Rule Against Bias

The rule against bias requires every person who decides another's rights, interests or liabilities to act impartially. Expressed by the maxim nemo judex in causa sua, it means that no one should judge a matter in which they have an interest or a predisposition that creates a reasonable apprehension of bias. Proof of actual prejudice is generally unnecessary because justice must also appear to be done.

What the rule requires

The decision-maker must approach the matter with an open mind and must not allow irrelevant interests or relationships to influence the outcome.

• A person having a disqualifying interest should disclose it and ordinarily recuse from the proceeding.
• The usual inquiry is whether a reasonable person, knowing the relevant facts, would apprehend a real likelihood of bias; mere vague suspicion is insufficient.
• The rule applies to judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative decisions when they affect rights or interests.

Forms of bias

Bias may arise from the decision-maker's financial stake, relationships, prior involvement or institutional position.

• A direct pecuniary interest in the outcome generally disqualifies the decision-maker, however small the interest may be.
• Personal bias may result from friendship, hostility, family relationship or professional association with an affected party.
• Subject-matter or departmental bias becomes objectionable when prior involvement or institutional interest creates a reasonable apprehension that the matter will not be judged impartially.

Legal basis and effect

For public authorities, the rule forms part of fair procedure associated with equality and non-arbitrariness under Article 14 and protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21. In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969), the Supreme Court applied natural justice to administrative action affecting individuals.

• A decision affected by legally established bias is liable to be set aside by a court.
• The doctrine of necessity may permit participation where every competent decision-maker is similarly disqualified and no lawful alternative exists.
• A party may waive an objection after full knowledge of the relevant facts, but cannot normally raise it only after accepting an unfavourable result.