Richard Thomas says that a law- suit is a game of legal skill in which the judge is neutral. [1]A Judge neither rewards virtue nor chastises vice. He only administers even- handed justice between man and man and even between the citizen and the state[2]. The prime expectation of anyone seeking redress or pursuing a claim before any authority or court is one unbiased and impartial justice.

The slightest doubt on this score and the parties not only loose faith but also begin to bear a grudge both against the presiding officer as well as the system itself Prevalence of rancour and discontent do not speak well of any society. The prime objective of providing justice administratively or through a formal judicial system can only be achieved if decisions are made without bias and free from malafides.

The recent developments further underscore the importance attached by the Indian Judiciary to the observance of rules of natural justice.[3]Principles of natural justice which are judge-made rules and still continue to be a classical example of judicial activism were developed by the courts to prevent accidents in the exercise of outsourced power of adjudication to the administrative authorities.

In India there is no statute laying down the minimum procedure which administrative agencies, must follow while exercising decision-making powers. There is, therefore, a bewildering variety of administrative procedure.

Sometimes the statute under which the administrative agency exercises power lays down the procedure which the administrative agency must follow[4] but at times the administrative agency is left free to devise its own procedure[5]. However, courts have always insisted that the administrative agency must follow a minimum of fair procedure. This minimum fair procedure refers to the principles of natural justice.

Rules of natural justice have developed with the growth of civilization and the content thereof is often considered as a proper measure of the level of civilization and Rule of Law prevailing in the community[6]. Thus natural justice implies fairness, reasonableness, equity and equality.

In a written Constitution, under the separation of powers philosophy of law-making by judiciary has been looked upon as an encroachment on the powers of the legislature. In"exceptional" situations in which the judges did make the law, the assumption was that this kind of law-making had the implicit consent of the legislature, which could modify or set aside the rule if it was dissatisfied with the law-making by the judiciary.

In this context, it may be noted that until the judgment of the court in Golak Nath Case[7], departures from classical declaratory theory were dubbed as aberration of individual "committed" judges rather than rejection by the court of the traditional view of judicial function. With the passage of time, the Supreme Court in many cases has travelled much beyond the limits which it had set for itself in the judicialprocess. It has, whenever necessary, dispensed with rules andprocedures which virtually denied access to underprivileged and weaker sections of the society.

"True sometimes the court has gone beyond the scope of their powers. They have entertained matters they ought not to have entertained, and they have been guilty of populism as well as adventurism in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. Such excesses ought to be prevented or minimized through judicial self restraint. But in the present Indian Scenario, excessive restraint and doctrinaire regard for separation of powers could also be disastrous. Ultimately what a court should entertain and what should not, must be governed by proper exercise of judicial discretion"[8].

Concept Of Natural Justice

Natural justice is a concept of common law and it is the common-law world counterpart of the American 'procedural dueprocess'. Natural justice represents higher procedural principles developed by judges which every administrative agency must follow in taking any decision adversely affecting the rights of a private individual.

Natural justice is not a static concept. It is a part of a judicial vocabulary in the administration of justice. It is not 'extra legislative'. It is recognized as a guiding factor in administrative law and forms the constitutional basis for judicialscrutiny of legislative and executive actions.[9] It is the sense of justice that represents the ethics of judicial conscience. The principles of natural justice cannot be defined in a strait- jacket. Although the principles have occupied a considerable part of the jurisprudence, no authoritative pronouncementdefining its limits have been made.

Adherence to rules of natural justice, as recognised by all civilised States, is of supreme importance, when a quasi- judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties or any administrative or disciplinary action is inquestion. Rules of natural justice serve as hedge against any blatant discrimination against rights of individuals. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice.

They seem to be recognised by Article 21 of the Constitution of India in a way which says, "No person shall be deprived of hislife or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law". This is that procedure which is held by the courts to be the rules of natural justice.

The doctrine of judicial review in democratic states is based on the proposition that the rights of the people are ultimately guaranteed by the judicial litigation system as a whole. Judicial power thus tends to encroach upon administrative power and in India, unlike in England, judicial powers also acts as a corrective to legislative power. This is called "judicial supremacy". The relationship of judicial powerto legislative and administrative powers varies with the type of state structure and consequently the ambit of judicial supremacy also varies. The basis of judicial review in India is the Indian Constitution.[10]

Be it a constitutional case, a criminal case or a civil case, the concept of free and fair trail, equal representation of the parties, no element of biasness; all these principles are followed or in other words- the principles of natural justice and fair trial go hand in hand.

Concept Of Fairness

At present, the Courts give much emphasis on the 'concept of fairness which requires fairness in action of the administration whether the action is judicial, quasi-judicial inquiry both intend to arrive at a just decision and, therefore, both the administrative and judicial or quasi- judicial authorities are required to observe the principle of fair play or fairness in action. It‟s now well established rule that every power should be exercise reasonably and not arbitrarily.

