1. Residents of coastal villages challenged the constitution of an expert committee regarding environmental impacts of a major port project, alleging conflict of interest and inadequate assessment. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 67936
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Harisankar V. Menon, J
Nirmala Johny – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 34157 OF 2022
Important Points
The court held that a reasonable likelihood of bias, arising from professional ties between an expert committee and the project it evaluates, vitiates the impartiality of the proceedings, necessitating the constitution of a truly independent body to ensure justice is manifestly seen to be done.
Subject
Administrative Law - Principles of Natural Justice
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Principles of Natural Justice - Bias and Conflict of Interest - The test for perceived bias is whether a fair-minded observer, having considered the facts, would consider that there was a reasonable possibility that the tribunal was biased (Para 18). Justice must not only be done, but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The existence of a reasonable likelihood of bias, rather than mere suspicion, is sufficient to vitiate an action (Paras 18, 19).
(B) Judicial Review - Mega Infrastructure Projects - In matters involving projects of public importance and national strategic significance, the scope of judicial review is limited. Courts are generally not equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of such projects unless the action is ex facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted by mala fides (Para 13).
Facts of the case:
Residents of coastal fishing villages challenged the constitution of an expert committee appointed by the government to examine coastal erosion allegedly caused by the construction of a seaport. The petitioners contended that the committee members suffered from a conflict of interest due to their prior professional involvement in the project's technical sub-committees and affiliations with the project concessionaire. They further alleged that the committee's findings were preconceived and based on an inadequate site visit.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the chairman and another member of the committee had undisputed prior professional ties to the development of the project and the concessionaire. Such involvement created a reasonable likelihood of bias. The court also noted that the committee had conducted only one site visit and its conclusions were in stark contrast to previous scientific opinions expressed by the chairman himself.
Issues: Whether the prior professional involvement of the expert committee members in the project under evaluation constituted a conflict of interest that rendered the committee's constitution flawed and its report unreliable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that any reasonable apprehension of bias is equatable to a possible apprehension, and the test is whether a litigant reasonably apprehends that bias is attributable to a member of the tribunal. Professional ties between an evaluative body and the entity or project being evaluated create a conflict between interest and duty, which vitiates the impartiality of the process and diminishes public confidence in the administration of justice.
Result: (i) It is declared that the constitution of the Committee was flawed; (ii) The final report of the Committee is not to be acted upon; (iii) The Government is directed to constitute an independent Committee ensuring that there is no conflict of interest regarding the proposed members.
(B) Judicial Review - Mega Infrastructure Projects - In matters involving projects of public importance and national strategic significance, the scope of judicial review is limited. Courts are generally not equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of such projects unless the action is ex facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted by mala fides (Para 13).
Facts of the case:
Residents of coastal fishing villages challenged the constitution of an expert committee appointed by the government to examine coastal erosion allegedly caused by the construction of a seaport. The petitioners contended that the committee members suffered from a conflict of interest due to their prior professional involvement in the project's technical sub-committees and affiliations with the project concessionaire. They further alleged that the committee's findings were preconceived and based on an inadequate site visit.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the chairman and another member of the committee had undisputed prior professional ties to the development of the project and the concessionaire. Such involvement created a reasonable likelihood of bias. The court also noted that the committee had conducted only one site visit and its conclusions were in stark contrast to previous scientific opinions expressed by the chairman himself.
Issues: Whether the prior professional involvement of the expert committee members in the project under evaluation constituted a conflict of interest that rendered the committee's constitution flawed and its report unreliable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that any reasonable apprehension of bias is equatable to a possible apprehension, and the test is whether a litigant reasonably apprehends that bias is attributable to a member of the tribunal. Professional ties between an evaluative body and the entity or project being evaluated create a conflict between interest and duty, which vitiates the impartiality of the process and diminishes public confidence in the administration of justice.
Result: (i) It is declared that the constitution of the Committee was flawed; (ii) The final report of the Committee is not to be acted upon; (iii) The Government is directed to constitute an independent Committee ensuring that there is no conflict of interest regarding the proposed members.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ajit Joy, Sayujya Radhakrishnan, Aneesh James, Prashant Bhushan
For the Respondents: Vipin.P.Varghese, Roshen.D.Alexander, N.Manoj Kumar, K.R.Ranjith, Adarsh Mathew, Kevin Mathew George, Meera Elsa George, Merline Mathew, Tina Alex Thomas, Harimohan, Vipin P.Varghese, V.J.Mathew (Sr.), K.S.Bharathan, Anoop V.Nair
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ajit Joy, Sayujya Radhakrishnan, Aneesh James, Prashant Bhushan
For the Respondents: Vipin.P.Varghese, Roshen.D.Alexander, N.Manoj Kumar, K.R.Ranjith, Adarsh Mathew, Kevin Mathew George, Meera Elsa George, Merline Mathew, Tina Alex Thomas, Harimohan, Vipin P.Varghese, V.J.Mathew (Sr.), K.S.Bharathan, Anoop V.Nair
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners alleged bias and conflict of interest in committee members, while respondents contended the project's national importance, previous clearances, and limited scope for judicial review. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. The court analyzed principles of bias—actual and apprehended—noting that reasonable apprehension of bias in expert committees requires scrutiny to maintain the integrity of administrative decision-making. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
4. When members of an expert committee have professional roles or prior associations creating a reasonable apprehension of bias, the committee's constitution and reports are legally vulnerable to intervention. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 )
5. The court declared the expert committee's constitution flawed, rejected its report, and directed the government to constitute a fresh independent committee. (Para 26 )
