Administrative Law

D.K. Khanna v. Union of India

AIR 1970 SC 150

Facts

D.K. Khanna and others challenged the 1971 Select List for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service.
The Selection Committee included B.C. Negi as one of its members.
One selected candidate, H.S. Negi, was B.C. Negi’s father-in-law.
The petitioners argued that this created bias in the selection process.

Whether the selection list was vitiated because a committee member’s close relative was one of the candidates.

The rule is nemo judex in causa sua — no one should be a judge in a matter where they have an interest.
The test is not actual bias.
The test is whether there is a reasonable likelihood of bias.
Even administrative selection proceedings must follow natural justice where civil consequences are involved.

The Court accepted that B.C. Negi was not deciding his own case directly.
But the relationship between him and H.S. Negi was extremely close: father-in-law and son-in-law.
This was close enough to create a reasonable impression that B.C. Negi may support H.S. Negi’s candidature.
The Court rejected the argument that B.C. Negi had remained silent when H.S. Negi’s case was considered.
Silence did not cure the problem.
In a selection committee, members do not work like machines. Their presence itself can influence discussion.
The Court relied on the logic of A.K. Kraipak: in group deliberations, each member influences the others, sometimes subtly.
It also rejected the argument that B.C. Negi was junior-most and therefore could not influence the committee.
He was still an equal member of the committee, and his views could carry weight.
Therefore, the selection process created a real likelihood of bias.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the selection list was vitiated by bias.
The presence of B.C. Negi on the committee made the proceedings invalid because his father-in-law was a candidate.
The Court treated this as a violation of natural justice.
Use this case for: close personal relationship between decision-maker and candidate can invalidate administrative selection, even without proof of actual bias.
It is a strong follow-up case after A.K. Kraipak for showing how the rule against bias applies to selection committees. MP Jain also treats D.K. Khanna as part of the rule against bias line of cases.