Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. In Girija Shankar Pant's case (supra) this Court having regard to the changing structure of the society stated that the modernisation of the society with the passage of time, has its due impact on the concept of bias as well. Tracing the test of real likelihood and reasonable suspicion, reliance was placed in the decision in the case of Parthasarthy (S. Parthasarthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh4), wherein Mathew, J. observed :

"16. the tests of "real likelihood" and "reasonable suspicion" are really inconsistent with each other. We think that the reviewing authority must make a determination on the basis of the whole evidence before it, whether a reason- able man would in the circumstances infer that there is real likelihood of bias. the Court must look at the impression which other people have. This follows from the principle that Justice must not only be done but seen to be done. If right minded persons would think that there is real likelihood of bias on the part of an inquiring officer, he must not con- duct the enquiry; nevertheless, there must be a real likelihood of bias. Surmise or conjecture would not be enough. There must exist circumstances from which reasonable men would think it probable or likely that the inquiring officer will be prejudiced against the delinquent. the Court will not inquire whether he was really prejudiced. If a reasonable man would think on the basis of the existing circumstances that he is likely to be prejudiced, that is sufficient to quash the decision (see per Lord Denning, H.R. in Metropolitan Properties Co. (F.G.C.) Ltd. v. Lannon and Others, etc.: 1968(3) WLR 694 at 707). We should not, however, be understood to deny that the Court might with greater propriety apply the "reasonable suspicion" test in criminal or in proceedings analogous to criminal proceedings."