9911796707
TMI BlogDoctrine of biasX X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g that a Magistrate who subscribed to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was not thereby disabled from trying a charge brought by that body of cruelty to a horse. There must be some direct connection with the litigation. If there is such prejudice on the subject-matter that the court has reached fixed and unalterable conclusions not founded on reason or understanding, so that there is not a fair hearing, that is bias of which the courts will take account, as where a justice announced his intention of convicting anyone coming before him on a charge of supplying liquor after the permitted hours … Secondly, a pecuniary interest, however, slight will disqualify, even though it is not proved that the decision is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... easonable intelligent man, fully appraised of all the circumstances, would feel a serious apprehension of bias." In Transport Deptt. v. Munuswamy Mudaliar- 1988 (8) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT, while dealing with the concept of bias as a part of natural justice, the Court observed that: (SCC p. 654, para 12) "12. … A predisposition to decide for or against one party, without proper regard to the true merits of the dispute is bias. There must be reasonable apprehension of that predisposition. The reasonable apprehension must be based on cogent materials." Needless to say, personal bias is one of the limbs of bias, namely, pecuniary bias, personal bias and official bias. In Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant Kumaon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16)" Thereafter, the two-Judge Bench in Girja Shankar Pant case referred to the decision in Franklin v. Minister of Town and Country Planning 1948 AC 87 and the sounding of a different note and the dilution of the principle by English Courts in R. v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex p Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2) 2000 1 AC 119 and the view expressed by Lord Hutton in the said case and thereafter proceeded to analyse the doctrine propounded in Locabail (U.K) Ltd. v. Bayfield Properties Ltd. Locabail U.K Ltd. v. Bayfield Properties Ltd., 2000 QB 451 where the Court of Appeal had upon detailed analysis of the decision in R. v. Gough 1993 AC 646 together with Dimes case Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal Proprietors, 1852 3 HL Cas 759, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een laid down that: (SCC p. 723, para 34) "34. It is not every kind of bias which in law is taken to vitiate an act. It must be a prejudice which is not founded on reason, and actuated by self-interest-whether pecuniary or personal. Because of this element of personal interest, bias is also seen as an extension of the principles of natural justice that no man should be a judge in his own cause. Being a state of mind, a bias is sometimes impossible to determine. Therefore, the courts have evolved the principle that it is sufficient for a litigant to successfully impugn an action by establishing a reasonable possibility of bias or proving circumstances from which the operation of influences affecting a fair assessment of the merits of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
