All India Bar Examination (AIBE) 3-III Previous Year Question Papers with Answers

Practice Mode:
84.

In a challenge to adjudication of disqualification of a member of a legislature, bias was alleged against the Chief election Commissioner on the ground that the complainant was a friend of the Chief Election Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that as there was a suspicion of bias, the Chief Election Commissioner should excuse himself from participating in the decision and let the other two Election Commissioners decide the point. However, there is a difference of opinion between the two Election Commissioners and they are unable to decide the matter. Can the Chief Election Commissioners and they are unable to decide the matter. Can the Chief Election Commissioner participate in the adjudication to resolve the deadlock ?


Principle: If the adjudicator is a friend, relative, or business associate of some party to the dispute, or if he has prior animosity towards such person, this personal bias will operate to disqualify the adjudicator from hearing the dispute. An adjudicator, otherwise disqualified for bias, may nevertheless have to adjudicate if;
(i) no other person competent to adjudicate is available;
(ii) quorum cannot be formed without such adjudicator;
(iii) or no other competent tribunal can be formed.

A: A The Chief Election Commissioner cannot participate in the adjudication, as the Supreme Court has already ordered that the Chief Election Commission step aside from the adjudication.
B: The Chief Election Commissioner cannot participate in the adjudication, as personal bias has already disqualified the Chief Election Commissioner.
C: The Chief Election Commissioner cannot participate in the adjudication, the Chief as Election Commissioner will now be even more biased towards the complainant.
D: The Chief Election Commissioner can participate in the adjudication as no other person competent to adjudicate and resolve the deadlock's available.
E: The Chief Election Commissioner can participate in the adjudication as the required quorum cannot be formed in this instance.

The answer is: D

<< Previous Question
Next Question >>

Explanation

The correct option is D: The Chief Election Commissioner can participate in the adjudication as no other person competent to adjudicate and resolve the deadlock is available.

Explanation:

In the given scenario, the Supreme Court had initially held that there was a suspicion of bias against the Chief Election Commissioner due to his friendship with the complainant. As a result, the Chief Election Commissioner was asked to excuse himself from participating in the decision, and the other two Election Commissioners were supposed to decide the matter. However, a difference of opinion arose between the two Election Commissioners, and they were unable to reach a decision.

The principle provided states that an adjudicator disqualified for bias may have to adjudicate if certain conditions are met, including the absence of any other competent person to adjudicate. In this case:

(i) The other two Election Commissioners were unable to decide the matter, indicating that there was no other competent person available to resolve the dispute.

(ii) Since the two Election Commissioners couldn't agree, it's likely that a quorum couldn't be formed without the Chief Election Commissioner's participation, further emphasizing the lack of other competent individuals to decide the matter.

Given these circumstances, the Chief Election Commissioner can participate in the adjudication to resolve the deadlock because there are no other competent persons available to do so, as per the principle mentioned.