Selection Committee Recusal: Prior Contempt Involvement Creates Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, Vitiating SCSC Minutes
1. Introduction
In CAPTAIN PRAMOD KUMAR BAJAJ v. UNION OF INDIA (Supreme Court of India, 30-01-2026; 2026 INSC 101),
the petitioner—an ex-Army officer medically released on disability and later an IRS officer (1990 batch), promoted to Commissioner (2012)—invoked
Article 32 alleging targeted departmental vendetta that repeatedly obstructed his appointment as
Member (Accountant), ITAT.
The dispute stems from a long chain of events: the petitioner was ranked All India Rank One by an earlier
Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC), yet appointment was withheld; thereafter followed repeated litigation, vigilance/disciplinary
steps, inclusion in the “Agreed List,” withholding of vigilance clearance, a charge memorandum, suspension, and a
compulsory retirement under FR 56(j)—later quashed by this Court in an earlier round (judgment dated 03-03-2023).
After contempt proceedings in 2024 and dropping of the charge memorandum in 2024, a fourth SCSC met on 01-09-2024 and rejected him,
with the rejection communicated in November 2025.
The core constitutional issue before the Court in 2026 was whether the fourth SCSC’s decision was vitiated due to
reasonable apprehension of bias, because a member of the SCSC (“the Officer”) had earlier been a contemnor/respondent in
contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioner arising out of the same appointment tussle.
2. Summary of the Judgment
-
The Supreme Court found the petitioner’s allegations of bias, mala fides, and vendetta remained uncontroverted because
the respondents filed no counter affidavit despite opportunity and a specific direction.
-
The Court held that inclusion and participation of “the Officer” (who had faced contempt proceedings at the petitioner’s instance on the same
dispute) created a genuine perception and reasonable apprehension of bias, violating principles of
natural justice.
-
The Court set aside the minutes of the SCSC meeting dated 01-09-2024 insofar as they related to the petitioner.
-
The Court directed DoPT to convene a fresh SCSC meeting within four weeks, ensuring exclusion of “the Officer,”
and to communicate the outcome within two weeks thereafter.
-
For “rank procrastination” and deliberate obstacles “bordering to vendetta,” the Court imposed costs of Rs. 5 lakhs on the respondents,
payable to the petitioner.
3. Analysis
3.1 Precedents Cited
(A) State of Gujarat v. R.A. Mehta
The Court anchored its bias analysis in State of Gujarat v. R.A. Mehta (2013) 3 SCC 1, quoting its articulation that:
(i) bias is a limb of natural justice; (ii) the test is reasonable apprehension from the viewpoint of the public/people at large;
(iii) proof of actual prejudice is not necessary; and (iv) if reasonable apprehension exists, the decision is vitiated and becomes a nullity
(coram non judice).
The present judgment operationalises those principles in a selection/appointment context: a committee member previously facing contempt in relation to
the same dispute is treated as a circumstance sufficient to create a reasonable apprehension of bias, even if the member is “only one among the members.”
(B) S. Parthasarathi v. State of A.P.; State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna; N.K. Bajpai v. Union of India; State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar
These authorities are cited (through R.A. Mehta) to reinforce the “objective probabilities” approach: courts infer likelihood of bias from
surrounding circumstances and public perception rather than requiring direct proof of partiality.
(C) Km. Shailja Srivastava v. Banaras Hindu University
Although a High Court decision, Km. Shailja Srivastava v. Banaras Hindu University (1992 SCC OnLine All 465) was used as a compendium of
bias principles particularly relevant to committees and group decision-making, notably:
- Justice must not only be done but appear to be done.
- Even one disqualified member can vitiate the entire proceedings because subtle influence in group deliberation cannot be measured.
- Actual bias need not be established; reasonable likelihood/apprehension suffices.
- A disqualified person should disassociate/recuse.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning mirrors these propositions: it treated participation of “the Officer” as rendering the process “vulnerable” on natural justice
standards, thereby requiring a fresh committee meeting without that member.
The Court referenced this “catena of decisions” while narrating the earlier 03-03-2023 judgment and later reiterating that where power is exercised for
extraneous purposes, influenced by irrelevant considerations, or actuated by malice in law, judicial review targets the decision-making process.
While the 2026 judgment ultimately rests on bias/natural justice, these citations frame the dispute as one implicating
rule-of-law values in administration, especially where repeated adverse steps and non-compliance suggest institutional hostility.
