Site navigation

Direction: Answer the question based on the following Principle and Facts. PRINCIPLE: Justice must not only be done, but also be seen to be done. FACTS: A judge is a shareholder in a Company, which…

Question and options

Direction: Answer the question based on the following Principle and Facts.
PRINCIPLE: Justice must not only be done, but also be seen to be done.

FACTS: A judge is a shareholder in a Company, which is a party to a case before him. The integrity of the judge is above suspicion. Both the opposing counsels affirm their faith in the impartiality of the judge. The case is at the stage of final arguments. The judge, however, recuses himself from the case, on the ground of his shareholding.

Which of the following is the most appropriate statement in the light of the Principle cited here?
  1. Had the judge continued to hear the case, its outcome might have appeared to be prejudiced, even though it would not have been so.
  2. The judge should have continued hearing the case since he was an honest judge.
  3. The judge should have continued hearing since the counsels of both the parties had requested him to do so and had thus agreed to adjudication by him.
  4. The judge would actually have decided the case in favour of the company, and therefore recused from it.

Answer and explanation

Correct answer: A - Had the judge continued to hear the case, its outcome might have appeared to be prejudiced, even though it would not have been so.
The principle is about appearances: the judge's integrity is not in doubt, but his shareholding could make the outcome look biased, so recusal is proper because justice must be seen to be done. The claim that he would actually have favoured the company contradicts the facts (his integrity is above suspicion), and the 'honest judge' and 'counsels agreed' choices ignore the principle.

Practice for these exams

  • CUSAT CAT LLM

Related question papers

Related exam syllabi

More solved explanations in Reasoning