ATTRIBUTES OF BIAS

PRESENT REFERENCE- B-5/f/14 april SERIES- B-5/07 FEB
BACK REFERENCE B-5/e/25 Feb



ATTRIBUTES OF BIAS

CONTINUED

A judge or tribunal may be disqualified in a variety of circumstances where there actions or behaviour or other factors may suggest their inability to discharge their duties impartially.The question is whether the likelihood of bias is serious enough for the Law to take account of it. For example, a judge who believes that drinking alcohol is not good for health and who is himself teetotaler can not be disqualified to sit on the panel disposing licensing application.

A judge whose words or actions show that he has preconceived opinions on the merits of the parties is disqualified by bias. For example- a magistrate who in the course of proceedings relating to access by wife to the children who were in the custody of the husband commented that the husbands conduct was callous and he didi not have spark of manhood in him. The wife shortly thereafter filed a application before the magistrates for custody of children. The order made in her favour was quashed by the supreme court.

The three cases which might be thought to present a special risk of bias are- a judge sitting on appeal from an earlier judgement of his own; a judge hearing a case in which he had earlier been involved as counsel; a judge excersing his power to imprison for contempt committed in the face of the court.

So far so the first case is concerned in the modern law it is not considered objectionable for a judge to sit in appeal against his own previous judgement for the reason that it is now accepted that by virtue of judges training , regimentation and maturity it is accepted that he is not going to be impartial for the mere fact that it his own earlier judgement. But it is also opined that because laymen rarely appreciate the degree of mental detachment of which members of judiciary are capable in relation to their own opinions it is highly desirable that this praxctise should acted upon as rarely as possible.

The second cstegory of case where a judge sits in hearing of a case in which he was earlier a counsel may be regarded as a special instance of the rule forbidding a judge to be simultaneously accuser or party in the litigation before him, at any rate a closely analogous situation but there seems to be no absolute rule. In Shore v Wilson L ord Campbell decline to give judgement having argued the case at the Bar of the House and been elevated to the Bench before the litigation was completed.

The third special case is the jurisdiction of judges to punish for contempt of court. In a general sense it may be argued that all judges have an interest in extending their power and privileges by extending the law of contempt. The question of bias is particularly acute however where a judge punishes a person for contempt in the face of the court,e.g. where a litigant abuses a judge personally or hurls furniture into the well of the court. There is no doubt that a judge has jurisdiction to deal with such cases although it would be a rough justice.. Therefore the law provides for at least appeal from any order or decision of a court punishing for contempt.
concluded