COLLECTIVE DECISION MAKING HAS MORE CREDIBILITY THAN INDIVIDUAL

DECISION MAKING
This topic involves the concept of bias- no man can be a judge of his own cause. However, the
exception to this is the doctrine of necessity. An adjudicator who is subject to disqualification on
account of bias may nevertheless be able to adjudicate if

• No other person competent to adjudicate is available,

• A Quorum can not be formed without him,

• No other competent tribunal can be constituted.

One must also keep in mind that rules of Natural justice including the rule that no man shall be a
judge in his own cause are subject to statutory provisions. Such rule of natural justice can be
altered, modified and varied by statutory provisions. This was held in para 50 of Mukesh Rao v/s
High court of Punjab and Haryana.

In NK Balaji’s case, it was held that bias falls into 2 categories- suspicion of bias and likelihood
of bias. Likelihood of bias would be the possibility of bias and bias which can be shown to be
present, while suspicion of bias would be probability or reasonable suspicion of bias. The former
leads to vitiation of action, while the latter would hardly be the foundation for further
examination of action.

The landmark case which proves that collective decision making has more credibility than
individual decision making is Mukesh Rao v/s High court of Punjab and Haryana, a 2012
judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High court. In this case, it was decided to terminate the
service of Mukesh Rao during the probation period, Mukesh Rao was under training to be a
member of the subordinate judiciary of Punjab and Haryana. The decision was taken by certain
judges who were members of the full court who endorsed terminating Mukesh Rao. Hence,
Mukesh Rao filed an appeal. When he came to know that his appeal would be heard by the same
judges who recommended his termination as members of the full court, he alleged bias.

The court held that the contentions of the appellants regarding bias were liable to be rejected as
the current judges hearing the appeal, who were part of the full court who had decided to
terminate the services of Mahesh Rao, had no personal interest or any other grudge against
Mahesh Rao. Also, the appellant before the commencement of hearing categorically
submitted that he had no objection whatsoever to the hearing of the matter by the judges
who formed part of the full court recommending termination of services of Mahesh Rao.
Even assuming those judges have bias, the appellant had waived their right via doctrine of
waiver.

Collective decision making is more bias free than individual decision making because

• since there are multiple people involved, their viewpoints will also differ, reducing the
probability of all the multiple members being unilaterally biased against one person.

• in cases like AK Kraipak, bias came into play because one person was both the adjudicator and
the competitor for the same post. This does not happen in collective decision making, as all
multiple members would not be fighting for the same post.

• also, if bias in a harmful way is shown by a singe member towards a person, the others can
overrule him by say a 2:1 majority. this also acts as a safeguard against bias.