The Kinds of Bias

In one line

There are five kinds of bias, and only the first of them disqualifies automatically.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: bias is classified as pecuniary bias, which disqualifies however small the interest; personal bias, arising from a relationship, hostility or friendship; subject matter or official bias, arising from a connection with the issue; policy bias, arising from a settled view about a general question; and departmental bias, arising from the combination of investigating and deciding functions in one body.

One, pecuniary bias

Any financial interest, however small, disqualifies. The rule is absolute because the law will not measure the amount: once the adjudicator has a stake in the outcome, no enquiry into how much it influenced him is permitted.

The classic English illustration is a Lord Chancellor who held shares in a canal company whose case he decided, and whose decree was set aside although nobody suggested that the shares had in fact affected him.

Two, personal bias

A relationship, friendship, hostility or professional connection with a party. Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand, AIR 1957 SC 425, is the Indian example: the chairman of the tribunal had appeared once for the complainant in the case out of which the complaint arose.

Personal bias is not automatic. The court asks whether a reasonable person would apprehend that the connection might have influenced the decision, so a distant acquaintance does not disqualify and a close relative does.

Three, subject matter or official bias

The decision-maker has an interest in the issue rather than in the party. Two Indian cases mark the ground.

A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150, where a member of a selection board was himself a candidate for the same service, and the Court held that his withdrawal when his own name was considered did not cure the defect, because he sat when his rivals were considered.

J. Mohapatra and Co. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1984 SC 1572.

Facts. Orissa had no statutory rule governing the selection of books for school and college libraries, and a committee and sub-committee were constituted by administrative instructions. Some members of the sub-committee were themselves authors whose books were before it for selection.

Held. The selection was set aside. An author who has submitted his own book cannot sit on the committee that selects it, and abstaining when his own book is considered does not cure the defect, because his presence and participation on the other books affects the whole exercise. The doctrine of necessity had no application, because there were many qualified persons in the State who were not authors of books under consideration, so the committee could have been constituted differently. Guidelines were laid down for future selections.