A.K. Kraipak v Union of India

• Selection Board was constituted to select officers for Indian Forest Service
• One member of the Selection Board (Naqishbund) was himself a candidate for selection
• Kraipak (not selected) challenged the process alleging bias
• Government argued: selection is administrative (not quasi-judicial), so natural justice does not apply
• Selection Board was advisory; final selection was by government

1. Whether principles of natural justice apply to administrative (as opposed to quasi-judicial) proceedings?
2. Whether a member of selection board who is simultaneously a candidate creates bias vitiating the process?

• The dividing line between quasi-judicial and administrative functions is thin and increasingly irrelevant
• Natural justice (specifically rule against bias) applies to administrative decisions that affect rights
• Where determination of comparative fitness of candidates affects their career rights, duty to act fairly applies
• Naqishbund being both selector and candidate created reasonable apprehension of bias: structural conflict of interest
• Entire selection vitiated regardless of whether Naqishbund actually influenced other members

The distinction between quasi-judicial and administrative functions should not determine whether natural justice applies. The real test is whether the decision affects the rights of a person. If it does, the duty to act fairly requires that the decision-maker be free from bias and the process be fair, regardless of how the function is classified. Bias in a selection committee vitiates the entire selection even if the biased member did not directly benefit.