Manak Lal v Dr. Prem Chand

Facts

On a complaint of professional misconduct filed by Dr. Prem Chand against Manak Lal, an advocate of the Rajasthan High Court, the High Court appointed a tribunal headed by a senior advocate (the Advocate-General) as chairman. The chairman had earlier represented Prem Chand in a related matter. The tribunal's proceedings were challenged on the ground of the chairman's personal bias.

Issues

• Whether the chairman, having earlier appeared for the complainant, was disqualified for bias.
• Whether actual proof of bias or prejudice is necessary to vitiate quasi-judicial proceedings.

Arguments

Manak Lal contended that the chairman's prior representation of the complainant created a real likelihood of bias. It was urged in defence that the chairman had no personal contact with the client and did not even recall having appeared for him.

Held

The Court declined to quash on the strict 'real likelihood of bias' footing, accepting that the chairman had no personal contact and did not remember appearing for the client. However, applying high standards of judicial propriety, it held that justice should not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done; actual proof of prejudice was not necessary, and a reasonable ground for assuming the possibility of bias was sufficient to vitiate the proceedings. The constitution of the tribunal was therefore set aside.

Ratio decidendi

Pecuniary or personal interest, or a reasonable apprehension of bias, disqualifies an adjudicator; it is enough that there is a reasonable ground for assuming the possibility of bias — actual proof of prejudice is not required, since justice must be seen to be done.

Significance

Early and frequently cited Supreme Court authority establishing in India the 'justice must be seen to be done' principle and the 'reasonable likelihood/possibility of bias' standard for personal bias; foundational to the later bias jurisprudence (Kraipak, Rattan Lal Sharma, V.K. Khanna).

Related