Himachal Pradesh National Law University

Shimla

Personal Biases And Its Impact On Administrative Decision Making With Reference To
Union Of India V Tata Cellular Case.

Submitted by: Submitted to:

Dr. Chandrika Madhvendra Pal Singh

Associate. Professor of law B.B.A L.L.B

Hpnlu, Shimla 4th Semester

Enrolment no.1120212283

1
Acknowledgment

In successfully completing this assignment, many people have helped me. I would like to
thank all those who are have helped in successfully coming out of this assignment

Primarily, I would thank God for being able to complete this assignment with success. Then I
will thank my subject teacher Dr. Chandrika , under whose guidance I learned a lot about
this assignment .his suggestions, and directions have helped in the completion of this
assignment

Finally, I would like to thank my parents and friends who have helped me with their valuable
suggestions and guidance and have been very helpful in various stages of completion.

2
Deceleration

I, Madhvendra Pal Singh, hereby declare that this assignment titled “ Personal Biases And
Its Impact On Administrative Decision Making With Reference To Union Of India V
Tata Cellular Case.” is based on the original research work carried out by me under the
guidance of Dr. Chandrika

The interpretations put forth are based on my reading and understanding of the original texts.
The books, articles, and websites, etc. which have been relied upon by me have been duly
cited in the citation part

3
 Table of content

S.R no Content Page no

1 Introduction 5

2 Case facts 6

3 The Principle of Nemo Judex in Causa Sua 11

4 Case Comment 12

5 Citation 14

4
Introduction

The Union of India v Tata Cellular case is a landmark legal battle that sheds light on the role
of administrative decision-making and its impact on ensuring fairness and justice. This case
comment aims to explore the concept of personal biases and its significance in the context of
administrative decision-making, particularly focusing on the Union of India v Tata Cellular
case. In this case the Government of India issued invitations to all the mobile operators to
establish their networks in the four metro cities the Evaluation Committee was supposed to
peruse and evaluate the tenders under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI),
which had a Director-General of Telecommunication in it. The tender of the
Director-General’s son was selected at the end of the evaluation procedure , the Supreme
Court did not approve the violation of ‘Nemo judex in causa sua’ as without the
Director-General of Communication no tender can be selected and fair evaluation cannot be
done. There was no option of substitution and thus the decision was not liable to be struck
down.

Which lead to question if it was biases , the concept of personal biases refer to the
preconceived notions, prejudices, or inclinations that individuas hold based on their personal
beliefs, experiences, or social conditioning. These biases can unconsciously influence an
individual's judgment and decision-making process, as in administrative settings
decision-making plays a crucial role in shaping policies, implementing laws, and resolving
disputes. It is responsible for safeguarding the principles of fairness, justice, and equality
within a legal framework. However, administrators, like any other individuals, are susceptible
to personal biases that may unintentionally seep into their decision-making processes.The
significance of recognizing personal biases in administrative decision-making cannot be
understated. When decision-makers are influenced by personal biases, it can lead to distorted
judgment, unfair treatment, and unequal outcomes. Biases can cloud objectivity, hinder
impartiality, and undermine the principles of justice and equality that administrative decisions
are meant to uphold.

Therefore, it is essential to understand and address personal biases in administrative

decision-making to ensure that outcomes are based on merit, fairness, and the rule of law. By
acknowledging and actively working to mitigate personal biases, administrators can enhance

5
the credibility and legitimacy of their decision-making processes, thereby upholding the
principles of justice and fairness.

Fact of the case

● The Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, invited tenders from

Indian Companies with a view to license the operation of "Cellular Mobile Telephone
Service" in four metropolitan cities of India, namely, Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta and
Madras. Cellular mobile telephone means a telecommunication system which allows
two-ways tele- communication between a mobile or stationary telephone to another
mobile or stationary unit at a location. It may be within or outside the city including
subscriber-cum-dialling and international subscriber-cum-dialling calls. The last date
for submission of tender was 31-3-1992. The tender process was in two stages. First
stage involved technical evaluation and the second involved financial evaluation.
Those who were short-listed at the first stage were invited for the second stage