Consequently, the administrative and judicial or quasi-judicial power both are required to be exercised justly and fairly and not arbitrarily or capriciously. The Supreme Court has made it clear that in the absence of contrary indication in statute, procedural fairness is an implied mandatory requirements to protect arbitrary action where statue confers vide power compelled with vide discretion on the authority as in the case of Roshan Lal Yadav v. State of Bihar[11].

However, the doctrine of fairness cannot be invoked to alter express terms of contract of statutory nature as in case of Asstt. Excise Commissioner v. Issac Peter[12]. Jain & Jain in Principles of Administrative Law on page 146 clarified that the term „fairness‟ and „natural justice‟ are used inter changeably.

The idea of natural justice is „fair play of action‟ as in caes of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[13] and in another case of Ridge v. Baldwin. However, the concept of fairness is a term having the impost wider than that of natural justice. Fairness includes the natural justice.

"The doctrine of fairness requires the observanceof the principles of natural justice as well."

The doctrine of fairness provides certain procedural safeguards in addition to the principles of natural justice where the principles of natural justice are not applicable.

Concept Of Bias

"Bias" means an operative prejudice, whether conscious or unconscious, in relation to a party or issue. Such operative prejudice may be the result of a preconceived opinion or a predisposition or a predetermination to decide a case in aparticular manner, so much so that it does not leave the mind open. In other words 'Bias' may be generally defined as partiality or preference which is not founded on reason and is actuated by self- interest, whether pecuniary or personal[14]. Therefore, the rule against bias strikes against those factorswhich may improperly influence a judge in arriving at a decision in any particular case.

Judges is expected to resolve the wide variety of hitherto insoluble disputes that come into Court, wisely, according to law, and so that the parties conclude that they havehad a fair hearing. Further, judges are unable invariably to display omniscience on the legal and non-legal matters raised in their courtrooms. Few, if any, judges are today improperly motivated by bias towards, or against, one party or his cause.But all judges are necessarily influenced in the decisions they make by their upbringing and experience.

The first requirement of natural justice is that the judge should be Impartial and neutral and must be free from bias. It is a well settled principle of law that justice should notonly be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Justice can never see to be cone if a man acts as a judge can his own cause or is himself interested in its outcome[15]. This principle applies not only to judicial proceedings but also quasi-judicial as well as administrative proceedings.[16]

In this chapter, therefore, an attempt has been made to explain the meaning of the term bias and its essential implications in the context of natural justice. The law concerning bias is a product of natural justice which is never a codified law. It operates in the area where the statute is silent. So, no statutory methodology fastening the assumption of bias to a given circumstances is not available. Nonetheless decided cases reveal that in some cases bias would be patent.[17]

In the widest terms, any interest, motive or influence which, in the opinion of the court, may impair the 'objectiveness of a decision', will invalidate a judicial or quasi-judicial determination. The basic principle underlying this rule is that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done.

Separation Of Power

The role of separation of power is to keep an eye on all three bodies-the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary-and to make sure that all three principles-natural justice, fairness, and the rule against favoritism-are followed. As it is well known, when a large amount of power is given to a person or group in charge, there is a greater chance of bad management, corruption, and abuse of power.

This doctrine helps stop people from getting too much power. This doctrine protects people from rules that are made for no good reason. The government is the one who breaks the law and also protects people's rights.

To sum up the importance, the following points can be made:

• It ends autocracy and protects the freedom of the individual.
• It not only protects the freedom of the individual but also keeps the government running smoothly.
• Pay attention to the need for the judiciary to be independent.
• Stop the government from making arbitrary rules.

Separation of powers- UK
The United Kingdom does have a concept of "separation of powers," but it is more of a loose idea there. Black Stone's "mixed government" with checks and balances works better for the United Kingdom. The separation of powers is not an important or defining part of the U.K. Constitution. Since there is no written constitution in the United Kingdom, there is no formal separation of powers.

This means that any Act of Parliament that gives power that goes against the idea of separation of powers could be ruled unconstitutional. The Parliament still has undisputed power, so the Crown rules through ministers who are chosen by the Parliament and have to answer to it. The Act of Settlement, which was passed in 1700, solidified the independence of the courts.

The powers of the Supreme Court are different from those of Parliament. Section 61 of the Constitutional Reforms Act of 2005 explains how judges are appointed. The judges for the Supreme Court and the court of appeals are chosen by this commission. So, the Constitutional Reforms Act of 2005 has, for the most part, made sure that the court is independent.

The three branches still overlap a lot and are not properly separated. Many problems that come up in government are handled by administrative tribunals instead of regular courts. But key parts of "fair judicial procedure" are kept in place, which keeps the tribunals' fairness intact.

Senior justices have said many times that the British Constitution is based on the separation of powers. Even though most of the British Constitution is not written down, it is impossible to say enough about how deeply rooted it is in the separation of powers. The legislature makes the laws, and the courts figure out what they mean.

Separation Of Power- USA
In the US Constitution, the idea of "separation of powers" is written down. It gives legislative power to Congress, which is made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The President is in charge of the government's business, and the Supreme Court and any other Federal Courts that Congress might set up are in charge of the law. The President's powers are spelled out in the Constitution, and he is chosen in a separate election for a fixed four-year term.

