In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India, citing the age-old legal principle that "no man shall be a judge in his own cause," has reinforced the impartiality expected of the judiciary. This principle, deeply rooted in natural justice, asserts that a judge cannot preside over a case in which they have a personal interest or bias. The ruling came in response to a case involving a railway magistrate who had initiated proceedings against the railway administration and its officials for allegedly failing to provide adequate staff for ticket checking and penalizing offenders.

The magistrate had issued a show-cause notice, claiming interference in his judicial functions due to the lack of manpower. A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N K Singh of the Supreme Court overturned a previous order by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that favored the magistrate. The Supreme Court stated, "It is a case where the learned railway magistrate wants to become a judge of his own cause". The Supreme Court bench further clarified that the magistrate's communication to the senior divisional commercial manager of Northern Railways could not be considered a judicial proceeding and that the railway officials had not overstepped their official duties.

This decision effectively puts an end to a dispute between the judiciary and the railway administration that arose from the criminal proceedings initiated by the special railway magistrate (SRM) at Ambala against a commercial manager of Northern Railways. The SRM had accused the officer of obstructing his duties related to conducting checks for ticketless passengers and penalizing offenders under the Railways Act.

The Supreme Court's ruling underscores the importance of impartiality within the judicial system. The principle of nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause) is a cornerstone of natural justice, ensuring fair adjudication and maintaining public confidence in the judiciary. Any personal interest or potential bias on the part of a judge can compromise the integrity of the proceedings and erode trust in the justice system.

The ruling also highlights the necessity for judges to recuse themselves from cases where a conflict of interest exists. Failure to do so can undermine the fairness of the proceedings and damage public confidence in the administration of justice. While there are exceptions, such as the doctrine of necessity, where a judge with a conflict of interest may preside over a case, these are rare and subject to careful scrutiny.

This isn't the first time the principle has been brought up in Indian Courts. In April 2018, a public interest litigation petition was brought before the Supreme Court of India. The petitioner prayed for the framing of rules to regulate the procedure for the constitution of Benches in the Supreme Court and the High Courts. Since the Supreme Court was the respondent in the matter, the recusal of the Chief Justice of India was anticipated. This was in deference to the well-established principle of natural justice “Nemo iudex in causa sua”, i.e. no person shall be a judge in his own cause.

The Supreme Court's recent judgment serves as a reminder of the fundamental principles that underpin a fair and impartial legal system. By reaffirming that a magistrate cannot be a judge in their own cause, the court has reinforced the importance of objectivity and integrity in the administration of justice.