Question

Nemo Judex in causa sua” or the principle that 'No one can be a judge in his own case‘, relates to which of the following rule of the Natural Justice?

• A. Bias rule
• B. Reasoned decision rule
• C. Hearing rule
• D. All of the above.
• A. Mrs Y is an employee of the same institution and the inquiry should have been conducted by a person outside the institution.
• B. The complaint was filed by a female employee, so the inquiry must have been conducted by a male employee.
• C. Mrs Y is the wife of Mr. X and she holds a personal bias in the case, so the inquiry should not have been conducted by her.
• D. Mr. X being the accused should have conducted the inquiry himself.
• A. Being a judge himself, Mr. A cannot issue such notice of eviction.
• B. Mr. A can issue such notice because it is his duty as a Judge, apart from being a landlord.
• C. Such notice is illegal as Mr. B was not given an opportunity to present his case.
• D. Mr. A issued such notice in his personal capacity as a landlord and not being a judge.
• A. Withholding of an increment of a public servant without giving him an opportunity to defend.
• B. Non-renewal of a contract of employment of an employee after the period of contract is over.
• C. Initiating a departmental inquiry against a public servant, without giving him an opportunity to submit representation during such inquiry.
• D. All of the above.
• A. Adherence to the reasoned decision rule is not required if other two rules are complied with.
• B. Compliance of bias rule itself rejects the need of the hearing and the reasoned decision rule
• C. Principle of Natural Justice is incomplete without the compliance of any of its rules.
• D. The Reasoned Decision rule is a substitute for the bias rule.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

The correct option is (A): Bias rule

Answer 2

The question asks which rule of natural justice the maxim "Nemo Judex in causa sua", no one can be a judge in his own case, relates to. Let's check each option against the three rules described in the passage.

1. Option A (Bias rule): This is correct. The Bias rule requires that the decision-maker be free from bias while deciding a matter. The maxim that no one can judge their own case is the clearest expression of this idea, since a person deciding their own dispute has an obvious personal interest that compromises impartiality.
2. Option B (Reasoned decision rule): This is incorrect. The Reasoned decision rule requires that an order or judgment be supported by valid and reasonable grounds. It has nothing to do with who is deciding the matter or their personal stake in it, so the maxim does not relate to this rule.
3. Option C (Hearing rule): This is incorrect. The Hearing rule requires that the person affected by a decision be given a fair opportunity to present their case. This is about the affected party's right to be heard, not about the impartiality of the decision-maker, so it does not match the maxim.
4. Option D (all of the above): This is incorrect since only the Bias rule actually corresponds to the maxim about judging one's own case.

The maxim "Nemo Judex in causa sua" is specifically about the decision-maker's impartiality, which is exactly what the Bias rule protects.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option A: Bias rule.

Answer 3

The correct option is (C): Mrs Y is the wife of Mr. X and she holds a personal bias in the case, so the inquiry should not have been conducted by her.

Answer 4

The question asks on what ground Mr. X can challenge the ICC's finding against him, given that the inquiry was headed by his own wife, Mrs Y. Let's examine each option.

1. Option A (Mrs Y is an employee of the same institution, inquiry should have been external): This is not the strongest or most accurate ground. Being an employee of the same PSU as Mr. X is not, by itself, a disqualifying factor for every ICC member, since internal committees routinely include employees of the same organisation. The real problem here is not her employment at the same PSU, it is her marital relationship with the accused.
2. Option B (inquiry must be conducted by a male employee since complaint was by a female): This has no basis in law or in the facts. There is no rule that a complaint by a woman must be investigated only by a man, and this option does not address the actual conflict of interest in the case at all.
3. Option C (Mrs Y is the wife of Mr. X and holds a personal bias, so should not have conducted the inquiry): This is correct. Mrs Y's marriage to Mr. X gives her a direct personal stake and relationship with the accused, which is precisely the kind of conflict of interest the Bias rule of natural justice is designed to prevent. A spouse sitting in judgment over her own husband's alleged misconduct cannot be seen as an impartial decision-maker, regardless of her professional competence.
4. Option D (Mr. X should have conducted the inquiry himself): This is absurd on its face and directly violates the Bias rule, since it would make the accused the judge of his own case, exactly what "Nemo Judex in causa sua" prohibits.

The clearest and most legally sound ground for challenge is the personal relationship between the decision-maker and the accused, which offends the Bias rule of natural justice.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option C: Mrs Y is the wife of Mr. X and she holds a personal bias in the case, so the inquiry should not have been conducted by her.

Answer 5

The correct option is (D): Mr. A issued such notice in his personal capacity as a landlord and not being a judge.

Answer 6

The question asks how to characterise a judge's action of serving an eviction notice on his tenant for non-payment of rent. Let's work through each option.