3.2 Legal Reasoning
-
Pattern of obstruction as context:
The Court treated the petitioner’s long history—IB inputs tied to matrimonial litigation, withholding vigilance clearance, “Agreed List” inclusion,
charge memo, suspension, FR 56(j) retirement later quashed, and repeated non-compliance leading to contempt—as probative background showing how selection
outcomes could be affected by departmental hostility.
-
Uncontroverted pleadings strengthened the petitioner’s case:
The respondents’ failure to file a counter affidavit (despite an express one-time opportunity) led the Court to treat allegations of bias and vendetta as
effectively untraversed. This did not substitute for proof of bias, but it removed any competing factual narrative and reinforced the Court’s readiness to
order corrective process-based relief.
-
Bias standard applied: “reasonable apprehension,” not actual proof:
Relying on State of Gujarat v. R.A. Mehta, the Court held that the decisive question is whether the circumstances create a reasonable
apprehension of bias. Because “the Officer” had earlier faced contempt proceedings at the petitioner’s instance concerning the same dispute, the Court
found a reasonable apprehension of animus and partiality.
-
Group decision-making does not cure bias:
The respondents could have argued that the officer was only one member; the Court pre-empted this by holding that presence and participation itself
rendered the decision-making process vulnerable, consistent with the committee-bias logic emphasised in Km. Shailja Srivastava v. Banaras Hindu University.
-
Remedy tailored to process, not direct appointment:
Rather than ordering appointment, the Court set aside the tainted minutes and ordered a fresh SCSC meeting excluding the officer, thereby restoring
institutional legitimacy of selection while addressing natural justice breach.
-
Costs for administrative obstruction:
The Court imposed Rs. 5 lakhs costs to mark judicial disapproval of procrastination and deliberate obstacles “bordering to vendetta,” using costs as both
compensation and deterrence.
3.3 Impact
-
Recusal expectations in selection committees:
The judgment strengthens an operational rule: where a committee member has been in an adversarial posture with a candidate in connected proceedings
(here, having faced contempt at the candidate’s instance), recusal is expected to avoid vitiation on “appearance of bias” grounds.
-
Process legitimacy over outcome finality:
By ordering reconsideration by a reconstituted SCSC (excluding the contentious member), the Court reaffirms that administrative selections must satisfy
visible fairness, not merely internal correctness.
-
Consequences of non-response in constitutional litigation:
The decision demonstrates that failure to file a counter affidavit, especially after explicit warning, can materially influence relief by leaving allegations
uncontroverted and inviting adverse procedural inferences.
-
Deterrence against “administrative attrition”:
The explicit condemnation of procrastination and the imposition of costs may discourage the practice of delaying tactics to render selection/tenure relief
illusory (particularly where age/tenure windows are narrow).
4. Complex Concepts Simplified
- Article 32
-
A constitutional remedy allowing a person to directly approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. In service-related disputes it is
not routine, but the Court treated the facts as exceptional due to allegations of systemic unfairness and natural justice violations.
- Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC)
-
A committee tasked with evaluating and recommending candidates for appointment. Because it performs a public function affecting rights/entitlements, it must
conform to natural justice standards.
- Principles of Natural Justice / Nemo judex in propria causa
-
Core fairness rules. “No one should be a judge in their own cause” means a decision-maker must be impartial and must appear impartial.
- Doctrine of Bias (Reasonable Apprehension Test)
-
The question is not whether bias is proven, but whether circumstances would lead a reasonable person (and the public) to suspect a likelihood of bias.
If yes, the decision can be invalidated.
- Coram non judice
-
“Before a person not a judge” — a decision is treated as a nullity because the process lacked jurisdictional fairness (e.g., tainted by bias).
- FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement
-
A power to retire a government servant “in public interest” after a certain age/service threshold. In the petitioner’s earlier round, the Court held its use
was punitive and meant to short-circuit disciplinary proceedings.
- Contempt Proceedings
-
Proceedings to address willful disobedience of court orders. Here, the fact that a committee member had faced contempt at the petitioner’s instance
became central to the “appearance of bias” analysis.
5. Conclusion
2026 INSC 101 crystallises a clear process rule: in public selection functions, participation of a committee member whose prior
adversarial involvement with a candidate (including contempt proceedings arising from the same dispute) creates a reasonable apprehension of bias
and vitiates the decision. The Supreme Court’s remedy—setting aside the minutes, ordering a fresh SCSC meeting excluding the concerned officer, and imposing
costs—underscores that administrative justice must be both fair and seen to be fair, especially where a candidate’s career prospects are repeatedly
thwarted by delay and procedural hostility.