Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Analysis and Conclusion:The provided sources do not directly address the probability of propend or similar terms. Instead, they emphasize procedural aspects such as the burden of proof in valuation disputes and ongoing investigations related to unlawful possession. Therefore, there is no specific information on the probability of propend within these documents.
In the realm of justice, impartiality is paramount. But what exactly constitutes enough evidence of bias—or prejudice—to challenge a judicial or quasi-judicial decision? A common query arises: What is the probability of prejudice required to vitiate a decision in the Indian judiciary? This question delves into the nuanced standards courts apply to safeguard natural justice while avoiding frivolous challenges.
This post breaks down the governing principles, drawing from landmark precedents and doctrinal evolution. We'll examine why mere 'probability' falls short and what 'real likelihood' truly means, helping litigants navigate bias allegations effectively. Note: This is general information based on judicial trends; it does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific case.
Indian courts require proof of a real likelihood or real danger of bias to establish prejudice. This equates to a substantial possibility or high degree of probability, viewed objectively through the lens of a reasonable person or fair-minded observer. It's not enough to show mere probability, preponderance of probabilities, reasonable suspicion, or remote possibility. The focus is on circumstances suggesting the decision-maker might unfairly favor or disfavor a party—no actual bias needs to be proven. Conjecture or surmise alone won't suffice. Krishnadatt Awasthy VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 294
The Indian approach mirrors English law, emphasizing that justice must 'not only be done, but manifestly seen to be done.' In R v Sussex JJ, ex p McCarthy (1924), Lord Hewart CJ warned against any suspicion of interference. This progressed in R v Camborne JJ, ex p Pearce (1955) to a 'real likelihood of bias' from readily ascertainable facts, rejecting unsubstantial grounds. Krishnadatt Awasthy VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 294
Lord Denning in Metropolitan Properties Co. (FGC) Ltd v Lannon (1969) elaborated: the Court looks at the impression which would be given to other people... if right-minded persons would think... there was a ‘real likelihood’ of bias... then he should not sit. Krishnadatt Awasthy VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 294Justice P. D. Dinakaran VS Hon’ble Judges Inquiry Committee - 2011 5 Supreme 100
The House of Lords in R v Gough (1993) shifted to 'real danger of bias,' meaning a real possibility (not mere probability): whether there's a real danger the decision-maker might unfairly regard... with favour, or disfavour, the case of a party. Courts personify the fair-minded observer. Krishnadatt Awasthy VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 294Justice P. D. Dinakaran VS Hon’ble Judges Inquiry Committee - 2011 5 Supreme 100
Finally, Porter v Magill (2002) crystallized it as whether a fair-minded observer would conclude there's a real possibility of bias. N. K. Bajpai VS Union of India - 2012 2 Supreme 417
Indian courts embraced these rigorously. In A.K. Kraipak (Constitutional Bench), mere suspicion fails; there must be 'reasonable likelihood of bias,' considering human probabilities. Krishnadatt Awasthy VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 294
S. Parthasarathi v State of Andhra Pradesh (1974) clarified: there must be a ‘real likelihood’ of bias and that means there must be a substantial possibility of bias... Surmise or conjecture would not be enough. The test contrasts with 'reasonable suspicion,' asking if reasonable persons would infer real likelihood from circumstances. Krishnadatt Awasthy VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 294
N.K. Bajpai v Union of India distinguishes: Probability of bias, possibility of bias and reasonable suspicion... are terms of different connotations... Likelihood of bias would be the possibility of bias and bias which can be shown to be present... The correct test... whether there appears to be a real danger of bias or whether there is only a probability or even a preponderance of probability. Only the former vitiates decisions. N. K. Bajpai VS Union of India - 2012 2 Supreme 417Gopal Singh VS State of M. P. - 2010 3 Supreme 778
State of W.B. v Shivananda Pathak notes: ‘reasonable suspicion’ focuses on appearances, while ‘real likelihood’ evaluates probabilities directly. Gopal Singh VS State of M. P. - 2010 3 Supreme 778
Civil disputes often use 'preponderance of probabilities' (more likely than not). However, bias demands higher: a 'high degree of probability.' In M. Siddiq v Suresh Das (2020), preponderance means 'we think it more probable than not,' but even strong evidence leaving 'remote possibility' may not prove bias unless it hits 'real danger.' State of Rajasthan VS Heem Singh - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 634
Courts reject over-reliance on appearances at the expense of substance, cautioning against 'flimsiest pretexts.' Krishnadatt Awasthy VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 294
The real likelihood test extends to arbitrators and quasi-judicial bodies. In arbitration clauses, distinguishing expert determination from arbitration is key, as bias challenges may arise in the latter. For instance, clauses empowering engineers for 'final' decisions aren't always arbitration if they lack adjudicatory intent. In one case, Clause 30 of a B-1 agreement was deemed a departmental mechanism, not arbitration, emphasizing supervision over adjudication. Vishnu VS State of Maharashtra - 2013 7 Supreme 33
Similarly, Work Order Clause 4 was upheld as an arbitration agreement where the Superintending Engineer's 'orders' were binding, indicating conclusive opinion. Yet, intent matters: disputes meant for courts aren't arbitration. P. Dasaratharama Reddy Complex VS Government of Karnataka - 2013 7 Supreme 397Punjab State VS Dina Nath - 2007 5 Supreme 502
In contempt scenarios, like non-compliance with tribunal orders post-writ dismissal, doctrine of merger doesn't apply to High Court writs (original jurisdiction), avoiding inflated bias claims. MADHAB BANERJEE VS DIPAK CHANDA - 1997 Supreme(Cal) 218
These illustrate how bias scrutiny in alternative forums aligns with judicial standards, demanding concrete circumstances.
