Ponj

Question 1

Nemo Jude’s in causa sua

Types of bias

Answer 1

1. Personal bias - AK KRAIPAK vs UOI - selector was selected
2. Pecuniary bias - set aside the book list prepared by the commitee
3. Official bias - first GULLAPALI CASE - person against NATIONALISATION OF MOTOR TRANSPORT SCHEME
4. Judicial obstinacy - state of Bengal vs shivananda Pathak

Question 2

5 points under Audi Altrem partem

Answer 2

1. Adequate notice
2. Pre decisional hearing
3. Cross examine evidence and rt to rebut adverse evidence
4. Disclosure of all evidence to all parties
5. No right to be represented by lawyer, unless expressly provided by the statute
6. Speaking orders

Question 3

Reasoned decisions or speaking orders are held part of PONJ under which case

Answer 3

Siemens engg & manufacturing vs UOI

Question 4

5 reasons to give speaking orders

Answer 4

1. Clarity. Helps reader to fully understand the conclusions
2. Stands guard to non application of mind and arbitrariness. Public confidence
3. Higher authority to verify ( Maneka Gandhi case- rt to appeal stands futile )
4. Rational nexus between facts presented and conclusion arrived
5. Wider principle - justice must not only be done but must seen to be done
6. SN Mukherjee case - unless expressly barred by law or implied by public interest
7. Sunil Batra case

Question 5

PONJ applicable to administrative action

Answer 5

1. Traditionally only judicial or quasi judicial bodies. Ridge vs baldwin- whole Range of administrative action which affect civil liberty
2. Am kraipak vs uoi- court distinguished between administrative and quasi judicial function- nature, whom, framework, consequences

However held- diluted. Pestilential incantation

3. Mohinder vs eci- read into everything
4. Maneka Gandhi - to everything that affects life and liberty
5. Traits of nj - 14, 21, 22, 311

Hence not the label of the act, but its effect on right and civil consequences

Question 6

Deviation from PONJ

Answer 6

1. Public interest or matter of urgency - upheld in UOI vs tulsi ram Patel- predecisional hearing
2. Safety of the petitioner - cross examining the witness excluded. Harinath Mishra vs principal rmc
3. Confidentiality requirements
4. Security of the state
5. Expressly provided in statute - reasoned decisions need not be given
6. Useles formality theory - no observance immaterial
7. 311- criminal convictions, competant authority gives in writing - not practical, if president or governor - not expedient if security of state is concerned