Administrative Law

Manak Lal v. Prem Chand Singhvi

AIR 1957 SC 425

Facts

Manak Lal, an advocate, faced disciplinary proceedings for professional misconduct.
A Tribunal was appointed to inquire into the complaint.
The Chairman of the Tribunal, Shri Chhangani, had earlier appeared as counsel for Dr. Prem Chand, the complainant, in related criminal proceedings.
Manak Lal challenged the Tribunal’s constitution on the ground of bias.

Whether the Tribunal was invalid because one member had previously appeared for the complainant.

In judicial/quasi-judicial proceedings, the decision-maker must be impartial.
The test is not actual bias.
The test is whether the party could reasonably apprehend that bias may have operated.
Justice must not only be done, but must also appear to be done.

The Court accepted that Shri Chhangani may not have remembered his earlier appearance for Dr. Prem Chand.
It also accepted that he may not have actually influenced the Tribunal unfairly.
But actual prejudice was not necessary.
Since he had appeared for the complainant in earlier connected proceedings, Manak Lal could reasonably apprehend that the Tribunal may not be fully impartial.
Therefore, the Tribunal was technically vitiated by bias.
However, the Court then considered waiver.
Manak Lal knew the relevant facts: he knew Shri Chhangani had earlier appeared in the connected matter.
He was himself an advocate and was represented by legal counsel.
Despite this, he did not object at the proper time before the Tribunal.
The PPT also notes this point: waiver can be inferred only where the party knew the facts and was aware of the right to object; in Manak Lal, because he was a lawyer and had counsel, waiver was found.

The Supreme Court held that the presence of Shri Chhangani created reasonable apprehension of bias.
But Manak Lal had waived the objection by not raising it at the proper time.
Therefore, the disciplinary decision was not set aside on this ground.
Use this case for two points:
bias: actual prejudice need not be proved;
waiver: a party who knows the facts and still stays silent may lose the right to object later.