The Constitution says that it is his job to make sure that the laws of the country are followed. The President has the power to choose who will be in the Cabinet, which is made up of the people in charge of the most important state departments. This is done to keep the executive branch of government separate from the legislative branch.

The President or any of his secretaries are not allowed to be members of Congress, and any member of Congress who wants to work for the government must first quit Congress. Most of the time, the President can't be removed from office, but the Senate has the power to do so through the impeachment process if he does things like bribery or treason.

The way the Watergate scandal of 1972 affected the President is a good example of this. Once they are chosen, neither Congress nor the President can tell a Supreme Court judge what to do. But they, too, could be removed from their jobs if they did something wrong.

In the case of Marbury v. Madison, which was decided in 1803, the Supreme Court got its power when it said that both the President's acts and the acts of the legislature were against the Constitution. The separation of powers is another part of the Constitution that the Supreme Court said was broken when Congress gave a lot of legislative power to executive agencies.

Separation Of Power: India
We do have the idea of separation of powers in India, but it is not written down anywhere. People have argued about whether or not there is a real separation of power between the three parts of the government or if it is just a myth. India's way of separating power is a broader one, where all three bodies overlap and also check and balance each other.

Bias And Unjust Procedure Leading To A Just Decision- Kesavananda Bharti Case

But this has been sometimes misused. Supreme Court being the apex court of the country has always upheld the principles of natural justice and fair trail. The best example of this is the case of Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerela, through which it protected the basic structure of the constitution; which could have been misused in the hands of government.

Through all the judgements and landmark cases in sequence we know the sequence and aftermath of the case Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerela. But what some do not know is about the violation of one of the principles of Natural justice and that of separation of power which shadowed the landmark case.

This case was the culmination of a struggle for supremacy over the power to amend the constitution between the parliament and government of the day on one hand and the Supreme Court of India on the other. The battle began from Golak nath case and just to get the judgment reversed, the question as to whether the Parliament enjoys the power to amend the constitution or not was raised.

To come to the decision as it stands today, the Supreme Court not only violated one of the principles of natural justice but there was also tint of biasness. As it was a struggle for supremacy, the government too played their cards to win the battle.

Some Of The Instances Of Violation Of All The Above Principles Are Highlighted Below:

• The government was so determined to get the judgment reversed that it made Justice A.N. Ray as the next chief justice after Chief justice Sikri. Justice A.N. Ray was one of the judges who gave his judgment in favour of the parliament's power to amend the constitution. This was made clearer by the facts the three senior most judges were superseded, who were also part of the 13 judge bench and ruled against the government.
   
• Later in 1975, with the help of Chief Justice A.N. Ray, the government tried to reverse the majority verdict by attempting to review it by another bench of 13 judges. After the review failed, the government passed the 42nd amendment act, 1976 during emergency when most of the opposition ministers were in jail.
   
• The case had a political background and there was conflict between the parliament and the Supreme Court which affected some judges in the case and resulted in disregard of the norms of judicial detachment expected of the judges of the highest court. The government was careful to appoint judges who were not likely to be obstructiveto government policies when the constitutional amendments would come up for challenge in the court. Justice Jaganmohan Reddy states that, "I got an impression throughout that the minds were closed and views were predetermined."

Conclusion
It is an irony on the legal system of India. The case that not only upheld the basic structure of the Constitution, protected fundamental rights, established the so-called rule against biasness, itself had so many instances of biasness. To reach towards a decision that wold not only be an example for coming generations but also the most talked about judicial precedent that changed the course of judiciary and upcoming judicial pronouncements, itself had to go against what they are supposed to uphold and protect- separation of power, being true and work without biasness, follow the principles of natural justice and most important of all free and fair trial.

According to me, it was not at all a fair trial, as judges were predetermined with their views and with a closed mind, it is impossible for a person to look beyond ones views and appreciate the facts and circumstances. Another aspect which should be emphasised here is that of the appointment of judges that were appointed by the government, violating the concept of separation of power and above all was the biasness that some of the judges of the bench had towards their own personal interest.

Concluding, I would state that this is a perfect example of unjust process which led to a just decision and that separation of power in India does not exist in its actual sense.

End-Notes:

1. Richard Thomas, Natural Justice and Administrative Proceedings, 126 (1985).
2. Ibid, at p. 127.
3. G.R. Gupta, Judicial Review of Administrative Action through Writs, 98 (1990).
4. 5(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894
5. 33, Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
6. K.I.Shephard v. Union of India,(1987)4 SCC 431 at page 448
7. Ibid, at p, 570.
8. (1969) 3 All E R 275: 1971 AC 297
9. (1978) 1 se c 248,285 :AIR 1978 SC 597,62
10. (1952) 1 K B 189,19
11. (1994) 5 S.C.C. 267
12. (1994) 4 S.C.C. 104
13. A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 579
14. (1963) I.Q.B. 533
15. (1994) 5 S.C.C. 267
16. Jain & Jain in Principles of Administrative Law on page 146
17. A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 967