Justice should manifestly appear to have been done

Justice should manifestly appear to have been done 18. This was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ors. etc. etc. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. etc. etc. (Date of Judgment 10/05/1985) [1987 AIR 454, 1985 SCR Supl. (1) 657, 1985 SCC (4) 417 1985 SCALE (1)1290], in the following terms. “The question is not whether the judge is actually biased or in fact decides partially, but whether there is a real likelihood of bias. What is objectionable in such a case is not that the decision is actually tainted with bias but that the circumstances are such as to create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of others that there is a likelihood of bias affecting the decision. The basic principle underlying this rule is that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done and this rule has received wide recognition in several decisions of this Court. It is also important to note that this rule is not confined to cases where judicial power stricto sensu is exercised. It is appropriately extended to all cases where an independent mind has to be applied to arrive at a fair and just decision between the rival claims of parties. Justice is not the function of the courts alone; it is also the duty of all those who are expected to decide fairly between contending parties. The strict standards applied to authorities exercising judicial power are being increasingly applied to administrative bodies, for it is vital to the maintenance of the rule of law in a welfare state where the jurisdiction of administrative bodies is increasing at a rapid pace that the instrumentalities of the State should discharge their functions in a fair and just manner.” 19. As already stated above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had in the above case decided the submissions relating to allegation of bias on the ground of necessity.