Question

Judicial obstinacy as a new form of bias was laid down in which judgment?

• A. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India
• B. A.K. Kraipak v Union of India
• C. State of West Bengal v Shivananda Pathak
• D. A. U. Kureshi v High Court of Gujarat

Hint:

Judicial obstinacy represents a "closed mind" on the part of the adjudicator.
The test for bias is whether there exists a "reasonable apprehension of bias" in the mind of a reasonable person, not actual bias.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks for the landmark Indian Supreme Court judgment that recognized "judicial obstinacy" as a form of bias, thereby invalidating a judicial or quasi-judicial decision.

Step 2: Key Legal Principles and Approach:
The rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua) is a fundamental pillar of the principles of natural justice.
While traditional forms of bias include pecuniary bias, personal bias, subject-matter bias, and policy bias, Indian courts have expanded this category to include "judicial obstinacy."

Step 3: Detailed Explanation:

• The Case: The doctrine of "judicial obstinacy" was laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of West Bengal v. Shivananda Pathak (1998).

• Facts and Legal Issue: The case involved a judge who had already expressed a strong, unyielding view on a specific matter in a previous judgment, and when the matter was remanded, insisted on presiding over the case and passing the same order despite superior court directions.

• Supreme Court's Finding: The Supreme Court held that "judicial obstinacy" or the stubborn insistence of a judge to hear a matter and decide it in a pre-determined manner, despite contrary legal directions, constitutes a form of bias.

• The Court noted that a judge must have an open mind and be receptive to arguments.

• If a judge exhibits a closed-mind attitude and stubbornness to persist with their own preconceived notions, it violates the requirement of an impartial tribunal.

• Analysis of other options:

• A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India is famous for extending natural justice to administrative actions and dealing with personal bias.

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India expanded the scope of post-decisional hearings and Article 21.

• Therefore, Option (C) is the correct answer.

Step 4: Final Answer:
The Supreme Court established "judicial obstinacy" as a form of bias in the case of *State of West Bengal v. Shivananda Pathak*, making Option (C) the correct answer.