statute requires the adjudicatory authorities to give reasons for their decisions. In such reasons, if there is failure in giving reasons (justification) for their decision by the adjudicator, it would be fatal to their decisions.

The Order passed in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, .i.e impartial (no bias), just, fair and heard and reasons is void. When the reasons for the decisions are not given to the person concerned or reasons are not given to the Court, the order will be quashed and the authority is directed by the Court to examine the matter afresh. Reasons are for the benefit of the parties concerned and therefore they should be communicated to the person concerned and they (reasons) should not be confined to the case record in the Court only. They are not personnel. In such a way, the Justice /Judges are the very divine institution.