1. Option A (being a judge, A cannot issue such a notice): This is incorrect. A person's role as a judge in their professional, adjudicatory capacity is separate from actions they take in their private life, such as managing their own rented property. Nothing prevents a judge from acting as an ordinary landlord in a private commercial relationship.
2. Option B (A can issue the notice because it is his duty as a judge, apart from being a landlord): This is incorrect because serving an eviction notice for unpaid rent is not a judicial duty at all, it is an act any landlord can take under the terms of a tenancy, and framing it as part of A's duty as a judge misdescribes what is happening.
3. Option C (notice illegal, since B was not given an opportunity to present his case): This is incorrect because the Hearing rule of natural justice applies to a decision-making process conducted by an adjudicator or authority exercising some decision-making power over another, not to an ordinary landlord exercising a private contractual right to recover possession for non-payment of rent. There is no adjudicatory proceeding here that would trigger a right to a hearing before the notice itself.
4. Option D (A issued the notice in his personal capacity as a landlord, not as a judge): This is correct. A is acting purely in his private capacity as the owner of the property and party to a tenancy agreement. Serving an eviction notice for non-payment of rent is a routine landlord action under contract and property law, and it has no connection to A's separate professional role as a judge, so no issue of judicial bias or natural justice arises from his judicial office.

Since A's action here flows entirely from his private role as landlord under an ordinary tenancy arrangement, and not from any exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial power, none of the natural justice concerns tied to his position as a judge come into play.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option D: Mr. A issued such notice in his personal capacity as a landlord, and not being a judge.

Answer 7

The correct option is (B): Non-renewal of a contract of employment of an employee after the period of contract is over.

Answer 8

Natural justice requires that no person be condemned unheard (audi alteram partem) and that decisions affecting civil consequences be preceded by a fair opportunity to be heard. The question asks which of the four situations does not violate this principle. Let's examine each option in turn.

1. Withholding an increment without an opportunity to defend: An increment is a financial benefit tied to service conditions, and withholding it visits civil consequences on the employee. Denying the concerned public servant a chance to explain his conduct before the increment is stopped is a clear breach of the right to a hearing, so this action does violate natural justice.
2. Non-renewal of a contract after the contract period is over: A contractual employee does not possess a vested right to continued employment once the agreed term expires, the employer is merely declining to enter into a fresh contract rather than taking away an existing right. Since no existing right is being disturbed and no adverse finding is being recorded against the employee, there is nothing that calls for a prior hearing. Mere non-renewal, as distinguished from termination during the currency of a contract, does not attract the principles of natural justice.
3. Initiating a departmental inquiry without allowing representation during the inquiry: A departmental inquiry can result in serious consequences such as reduction in rank, dismissal, or other punitive action. Denying the employee a chance to place his version of events while the inquiry is in progress strikes directly at the audi alteram partem rule and therefore amounts to a violation.
4. All of the above: Since options (1) and (3) do involve a violation, this option cannot be correct, because at least one of the listed situations, non-renewal of contract, does not amount to a violation.

Only non-renewal of a contract after its term expires leaves no existing right disturbed and does not require a prior hearing, unlike withholding an increment or conducting a one-sided inquiry.

Therefore, the correct answer is Non-renewal of a contract of employment of an employee after the period of contract is over.

Answer 9

The correct option is (C): Principle of Natural Justice is incomplete without the compliance of any of its rules.

Answer 10

Natural justice rests on three independent limbs: the rule against bias, the right to a fair hearing, and the duty to give a reasoned decision. The question asks which statement about these three rules is true. Let's test each option against this framework.

1. Adherence to the reasoned decision rule is not required if other two rules are complied with: The three rules do not substitute for one another. A decision-maker who is unbiased and who has heard the affected party can still act arbitrarily if the eventual order discloses no reasons, since reasons are what allow the losing party to know why the decision went against him and to test it in appeal or review. Compliance with the first two rules does not excuse non-compliance with the third, so this statement is false.
2. Compliance of the bias rule itself rejects the need of the hearing and the reasoned decision rule: Freedom from bias only ensures that the adjudicator has no personal stake in the outcome, it says nothing about whether the affected party was given a chance to present his case or whether the final order explains itself. The three rules operate on different aspects of a fair process and cannot be collapsed into one, so this statement is false.
3. Principle of Natural Justice is incomplete without the compliance of any of its rules: Because bias, hearing, and reasoned decision each guard against a distinct kind of unfairness, natural justice as a whole is only satisfied when all three are observed together. Missing even one rule leaves the process incomplete, which matches how the doctrine is actually applied.
4. The Reasoned Decision rule is a substitute for the bias rule: Giving reasons for a decision does not, by itself, establish that the decision-maker was impartial. An unbiased outcome and a reasoned outcome are separate requirements that must both be met, one cannot stand in for the other, so this statement is false.

Since none of the three rules can replace or absorb the other two, natural justice is only fully satisfied when bias-free adjudication, a fair hearing, and a reasoned decision are all present together.

Therefore, the correct answer is Principle of Natural Justice is incomplete without the compliance of any of its rules.