The person who decides upon the case should by no means have any benefit or detriment in the result or outcome of the case. Any doubt of any occurrence of partiality, biasness or suspicion renders the official disabled from acting as a judge of the case. It is a very significant to follow this principle, as any apprehension or doubts in the minds of the public or citizens of the nation, would cast a doubt on the entire system as a whole and the Judiciary set up of the nation. And it may also give way to a question of doubt upon the Judge who has no personal interest at all from the outcome of the judgement.
There were cases where allegations have been made against a Judge of having bias/prejudice at any stage of the proceedings or after the proceedings are over. The Judicial process demands that a judge moves within the framework of relevant legal rules. He must think dispassionately and submerge private feeling on every aspect of a case.
The Apex Court has stated that where any party suspects any type of biasness or partially at any step of the proceedings and is aware of its right to raise an objection then that issue should be raised by the party at the earliest or else that right would deemed to have been waived by the party.
But there is a good deal of shallow talk that the judicial robe does not change the man within it? Yes, it does. The fact is that, on the whole, judges do lay aside private views in discharging their judicial functions. This is achieved through training, professional habits, self- discipline and that fortunate alchemy by which men are loyal to the obligation with which they are entrusted.
The question is not whether the Judge is actually biased or, in fact, has really not decided the matter impartially, but whether the circumstances are such as to create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of others that there is a likelihood of bias affecting the decision.
There may be some consternation and apprehension in the mind of a party and undoubtedly, he has a right to have fair trial, as guaranteed by the Constitution. The apprehension of bias must be reasonable, i.e. which a reasonable person can entertain. Even in that case, he has no right to ask for a change of Bench, for the reason that such an apprehension may be inadequate and he cannot be permitted to have the Bench of his choice.
Thus, it is evident that the allegations of judicial bias are required to be scrutinised taking into consideration the facts of the case in hand. The court must bear in mind that a mere ground of appearance of bias and not actual bias is enough to vitiate the judgment/order. Actual proof of prejudice in such a case may make the case of the party concerned stronger, but such a proof is not required. In fact, what is relevant is the reasonableness of the apprehension in that regard in the mind of the party. However, once such an apprehension exists, the trial/judgment/order etc. stands vitiated for want of impartiality. Such judgment/order is a nullity and the trial “coram non-judice”.