6. What is the legal threshold for establishing bias in an expert committee?
The test is not whether actual bias exists, but whether there is a reasonable likelihood of bias or a reasonable apprehension thereof in the minds of fair-minded observers, considering human probabilities and the particular circumstances. (Para 18 , 19 )
7. Can the government dismiss reports of a statutory expert committee by citing later-constituted monitoring committees?
No. Once the government constitutes a committee to address specific grievances, it cannot subsequently ignore that committee's findings or the validity of its constitution by relying on reports from other bodies formed for different purposes. (Para 24 )
8. Does the strategic national importance of a project insulate against challenges regarding the constitution of expert oversight committees?
No. While judicial review of national infrastructure projects is limited, court intervention is warranted when committee appointments are tainted by conflict of interest or lack impartiality, affecting the fairness of the administrative process. (Para 13 , 18 , 20 )
JUDGMENT
This writ petition has been instituted by the petitioners, stated to be residents of fishing villages located within 20 kms North of Vizhinjam, where the International Deepwater Multipurpose Seaport is being implemented. The petitioners contend that on account of the construction of the Seaport as above by the 6th and 7th respondents, substantial erosion of the coast has taken place on the Northern side of the Seaport construction - more particularly the breakwater construction and accretion on the Southern side of the Seaport. They would invite the attention of this Court to the Expert Committee constituted by the 1st respondent - State pursuant to Ext.P11 Government Order dated 06.10.2022, and state that the said report is to be ignored, since the Committee members were tainted with conflict of interest due to personal reasons. Therefore, they also seek setting up of an independent Committee by this Court with reference to Ext.P11 and the terms fixed therein.
2. Ext.P11 Government Order has been issued also with reference to certain directions issued by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), produced along with this writ petition as Ext.P9. For convenience, the operative portion of Ext.P11 is extracted as under:-
“4. However, certain sections representing the people residing in the coastal region have submitted that the construction of the Vizhinjam International Multipurpose Seaport project has caused coastal erosion around the port. The request was also raised before the Cabinet Sub Committee by the representatives of the local people during discussions.
5. In the circumstances, Government are pleased to constitute an Expert Committee to examine whether there has been any such coastal erosion consequent to the work done for constructing the port at Vizhinjam and to identify specific measures to address the coastal erosion if any, observed in the zone of influence of construction. The committee shall hear the views of the representatives of the local population before finalising the report. The committee shall have the following members.
6. The Terms of Reference for the Expert Committee will be issued separately.”
3. The petitioners, as noticed earlier, contend that the members of the Committee constituted pursuant to Ext.P11 are having conflict of interest as alleged in the writ petition. Therefore, the petitioners contend that an independent Committee requires to be constituted, as noticed earlier.
4. However, noticing that pursuant to Ext.P9 judgment of the NGT, another Committee has already been constituted for monitoring the “shoreline changes”, the reports of the afore Committee constituted by the NGT were directed to be placed before this Court pursuant to the order dated 30.03.2026.
5. As directed, the reports of the afore Committee constituted pursuant to the judgment of the NGT are also placed on record. Therefore, as of now, following sets of reports are available;
i. Prepared by the Committee constituted by Ext.P11.
ii.Prepared by the Committee constituted by the NGT.
6. Sri.Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that:
i. The petitioners, residents of fishing villages located within 20 kilometers to the North of Vizhinjam, have either lost their houses or the same has been heavily damaged on account of coastal erosion pursuant to the construction of the Seaport. In other words, the petitioners are stated to be facing an existential crisis.
ii. Report of the Committee constituted as per Ext.P11 cannot be acted upon since the members of the Committee were having conflict of interest. In this regard, he sought to rely on the following grounds raised in the writ petition:
“U. The Expert Committee members are tainted by conflict of interest due to their personal interest and involvement in the project, and connections to the 6th and the 7th respondent. The Chairman of the Committee, Mr.MD Kudale, has been working as an expert member of ‘Technical Sub-committee for the Development of Vizhinjam Se
