Duty of impartiality in decision-making
⚖️ Duty of Impartiality in Decision-Making
1. Introduction
The duty of impartiality is a fundamental principle of natural justice and administrative law. It requires that any person or authority exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative powers must act without bias, prejudice, or favoritism. Impartiality ensures public confidence in decision-making and reinforces the rule of law.
Impartial decision-making is constitutionally protected in India through:
Article 14 – Right to equality before the law and protection against arbitrariness.
Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty includes fair procedures.
Principles of Natural Justice – Especially nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause).
2. Key Components of Impartiality
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Absence of Bias | No personal, pecuniary, or official interest in the matter. |
| Transparency | The decision-maker must appear fair and unbiased. |
| Equality of Treatment | All parties must be heard and considered equally. |
| Separation of Functions | Investigative, prosecutorial, and adjudicative roles should not be mixed. |
3. Landmark Case Laws
1. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)
Citation: AIR 1969 SC 150
Facts:
One of the members of the selection board for forest service recruitment was himself a candidate. Other candidates challenged the fairness of the process.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that even the likelihood of bias is sufficient to vitiate a decision. It stated that administrative authorities must adhere to natural justice, and the principle of "no one can be a judge in their own cause" applies to administrative decision-making as well.
Importance:
This case is a landmark in establishing that administrative decisions must be impartial, and even potential bias can render a decision invalid.
2. Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal (1852) (English case often cited in Indian judgments)
Facts:
A judge who ruled in favor of a company was later found to be a shareholder in the same company.
Held:
The House of Lords held that no one should be a judge in a case where they have a pecuniary interest, regardless of whether the decision was actually influenced.
Importance:
This case established the strict rule against pecuniary bias, a key component of impartiality.
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Citation: AIR 1978 SC 597
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without being given reasons or an opportunity to be heard.
Held:
The Court emphasized that administrative decisions affecting fundamental rights must be made through a fair and unbiased process, and impartiality is integral to "just, fair, and reasonable" procedure under Article 21.
Importance:
It expanded the requirement of impartiality to administrative processes, making it a part of constitutional due process.
4. Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. APSRTC (1959)
Citation: AIR 1959 SC 308
Facts:
The same authority who initiated the hearing also decided the case for nationalization of bus routes.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that combining the roles of prosecutor and judge in one authority violates the principle of natural justice. The decision was quashed due to institutional bias.
Importance:
This case established that even structural or institutional bias (not just personal bias) violates the duty of impartiality.
5. Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987)
Citation: AIR 1987 SC 2386
Facts:
An army officer was punished by a commanding officer with whom he had a prior dispute.
Held:
The Court held that the existence of personal animosity between the judge and accused leads to real likelihood of bias and is a violation of the duty of impartiality.
Importance:
Highlighted that even subjective or indirect bias, if reasonably apprehended, violates natural justice.
6. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985)
Citation: AIR 1985 SC 1416
Facts:
Concerned the dismissal of civil servants without a formal inquiry under Article 311(2).
Held:
Though the Court recognized exceptions to formal inquiry, it emphasized that when exceptions are not applicable, fair and impartial procedure is mandatory.
Importance:
Reinforced that public servants are entitled to unbiased disciplinary proceedings, barring specific exceptions.
7. State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna (2001)
Citation: AIR 2001 SC 343
Facts:
A senior bureaucrat was targeted through arbitrary administrative actions by political executives.
Held:
The Court held that malafide or biased administrative action violates Article 14 and the rule of law.
Importance:
Recognized malice in law and administrative bias as serious violations of impartiality in governance.
4. Summary of Judicial Principles on Impartiality
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Real Likelihood of Bias | Not just actual bias, but even the appearance of bias invalidates a decision. |
| Structural Bias | Institutional setup that compromises fairness violates impartiality (e.g., same person acting as prosecutor and judge). |
| Pecuniary Bias | Any financial interest of the decision-maker disqualifies them. |
| Personal Hostility or Relationship | Prior enmity or relationship creates apprehension of bias. |
| Due Process under Article 21 | Fairness and impartiality are part of the right to life and liberty. |
5. Conclusion
The duty of impartiality is at the heart of fair decision-making—whether in judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative processes. The Indian judiciary has consistently enforced this principle by applying natural justice, constitutional safeguards, and strict scrutiny of bias in decision-making.
Through landmark rulings, the courts have ensured that decision-makers:
Do not have conflicts of interest,
Follow transparent and unbiased procedures,
And maintain public trust in institutional fairness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments