Law: Ehtesab Act, 1997

Section: 3, 4(2), 15, 2(f), 9 & 10

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 342 Object of S.342

(a) Bias in a Judge :- Description, test and kinds of bias Accused having right of a fair trial by a judicial minded person, not functioning under an influence which might paralyse his judicial faculties as to result in absence of a fair trial Bias would vitiate judicial proceedings if such circumstances were created or brought about by the Judge as would rob him of the confidence that a litigant may have in the Judge Principles."Bias" is synonymous with "partiality", and has strictly to be distinguished from "prejudice". Under particular circumstances, bias has been described as a condition of mind; and has been held to refer, not to views entertained regarding a particular subject matter, but to the mental attitude or disposition toward a particular person and to cover all varieties of, personal hostility or prejudice against him.Not only is a person affected by an administrative decision entitled to have his case heard by the agency seized with its determination, but he may also insist on his case being heard by a fair Judge, one free from bias. Bias in this context has usually meant that the adjudicator must have no financial interest in the matter under dispute, but it is not necessarily so limited and allegations of bias have been upheld in circumstances where there was no question of any financial interest.A Judge must decline resolutely to act in a case involving his own interest, including those of persons whom he regards and treats as near relatives or close friends.A Judge must refuse to deal with any case in which he has a connection with one party or its lawyer more than the other, or even with both parties and their lawyers.To ensure that justice is not only done, but is also seen to be done, a Judge must avoid all possibility of his opinion or action in any case being swayed by any consideration of personal advantage, 'either direct or indirect.There must be circumstances from which a reasonable man would think it likely or probable that the justice, or chairman, as the case may be, would, or did, favour one side unfairly at the expense of the other. The Court will not enquire whether he did, in fact, favour one side unfairly. Suffice it that…