● Thirty bidders participated initially at the first stage. The first tender evaluation

committee was constituted consisting of senior officers of the Department of

Telecommunications.It short-listed 16 companies, 12 of which were eligible without

any defect. Telecom Commission was constituted on 6-4-1989 comprising a

Chairman and four full-time Members:

1. Member (Production)

2. Member (Services)

3. Member (Technology)

4. Member (Finance)

● It requires to be noted, at this stage, that a Selection Committee also described

asApex/High-Powered Committee comprising the Principal Secretary to the Prime

6
 Ministerand three other Secretaries to the Government of India had been set up by the

Minister forfinal evaluation of the bid.

● Mr B.R. Nair, a member of Telecom Commission came to be appointed as member

(Services) on 29-5-1992. It appears the Selection Committee met a number of times

and discussed the matter with the Minister. He submitted an interim report on

16-7-1992. During this time the Committee not only de novo exercised but also

modified the short-list prepared by the Technical Evaluation Committee and approved

14 companies. The Selection Committee also met the representatives of equipment

manufacturers for the selection of the licensees.

● On 30-7-1992, the financial tenders were issued. It contained seven criteria which had

been approved by the Selection Committee. However, no marks were earmarked for

any ofthe criteria. 17-8-1992 was the cut-off date for financial bid document. On this

date the bidsreceived from 14 companies were opened and read out to the bidders,

who were present.As per the conditions, the quoted rental ceilings and the cities for

which the bids were made,were read out.

● Another Departmental Tender Evaluation Committee consisting of senior

officersexamined the financial bids of the 14 short-listed companies. It adopted some

parameterand devised the marking system which was not done by the Selection

Committee. On 2-9-1992, the second Tender Evaluation Committee submitted its

recommendations. However,the matter was referred back to it for a fresh gradation on

the basis of 21.75 per cent interestrate in respect of 13 per cent rate which it had

earlier adopted. On 7-9-1992 therecommendations were re-submitte. The Adviser

operations recommended only 4 operators based on the evaluation and financial bids.

Bharati Cellular was recommended as a firstchoice for all the four cities, BPL as the

second choice for both Delhi and Bombay, TataCellular and Skycell as second choice

7
 for Calcutta and Madras. This was done since in hisview no other bidder qualified for

licence. On 10-9-1992 the Chairman of the TenderEvaluation Committee directed that

all the documents and recommendations be sent to theSelection Committee for its

consideration and for making final recommendations to theGovernment. When the

file was put up to the Minister on 9-10-1992 he made threeimportant notings :

1. In view of the time taken by the High- Powered Committee the selection process be

completed by DoT internally;

2. Only one party may be granted licence for one city;

3. The actual selection of the licensee should be made primarily on the

considerationof rentals and the marks obtained in respect of foreign exchange inflow

and outflowcriterion and experience of the licensee.

● On 9-10-1992, in accordance with this note, a list of 8 short-listed companies was

prepared. The reasons for rejection of the 6 companies were recorded. The Chairman,

inhis final recommendation, made on 9-10-1992, noted that Bharati Cellular, Modi

Telecomand Mobile Telecom did not fulfil the conditions provided in clause 2.4.7 of

Chapter 11 ofthe financial bid which requires that foreign exchange requirement be

met by foreigncollaborator. With regard to rejection of 6 bidders Sterling Cellular was

rejected becausesome investigation against them was pending before the CBI.

However, the Ministerreversed that decision as to the exclusion of Sterling Cellular

and Indian Telecom Limitedfrom the list of finally approved bidders and directed that

the same be considered.11.On 10-10-1992, the list was recast. Sterling Cellular was

provisionally selected for thecity of Madras. On 12-10-1992, the selected bidders

were notified of their provisionalselection subject to the acceptance of rentals and

other terms as might be advised.

8
● It is under these circumstances, four writ petitions were preferred bearing CWP

Nos.4030, 4031, 4032 and 163 of 1992. The petitioners were1. India Telecomp

(Petitioner in CWP No. 4030 of 1992)2. Adino Telecom Limited (Petitioner in CWP

No. 4031 of 1992)3. Kanazia Digital System (Petitioner in CWP No. 4032 of 1992)4.

