Abstract

Administrative decision-making plays a crucial role in governance, impacting the rights, liberties, and entitlements of individuals. However, when decisions are influenced by bias—whether actual, apparent, or institutional—the very foundation of administrative fairness and legality is undermined. Bias in administrative actions may arise from personal interests, preconceived notions, prejudicial attitudes, or improper influence, leading to violations of natural justice, particularly the principle of nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause). Recognizing the far-reaching implications of biased decisions, legal systems across jurisdictions, including India, have established safeguards to ensure impartiality and transparency. This paper examines the concept of bias in administrative law, categorizing it into personal bias, pecuniary bias, subject-matter bias, and policy bias. It discusses the legal standards developed through landmark judicial decisions, such as A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, which have expanded the scope of procedural fairness and emphasized the necessity of an unbiased decision-maker. The study further analyses statutory provisions, such as the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and evolving administrative practices aimed at mitigating bias. In addition to safeguards, the paper explores the remedies available to affected individuals, including judicial review through writ petitions under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India, declaratory relief, injunctions, and damages. It critically assesses the effectiveness of these remedies, addressing challenges such as the burden of proof, judicial restraint, and administrative efficiency. Ultimately, the paper argues for a more robust institutional framework to preempt bias and enhance accountability. Recommendations include enhanced training for decision-makers, greater transparency measures, and the codification of ethical standards. By strengthening legal safeguards and remedies, administrative decision-making can better fulfill its mandate of fairness, legality, and public trust.

Keywords