Nemo In Propria Causa Judex Case Study

1609 Words7 Pages
The principle on which the doctrine of necessity is based has its origin in the writings of Henry de Bracton, who is a medieval jurist. Doctrine of necessity is contrary to the concept of Nemo in propria causa judex, which means that any person should not become the judge in a conflict of interest scenario. Nemo in propria causa judex is also known as rule against bias and is the minimum necessity of the natural justice required to be followed by decision making authorities who must act impartially and fairly without bias and prejudice. The rule of Nemo in propria causa judex is based on the concept of ensuring public confidence in the administrative decision making process. In the judicial and quasi judicial context, this concept is backed by the basic underlying rule of “Justice must not only be done but also seen to be done”. In this background, the Doctrine of necessity gives legitimacy to decision making by ignoring the possible bias. According to this doctrine, a decision maker subject to disqualification owing to bias or conflict of interest can nevertheless make the decision if: 1) no other decision maker who is competent is available 2) no other competent decision making body can be constituted 3) quorum can’t be achieved without including him In such scenarios, the doctrine of necessity overrules the rule against bias. The logic of the doctrine of necessity is that, if there is a choice between allowing a person with bias to make a decision or to stifle the

More about Nemo In Propria Causa Judex Case Study

Open Document