Hutchison Max Telecom Private Limited (Petitioner in CWP No. 163 of 1992)13.It

was urged before the High Court of Delhi that the decision of the Government

inselecting 8 parties, two for each of the cities, was bad on the following grounds-(i)

bias(ii)invoking certain hidden criteria(iii)irrelevant considerations(iv)bypassing the

Selection Committee(v) selecting otherwise underqualified parties(vi)marketing

system which was evaluated by the second Technical Evaluation Committeefor

grading various bidders.14.So manipulated thereby a criterion was evolved which was

tailormade to knock out the petitioners before the High Court or resulting in knocking

out of the petitioner in the caseof India Telecomp Limited and Adino Telecom

Limited. Hutchison Max Telecom PrivateLimited urged that it was the highest in the

gradation. Its bid was not considered for atechnical and flimsy reason; in that, the

compliance statement required to be furnished withthe bids was not complete.

Kanazia Digital System contended that its technical bid was leftout on certain wrong

premise.

● .Lengthy arguments were advanced before the High Court. On a consideration of

thosearguments the writ petitions of Adino Telecom and Kanazia Digital System were

dismissed.CYR No. 4030 of 1992 filed by India Telecomp was allowed. A mandamus

was issued toconsider afresh the grant of licence to the petitioner therein, after

evaluating marks for therental on the basis the figures of deposits from subscribers

given for Delhi and Bombaywere accumulated. Similarly, CWP No. 163 of 1992 in

which the petitioner was M/sHutchison Max Telecom Private Limited, was allowed.

A direction was issued toreconsider the case of the petitioner, on the basis the

9
 compliance filed by it, as it was inorder. To that extent the order granting licence to 8

parties (2 for each of the cities) was setaside. This judgment was pronounced on

26-2-1993.16.After the judgment of the Delhi High Court, the matter was

reconsidered in the light ofthe said judgment. A revised list of provisionally selected

bidders was prepared on 27-8-1993. That is as follows :Position as on

12-10-1992Position as on 27-8-1993 Bombay Bombay BharatiCellular Hutchison

Max BPL Projects & Systems Bharati Cellular Delhi Delhi IndiaTelecomp Ltd. BPL

Projects & Systems Tata Cellular Pvt. Ltd. Sterling CellularLtd

● It could be seen from the that TataCellular which was originally selected for Delhi

has been left out. Therefore, it has preferred SLP (Civil) Nos. 14191-94 of 1993.

● The High Court concluded: "We do not think in a case like this the mere fact that Nair

was part of the machinery to make selection was enough to show that there could be

reasonable suspicion or real likelihood of bias in favour of BPL." Therefore the

finding is wrong. Mr Nair's participation from the beginning would not constitute

bias.

10
The Principle of Nemo Judex in Causa Sua

The Latin phrase "nemo judex in causa sua" translates to "no one should be a judge in their own
cause." This principle reflects the fundamental concept of natural justice and fairness within legal
systems.
It emphasizes the importance of impartiality and avoiding conflicts of interest in judicial
proceedings. It asserts that a person who has a personal interest or stake in a particular case
should not preside over that case or make decisions regarding it. This principle ensures that the
decision-maker remains unbiased, objective, and capable of delivering a fair judgment.

The application of this principle extends beyond the judiciary and is relevant in administrative
decision-making processes as well. It underscores the need for decision-makers, including
administrators, to maintain independence and impartiality when dealing with matters that may
directly affect their personal interests by adhering to the principle of "nemo judex in causa sua,"
administrative decision-makers can uphold the integrity of the decision-making process, promote
fairness, and protect against potential abuses of power. It prevents situations where personal
biases or conflicts of interest may influence or compromise the objectivity of decisions.

Though the doctrine of necessity is an exception to the principle of ‘Nemo judex in causa
sua’. According to the said principle, on the basis of bias, an authority is liable to be
disqualified. When the doctrine of necessity is invoked, it acts as a defence even when the
law is violated making the decision unbiased and valid. However, the said doctrine can only
be invoked in certain situations wherein if the doctrine is not invoked, then it would lead to
the total termination of the matter thereby causing greater harm. Further, the said doctrine
cannot be applied in every case, i.e., the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that the said doctrine
can only be invoked in case of absolute necessity.

