1995 Supreme(AP) 536

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.BIKSHAPATHY, S.S.M.QUADRI
K.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 09-05-95

Headnote:

COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY ACT, 1952 - SECTION 3 - APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSION - SECTION 8B - NOTICE TO PERSONS LIKELY TO BE PREJUDICIALLY AFFECTED - SECTION 8C - RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES - BIAS - TEST OF BIAS - REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF BIAS - NATURAL JUSTICE - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - APPLICABILITY TO PROCEEDINGS BEFORE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY - REPUTATION - PART OF RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY - ARTICLES 14, 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, former Chief Minister and Chief Secretary of the State of Andhra Pradesh, challenged the appointment of the 4th respondent as Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (the Act), alleging bias and mala fide, and sought a declaration that the notices issued by the Commission under Section 8B of the Act were void ab initio being violative of the provisions of the Act and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Finding of the Court:

1. The rule against bias is an offshoot of the principle of natural justice. It is based on the maxim nemo judex in causa sua, which means that no man can be a Judge in his own cause. The test of bias is whether a reasonable person, in possession of relevant information, would have thought that bias was likely and whether the authority concerned was likely to be disposed to decide the matter only in a particular way. 2. The proceedings before the Commission of Inquiry are inquisitorial and not judicial or quasi-judicial or adversorial, and therefore, the principle of bias has no application to the proceedings before the Commission. 3. The rule against bias applies with vigor to Courts and Tribunals, judicial proceedings and quasi-judicial proceedings; and also to those who are entrusted with the duty of adjudicating the rights of the parties, like arbitrators. 4. The principle of bias is attracted where one of the Councilor's voting in favor of the resolution to grant permission to develop, had such an interest in the matter as to disqualify him from taking part or voting, on account of bias, an order nisi for a writ of certiorari to quash the decision of the Council could be issued. 5. Every member of a Tribunal that was called upon to try issues in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings must be able to act judicially and it is of the essence of judicial decisions and judicial administration that Judges should be able to act impartially, objectively and without any bias. 6. The doctrine of bias is part of the rules of natural justice. The principles of natural justice are applicable to the proceeding before the Commission and the question of contravention of those principles has to be decided in the light of the terms of reference to the Commission, provisions of the Act, the rules made thereunder and the procedure settled by the Commission. 7. The reputation of an individual is an important part of the right to life. It is perhaps in recognition of the importance of the reputation that Sec. 8-B of the Act was inserted along with Sees. 8-A and 8-C by Commissions of Inquiries (Amendment) Act, 79 of 1971, on De 30/12/1971. 8. Having regard to the nature of the rights -- conduct and reputation of a person -- which are likely to be prejudicially affected by the enquiry and the safeguards provided to such persons by the Parliament under Ss. 8-B and 8-C to protect those rights by affording an opportunity of hearing and conferring right to cross-examine the witness, we are of the view that while conducting enquiry on those aspects the Commission of Inquiry will be discharging a quasi-judicial function. Accordingly we hold that the petitioners are entitled to raise the plea of bias against the fourth respondent. 9. The test of bias is whether a reasonable person, in possession of relevant information, would have thought that bias was likely and whether the authority concerned was likely to be disposed to decide the matter only in a particular way. 10. In determining the question of personal bias against the fourth respondent the Court should see whether there is undisputed material which is likely to give rise to reasonable apprehension of bias in the mind of the person complaining of bias taking care that apprehension is not vague, whimsical or capricious suspicion. The Court will have to satisfy itself of three things before recording a finding of bias against an authority, viz., (i) there is uncontroverted and undisputed material; (ii) the material is such as is likely to give rise to reasonable apprehension in the mind of the person complaining of bias; and (iii) the apprehension is not a vague, whimsical or capricious suspicion. 11. The notices issued to the petitioners under Section 8b of the Act dated 10-4-1995 are vague because the material on the record of the Commission as on the date of issuance of the said notices, which, if accepted, would prejudicially affect the reputation of the petitioners, was not referred to in the notices, the impugned notices are quashed and the petitioners are entitled to fresh notices under Section 8b of the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners can raise the plea of bias against the 4th respondent? 2. Whether the notices issued by the Commission under Section 8B of the Act are vitiated as being vague and for want of material particulars and is violative of Section 8B and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The proceedings before the Commission of Inquiry are inquisitorial and not judicial or quasi-judicial or adversorial, and therefore, the principle of bias has no application to the proceedings before the Commission. 2. The rule against bias applies with vigor to Courts and Tribunals, judicial proceedings and quasi-judicial proceedings; and also to those who are entrusted with the duty of adjudicating the rights of the parties, like arbitrators. 3. The principle of bias is attracted where one of the Councilor's voting in favor of the resolution to grant permission to develop, had such an interest in the matter as to disqualify him from taking part or voting, on account of bias, an order nisi for a writ of certiorari to quash the decision of the Council could be issued. 4. Every member of a Tribunal that was called upon to try issues in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings must be able to act judicially and it is of the essence of judicial decisions and judicial administration that Judges should be able to act impartially, objectively and without any bias. 5. The doctrine of bias is part of the rules of natural justice. The principles of natural justice are applicable to the proceeding before the Commission and the question of contravention of those principles has to be decided in the light of the terms of reference to the Commission, provisions of the Act, the rules made thereunder and the procedure settled by the Commission. 6. The reputation of an individual is an important part of the right to life. It is perhaps in recognition of the importance of the reputation that Sec. 8-B of the Act was inserted along with Sees. 8-A and 8-C by Commissions of Inquiries (Amendment) Act, 79 of 1971, on De 30/12/1971. 7. Having regard to the nature of the rights -- conduct and reputation of a person -- which are likely to be prejudicially affected by the enquiry and the safeguards provided to such persons by the Parliament under Ss. 8-B and 8-C to protect those rights by affording an opportunity of hearing and conferring right to cross-examine the witness, we are of the view that while conducting enquiry on those aspects the Commission of Inquiry will be discharging a quasi-judicial function. Accordingly we hold that the petitioners are entitled to raise the plea of bias against the fourth respondent. 8. The test of bias is whether a reasonable person, in possession of relevant information, would have thought that bias was likely and whether the authority concerned was likely to be disposed to decide the matter only in a particular way. 9. In determining the question of personal bias against the fourth respondent the Court should see whether there is undisputed material which is likely to give rise to reasonable apprehension of bias in the mind of the person complaining of bias taking care that apprehension is not vague, whimsical or capricious suspicion. The Court will have to satisfy itself of three things before recording a finding of bias against an authority, viz., (i) there is uncontroverted and undisputed material; (ii) the material is such as is likely to give rise to reasonable apprehension in the mind of the person complaining of bias; and (iii) the apprehension is not a vague, whimsical or capricious suspicion. 10. The notices issued to the petitioners under Section 8b of the Act dated 10-4-1995 are vague because the material on the record of the Commission as on the date of issuance of the said notices, which, if accepted, would prejudicially affect the reputation of the petitioners, was not referred to in the notices, the impugned notices are quashed and the petitioners are entitled to fresh notices under Section 8b of the Act.

Final Decision: The Writ Petitions are partly allowed, as indicated above but, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.