To challenge on bias:- Gather ascertainable facts (e.g., relationships, prior roles) implying real likelihood.- Object promptly; pursue discovery for full details.- Decision-makers should recuse proactively to uphold confidence.
Prioritize institutional integrity over expediency.
Understanding these thresholds empowers informed challenges while preserving judicial efficiency. For tailored guidance, seek professional legal counsel.
References1. Krishnadatt Awasthy VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 294: English origins and Indian adoption.2. Justice P. D. Dinakaran VS Hon’ble Judges Inquiry Committee - 2011 5 Supreme 100: Gough/Metropolitan tests.3. N. K. Bajpai VS Union of India - 2012 2 Supreme 417: Probability distinctions; tribunals.4. Gopal Singh VS State of M. P. - 2010 3 Supreme 778: Bajpai/Shivananda.5. State of Rajasthan VS Heem Singh - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 634: Preponderance vs. bias.6. P. Dasaratharama Reddy Complex VS Government of Karnataka - 2013 7 Supreme 397, Vishnu VS State of Maharashtra - 2013 7 Supreme 33, Punjab State VS Dina Nath - 2007 5 Supreme 502, MADHAB BANERJEE VS DIPAK CHANDA - 1997 Supreme(Cal) 218: Arbitration and merger contexts.
#JudicialBias #RealLikelihoodTest #IndianLaw
Now, the ordinary rule of onus propend in these cases is that the claimant (who is a Plaintiff) must prove that the valuation made by the Collector is insufficient. The theory is that the Collector in arriving at his award performs administrative and quash judicial functions.
Here in the case before me the investigation has been completed and the applicant along with other persona are facing trial against serious activation, - of being found in unlawful Possession of railway propend or being reasonably suspected of billing in its possession by entering into a conspiracy.
Here in the case before me the investigation has been completed and the applicant along with other persona are facing trial against serious activation, - of being found in unlawful Possession of railway propend or being reasonably suspected of billing in its possession by entering into a conspiracy.
This being the position in the present case and in view of the fact that clause 4 of the Work Order is not under challenge before us, the decision that would be arrived at by Superintending Engineer, Hydel Circle No.1, Chandigarh must also be binding on the parties as a result whereof clause 4 must be held to be a binding arbitration agreement.” The word “orders” would indicate some expression of opinion, which is to be carried our, or enforced and which is a conclusion of a body (in this case Superintending engineer, Hydel Circle No.1, Chandigarh). Then again the conclusion and de....
This being the position in the present case and in view of the fact that clause 4 of the Work Order is not under challenge before us, the decision that would be arrived at by Superintending Engineer, Hydel Circle No.1, Chandigarh must also be binding on the parties as a result whereof clause 4 must be held to be a binding arbitration agreement.” The Bench distinguished the judgment in State of Orissa v. Damodar Das (supra) by making the following observations: “From a plain reading of this clause in Damodar Das it is evident that the powers of the Public Health Engineer were essentially to s....
This being the position in the present case and in view of the fact that Clause 4 of the Work Order is not under challenge before us, the decision that would be arrived at by Superintending Engineer, Hydel Circle No.1, Chandigarh must also be binding on the parties as a result whereof Clause 4 must be held to be a binding arbitration agreement. The word orders would indicate some I expression of opinion, which is to be carried out, or enforced and which is a conclusion of a body (in this case Superintending Engineer, Hydel Circle No.1, Chandigarh). Then again the conclusion and dec....
If that be not so then there would be no question of merger of the order passed in the original proceeding with the order passed in the ultimate proceeding. The proceeding taken in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is itself an original proceeding and cannot be treated us a continuation of the original proceeding in which the impugned order was passed as happens in the case of statutory appeal or revision. A test for determining the applicability of the doctrine of merger in any particular case is the test whether the ultimate proceeding could be treated as a continuation of ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