11
Case Comment

It is submitted that the reasonableness in administrative law means to distinguish between

proper use or improper use of power. The test is not the court's own standard of
reasonableness. There is a possibility of fallibility inherent in all fact- findings.The
short-listing at the first stage, the allotment of cities at the second stage and the selection of
franchisees qua cities at the third stage level. Therefore, possibility of elimination of
arbitrariness is conceived in the system itself. The hidden criteria cannot be impugned. There
is no mention of any particular criterion on the basis of which the selection was to be made.
At the second stage what was required to be kept in mind were the parameters mentioned the
criteria for selection to each of the four cities had to be provided inter alia because the
tenderer did not tender for one city alone but for more than one.

However, because public authorities are involved, the courts do allow for intervention in
terms of how a decision, action, or process was reached. To be successful, the challenging
party must show that the public authority’s decision, action, or process was (a) arbitrary,
irrational, mala fide, whimsical, or contrary to law; (b) done to favour someone; or (c) done
with an ulterior motive; (d) an abuse of statutory powers; or (e) harming the public interest.
Furthermore, the challenging party could show that the condition for which non-compliance
is being claimed was essential or non-essential. It is now well established that the courts can
scrutinise the award of contracts by the Government or its agencies in order to prevent
arbitrariness or favouritism

The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the
decision was made. As the court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative
decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own
decision, without the necessary expertise, which itself may be fallible.
The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation
to tender is in the realm of contract. The Government must have freedom of contract. In other
words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body
functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision
must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness

12
(including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected
by bias or actuated by mala fides.

Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead
to increased and unbudgeted expenditure.

the case laws describe its boundaries of couts also the courts are usually loath to interfere in
tenders, and usually prefer that they be dealt by personal who are subject-matter experts. it is
however to be noted that courts will not hesitate to interfere if salutary principles of natural
justice, such as audi alterum partem and the rule against bias is breached.

In Tata Cellular v. Union of India, the Supreme Court stipulated that judicial review is
concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision but the decision-making process
itself. If an administrative decision is allowed to be reviewed, it will replace its own decision
which could be fallible by itself. The court's duty is to confine itself to the question of
legality. The court's duty is to confine itself to the issue of legality.

The aim should be:

1. Whether the decision-making authority exceeds its power.

2. Committed an error of law.
3. Committed a breach of the rules of natural justice.
4. Reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached.
5. Abuse its power.

There is no desirability for untrammeled judicial review. Arbitrariness based on

proportionality theory is still without foundation. There is also no basis for not justifying the
administrative action on merit. Court must confine itself to the manner in which it made a
decision or issued an order. It is not about the merits of the decision at all.Present Scenario in
India over Administrative Actions

Judicial review is central in dealing with the malignancy in the exercise of power. However,
in the changed circumstances of socio-economic development in the country the Court is
emphasizing as˜self restraint'. Unless the administrative action is violative of law or the
Constitution or is arbitrary or mala fide, Courts should not interfere in administrative
decisions.

13
Citations

● https://indiankanoon.org/doc/

● https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/10/18/judicial-restraint-in-
tender-matters-a-perspective/

● https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1421-the-doctrine-of-j
udicial-review-and-its-scope-in-india-writ-legislation-administrative-
and-constitutional-amendments.html

● https://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1113/Doctrine-of-Necessity
.html

● https://www.mondaq.com/india/government-contracts-procurement--
ppp/1091090/scope-of-judicial-review-in-awarding-of-tenders

● https://legaldata.in/court/read/794737

● https://www.taxmann.com/post/blog/understanding-the-nature-and-s
cope-of-administrative-law/

● https://blog.ipleaders.in/all-about-the-doctrine-of-necessity/

● https://blog.ipleaders.in/all-about-the-doctrine-of-necessity/

● https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-362712.pdf

14