Justice Must Be Seen to Be Done: A Cornerstone of Indian Law

In the realm of justice, appearance matters as much as reality. The age-old maxim justice should be done in a manner in which it is seen to be done—often phrased as justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done—stands as a bedrock principle in the Indian legal system. This doctrine ensures that the judiciary not only delivers fair outcomes but also upholds public perception of fairness, fostering trust in democratic institutions. But what does this mean in practice? This blog delves into its origins, key cases, implications, and real-world applications, drawing from landmark judgments and legal precedents.

Note: This article provides general information on legal principles and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases.

Understanding the Principle: Origins and Importance

The principle emphasizes that judicial proceedings must be transparent and impartial, not just in fact but in the eyes of the public and litigants. A mere suspicion of bias can erode confidence in the justice system, even if no actual bias exists. This is crucial for upholding the rule of law in India.

As highlighted in Supreme Court rulings, judges must recuse themselves if their involvement could create a reasonable apprehension of bias. In the case of P.K. Ghosh, I.A.S. & Anr. vs. J.G. Rajput, the Court stressed: a judge should step aside to maintain public confidence, prioritizing perception alongside reality 2006 0 Supreme(Raj) 2302.

This aligns with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to a free and fair trial. Courts focus on eliminating not only actual bias but also any reasonable apprehension thereof in the minds of the public and parties involved 2004 1 Supreme 335.

Key Legal References and Precedents

Several foundational cases and constitutional provisions anchor this principle:

1. Supreme Court on Judicial Recusal: The P.K. Ghosh judgment underscores that judicial involvement creating bias apprehension undermines credibility, mandating recusal even without real bias 2006 0 Supreme(Raj) 2302.

2. Right to Fair Trial: Article 21 demands trials free from bias, with emphasis on perceived fairness 2004 1 Supreme 335.

3. Administrative Fairness: The doctrine extends to administrative actions, ensuring state power is exercised justly and transparently 1988 0 Supreme(SC) 645 1990 0 Supreme(SC) 69.

4. Judicial Duties: Judges must balance rights of accused and victims, adhering to fairness throughout proceedings 2011 5 Supreme 579 2017 1 Supreme 335.

Beyond these, related precedents reinforce procedural integrity. For instance, courts have ruled: If the statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 3020 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 3021. This ensures decisions are reasoned and transparent, linking the decision-maker's mind to the outcome, vital for perceived justice.

In tender and contract disputes, deviations from prescribed processes are impermissible: If a thing is contemplated to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in the said manner and not otherwise2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 1876. Similarly, public appointments demand wide advertisement for fairness: if a thing is to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner or not at all2014 0 Supreme(Megh) 288.

Implications for the Judiciary and Public Confidence

The principle has far-reaching effects:

• Credibility of the Judiciary: Perceived impartiality is essential; extraneous influences shatter trust 2006 0 Supreme(Raj) 2302.

• Judicial Recusal: Vigilance against conflicts is mandatory, with proactive withdrawal to avoid bias appearances 2006 0 Supreme(Raj) 2302.

• Public Confidence: Actual and perceived fairness sustains the rule of law 2004 1 Supreme 335.

Failure to uphold this can question proceedings' fairness, as in Rajinder Singh @ Manu, where the principle was deemed core 2022 0 Supreme(Telangana) 351.

Applications in Court Proceedings and Beyond

This doctrine permeates various contexts, ensuring transparency:

• Procedural Conduct: Proper notices and hearings are non-negotiable. Failure to serve Form 'N' or conduct hearings transparently undermines fairness, as seen in Punjab and Haryana High Court matters

  SAMANTA AND ANR Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS - Punjab and Haryana

  2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 38566.

• Interest of Justice Orders: Courts may pass fit orders, like those on 08.10.2020, but must align with perceived equity

  UMARANI GOCHHAYAT vs STATE OF ODISHA - Orissa

  SHRI. VIJAY LAGAMA PUJERI Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka

  .

• Investigations and Official Conduct: Police and authorities must act responsibly, especially in land disputes or disinterment cases, to maintain trust 2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 3879.

• Property and Land Disputes: Transparent plotting, selling, and notice procedures are critical in complex cases

  NIRMAL SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS - Punjab and Haryana

  DAV COLLEGE MANAGING COMMITTEE Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS - Punjab and Haryana

  .

High Court benches, such as those with Justices Augustine George Masih and Sandeep Moudgil, frequently invoke justice in revisions and writs, directing listings or actions to ensure procedural justice

DHARMO DEVI AND OTHERS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - Punjab and Haryana

OM PARKASH AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS - Punjab and Haryana

In essence, Justice Should Be Seen to Be Done demands manifest fairness, as per judicial precedents 2022 0 Supreme(Telangana) 351.

Challenges and Real-World Examples

Consider scenarios where lapses occur:- Ex parte orders without notice or reasons violate transparency: The opposite party must know the basis, as reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 3020.

• Tender processes: Courts refrain from substituting expert views or reading between lines, insisting on strict adherence 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 233 2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 1876.

These examples illustrate how procedural lapses fuel bias perceptions, prompting judicial intervention.

Recommendations for Stakeholders

To embody this principle:

• Judicial Training: Recognize bias perceptions and recuse promptly.

• Public Communication: Enhance transparency via clear processes and decisions.

• Legal Strategies: Counsel should flag potential bias issues early.

Authorities must follow statutes meticulously, as deviations invite scrutiny.

Conclusion: Upholding the Integrity of Justice

The principle that justice must be seen to be done is indispensable for India's judiciary. It bridges substantive justice with public trust, reinforced by cases like P.K. Ghosh2006 0 Supreme(Raj) 2302, Article 21 2004 1 Supreme 335, and procedural mandates 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 3020. By prioritizing transparency, recusal, and fairness, the system sustains credibility.

Key Takeaways:- Perception of bias is as damaging as actual bias.- Follow procedures strictly: done in that manner and not otherwise2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 1876.- Transparency builds enduring public confidence.

Legal practitioners and citizens alike should champion this for a robust justice delivery system. References: 2006 0 Supreme(Raj) 2302 2004 1 Supreme 335 1988 0 Supreme(SC) 645 1990 0 Supreme(SC) 69 2011 5 Supreme 579 2017 1 Supreme 335 2022 0 Supreme(Telangana) 351 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 3020 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 3021 2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 1876 2014 0 Supreme(Megh) 288