Question

PRINCIPLE: Justice must not only be done, but also be seen to be done.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A judge is a shareholder in Company, which is a party to a case before him. The integrity of the judge is above suspicion. Both the opposing counsels affirm their faith in the impartiality of the judge. The case is at the stage of final arguments. The judge however, recluses himself from the case, on the ground of his shareholding.
Which of the following is the most appropriate statement in the light of the Principle cited here?

• A. The judge should have continued hearing the case since he was an honest judge
• B. The judge should have continued hearing since the counsels of both the parties had requested him to do so and , had this agreed to adjudication by him
• C. Had the judge continued to hear the case, its outcome might have appeared to be prejudiced, even though it would not have been so
• D. The judge could have lost objectivity in the case and therefore reclused from it

Answer 1

The correct option is C Had the judge continued to hear the case, its outcome might have appeared to be prejudiced, even though it would not have been so

• It was established in the case of R v Sussex Justice, Exparte McCarthy that mere suspicion of bias is sufficient to overturn a decision of the judiciary. If the judge is somehow related to the party there is a huge probability of him getting influenced by the submissions of the related and thus violating the principle of natural justice of fair hearing. This is irrespective of the fact as to whether the judge would do so on his own conscience or not.
  
• In this case, the judge recluses himself from the case as the case in front of him was of the Company which he was a shareholder of. Had the judge continued to hear the case, its outcome might have appeared to be prejudiced, even though it would not have been so.