Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa or Nemo judex in causa sua or Nemo judex in sua causa – Nobody can be the judge in his own case.
Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa
Also known as:
Nemo judex in causa sua
Nemo judex in sua causa
Meaning:
This Latin legal maxim means “No one should be a judge in his own cause” or “Nobody can be a judge in his own case.”
It is one of the two core principles of Natural Justice, the other being “Audi alteram partem” (hear the other side).
Explanation of the Principle:
The principle ensures that judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative authorities must act impartially, without bias or conflict of interest. If a person adjudicates a matter in which they have a personal interest, then the decision is invalid due to bias (real or perceived).
Even the likelihood of bias (not necessarily actual bias) is sufficient to disqualify a person from acting as judge in a particular case.
Types of Bias Covered Under the Maxim:
Pecuniary Bias: Financial interest in the outcome.
Personal Bias: Relationship with one of the parties.
Official Bias: Prejudgment due to official policy or commitment.
Subject Matter Bias: Involvement or interest in the issue under dispute.
Important Case Law Illustrations
1. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC 150)
Facts: A member of the selection board was also a candidate for selection.
Held: Supreme Court quashed the selection.
It held that even an appearance of bias violates the principle of natural justice.
Importance: The case blurred the distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial actions and emphasized fairness in both.
2. Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 611
Facts: An army officer was court-martialed, and the officer who initiated the disciplinary action was also involved in adjudicating the case.
Held: This was a clear case of bias, violating the principle nemo judex in causa sua.
Importance: Reiterated that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.
3. Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 HLC 759 (UK case)
Facts: The Lord Chancellor gave judgment in a case involving a company in which he held shares.
Held: The judgment was invalid because of pecuniary interest, even though no actual bias was proved.
Importance: Even a small financial interest disqualifies a judge from hearing a matter.
4. Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi (AIR 1957 SC 425)
Facts: A lawyer's professional misconduct case was heard by a committee where the chairman had prior involvement against the lawyer.
Held: The proceedings were held vitiated due to reasonable apprehension of bias.
5. Mineral Development Ltd. v. State of Bihar (AIR 1960 SC 468)
Held: A person cannot decide a matter in which they are directly or indirectly interested. The maxim applies not only to courts but to administrative actions too.
Application of the Maxim in Indian Law
Applicable to courts, tribunals, commissions, inquiry officers, and administrative authorities performing adjudicatory functions.
Ensures fairness, transparency, and public confidence in the justice delivery system.
Exceptions / Limitations:
Doctrine of Necessity: If no other authority is available to decide the case, a biased person may decide it out of necessity (e.g., President deciding certain constitutional matters even if interested).
However, this exception is narrowly applied and used only in rare circumstances.
Summary Table:
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Nemo judex in causa sua | No one can judge a case in which they have an interest |
| Basis | Rule of Natural Justice (Fairness and impartiality) |
| Type of Bias | Pecuniary, personal, official, subject-matter |
| Key Cases | A.K. Kraipak, Dimes v. Grand Junction, Ranjit Thakur, Manak Lal |
| Exception | Doctrine of Necessity |
| Effect of Violation | Decision is void or liable to be set aside |
Conclusion:
The maxim "Nemo judex in causa sua" is a cornerstone of judicial ethics and procedural fairness. It ensures that all disputes are resolved by an impartial authority, free from any conflict of interest. Courts across jurisdictions, including in India, have strictly enforced this principle to uphold the integrity of the justice system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments