PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL

JUSTICE
Dr. Jaswinder Kaur
Assistant Professor
RGNUL
Concept and Meaning
Natural Justice:
1. One of he most active department and essential part of administrative law.
2. Kind of code of fair administrative procedure.
3. It is also an ethico-legal concept which is based on natural feeling of human
being.
4. Principles of humanisation which informs law and procedure with fairness and
impartiality.
5. It is a concept of common law. It is said to have played the same part in British
law as does “due process of law” in the Constitution of United States.
6. In simple term, the natural justice may mean “the natural sense of what is right
and wrong” but in technical sense it is now equated with fairness.
7. It is also known as “natural justice”, “universal law”, “divine law”, “ universal
justice”, or “fair play in action” but the core of natural justice is fairness which is
flexible, pragmatic and relative concept, mot a rigid, ritualistic or sophisticated
abstraction.
Continued…..
8. It represents highly procedural principles developed by judges, which
every administrative agency must follow in taking any decision
adversely affecting the rights of a private individual. What particular
rules of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a
great extent on the facts and circumstances of the case, the framework
of tribunal or the administrative body. It is also called judge made rules.
9. The extent and application of doctrine cannot be imprisoned within
the straitjacket or a rigid formula.
10. It has many colours and shades, many forms and shapes and save
where valid law excludes it, applies when people are affected by acts of
authority but it is not only protected the citizens but also to officials .
Object and purpose of Natural justice
• To prevent miscarriage of justice.
• To enquire both administrative and judicial cases to arrive at a just decision.
• To restrict the freedom of administrative action.
• It deals with matters involving civil consequences which in its comprehensive
sense means “ everything that affects a citizen in his civil life inflicts a civil
consequences”. (Canara Bank v. Debasis Das AIR 2003 SC 2041, State of
Orissa v. Dr. Mrs. Bina Pani Dey AIR 1967 SC 1269, Scheduled Castes and
Weaker Section Welfare Association v. State of Karnataka AIR 1991 SC 1117,
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597).
• The celebrated case of Cooper v. Wadsworth Board of Works (1863)14 CB
(NC) 180 has brought out clearly the universality of the principle, applicable
to almost the whole range of administrative power, that the power could be
validily exercised only after a fair hearing of the party adversely affected.
Principle of Natural justice and Constitution of
India
• Preamble of the Constitution : Social and Economic Justice
• Article 14: Right to Equality
• Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty
• Article 311: Constitutional safeguards provided to civil servants.
 Two Principles/Pillars of Natural Justice

Nemo Judex in causa sua

• No man Shall be judge in has own cause or the deciding authority must be
impartial and without bias- Rule against bias.

Audi Alteram Partem

• Hear the other side or both the side must be heard or no man should be
condemned unheard or that there must be fairness on the part of deciding
authority- Rule of hearing or fair hearing.
 Nemo Judex Causa Sua - Rules against Bias
• Bias means an operative Prejudice, whether conscious or unconscious, in
relation to a party or issue.
• It may be defined as partiality or preference which is not founded on reason
and is actuated by self interest-whether pecuniary or personal.
• The maxim literally means that no man should be a judge in his own cause.
This is called “Judicial Neutrality”.
• Simple meaning that authority must be impartial and neutral and judges must
decide the case objectively on the basis of the evidence on record.
• It is based on two principles:
1. No man should be a judge in his own cause
2. Justice should not only be done but seen to be done.
• This principle is applicable not only to judicial proceedings but also to
quasi-judicial as well as administrative proceedings.
 Types of Bias

Pecuniary Personal Subject

Bias Bias Matter Bias

Department Policy Bias

Bias
 Pecuniary Bias
• Pecuniary bias means when the adjudicator has monetary interest in
the subject matter of the dispute. The monetary interest however, small
or insignificant, disqualifies a person from acting as a judge and
invalidate the proceedings itself.
• Judgements:
 Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal Co. (1852) 3 HLC 759.
 Dr. Bonham’s Case (1610) 8 Co. Rep.113b.
 Jeejeebhoy v. Assistant Collector, Thana AIR 1965 SC 1096.
 Annamalai v. State of Madrs AIR 1957 AP 739.
 Personal Bias
• Personal bias arises in a number of circumstances involving a certain relationship
equation between the deciding authority and the parties which incline him
unfavorably or otherwise on the side of one of the parties before him.
• Here a judge may be relative, friend or business associate of a party and he may
have some personal grudge, enmity or grievance or professional rivalry against
him. These are the factors which may lead to likelihood that the judge may be
biased towards one party or prejudiced towards the others.
• Judgements:
 A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 150.
 S.P. Kapoor v. State of H.P. AIR 1981 SC 2181.
 Baidyanath Mahapatra v. State of Orissa 1989 4 SCC 664.
 G.N. Nayak v. Goa University AIR 2002bSC 790.
 Ganga Bai Charities v. Commissioner, Income Tax (1992) 3 SCC 690.
 Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of U.P. (2010) 10 SCC 539.
 Subject Matter Bias
• Subject matter simply means the issues in question or the issues or policies
being convessed before the judge or the issue in controversy or the matter in
dispute.
• Situation arises where adjudicator has general interest in the subject matter in
dispute. For Example: association of judge as a member with the
administration
Judgements :
 R v. Dear justices, esparte Curling (1881) 45 LT 439.
 Gullapalli Nageshwar Rao v. A.P.S.R.T AIR 1959 SC 308.
 Murlidhar v. Kadam Singh AIR 1964 MP111.
 Department Bias
• Department Bias is inherent in administrative process. If it is not checked it
will negate the concept of fairness in administrative process.
Judgements:
 Gullapalli Nageshwar Rao v. A.P. S.R.T.C AIR 1959 SC 309.
 Krishna Bus Service (P) Ltd. V. State of Haryana ( 1985) 3 SCC 711.C
 Chartered Accountants v. L.K Ratna AIR 1987 SC 71.
 State of U.P. v. R.S. Sodhi AIR 1994 SC 38.
 South Indian Cashew Factories workers Union v. Kerala State Cashew
Development Corpn. Ltd. (2006) 5 SCC 201.
 Policy Bias
• This form of bias is quite uncommon and difficult to prove. It is indeed a
very delicate problem of administrative law. The judges are expected to be
like a clean state but sometimes preconceived notion could vitiate the
standard of even handed justice.
• Judgements:
Franklin v. Minister of Town and Country Planning 1948 AC 87.
T. Govindraj Mudaliar v. State of Tamil Naidu AIR 1973 SC 974.
Kondala Rao v. A.P.SRTC AIR 1961 SC 82.
Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. V. Sir Shadilal Enterprises Ltd. (2011) 1 SCC 640.
 Test of Bias

Reasonable
Real likelihood
suspicion of
of bias
bias
 Audi Alteram Partem
• Second Long arm of natural justice which protect the “little man” from
arbitrary administrative actions wherever his right to person or property is
jeopardized.
• It means “hear the other side”. It is fundamental to fair procedure that both
sides should be heard.
• This is more basic principles of natural justice which embrace every question
of fair procedure or due process.
• It is of very ancient origin and well known to Early Greeks, Romans and
Hindu jurists.
• In England from the earliest times, the judiciary had always maintained the
supremacy of natural justice over the statutory law of Parliament.
• It is commonly said that the first hearing in human history was given in the
Garden of Eden. In R v. University of Cambridg, Justice Fortsecue said that,
 I remember to have heard it observed by a very learned man
upon an occasion, that even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam,
before he was called upon to make his defence. Adam, says God, where art
thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded there that thou
shouldst not eat? And the same question was put to Eve also.
• According to Dr. Smith:
No Proposition can be more clearly established than that a man
cannot incur the loss of liberty or property for an offence by a judicial
proceeding untill he has had a fair opportunity of answering the case
against him.
• It is deduced from the rule qui aliquid statuerit parte inaudita altera,
aequum licet dixerit, haud aequum facerit which means he who shall
decide anything without the other side having been heard, although he
may have said what is right, will not have done what is right.
• In the beginning, the doctrine mainly concerned the matters of
restoration to offices and courts would apply the principles of natural
justices to cases of an administrative character. Subsequently, their
application was extended beyond the sphere of administrative law.
• In India, administrative authorities are not bound by the ‘technical
rules of procedure of law courts. However, they hold bound to follow
the minimum procedure of fair hearing. The courts have, from case to
case developed a code of administrative procedure, which applies to
every administrative adjudicating authority.
 Components of Fair Hearing
1. Reasonable notice to the party
2. Right to know the evidence against him
3. Right to present his case, produce evidence
4. Disclosure of all evidence/material
5. Right to rebut adverse evidence
6. No evidence should be taken at the back of the party
7. Right to the Enquiry Report
8. Reasoned decision
9. One who decides must hear.
 1. Reasonable notice to the party

• First limb and starting point of the principle of hearing.

• Object of giving a notice is to draw the attention of the persons sought to be
affected, to the matter notified.
• Term notice is taken from a latin word notifia which means “being known”. It
means information, intelligence or knowledge.
• Legally, notice stands for knowledge or circumstances that ought to induce
suspicion or belief, as well as information of that fact.
• Requirements of adequate notice:
1. Notice must be given in a manner prescribed by law.
2. Notice must contain the time, place and nature of hearing.
3. Notice must contain a statement of specific charges/case/matter the party
has to meet.
4. Notice must be clear and unambiguous
5. Notice must afford the party sufficient time, to prepare his case.
 Manner of Notice
• In K.A Abdul Khader v. Dy.Director AIR 1976 Mad. 233, the
statutory Rule prescribed the following mode to serve the notice:
1. By delivering.
2. Sending by registered post.
3. Failing both, by affixing it on the outer door of the residence.
• if notice is to be given to a large class of persons, who are educated,
it may be given in a newspaper.
• The mode of giving notice is a procedural matter. It may be a
mandatory requirement, but being a mere irregularity, may be waived
in the circumstances of a particular case.
 Time, place and nature of Hearing
• In India, there is no invariable standard as to the adequacy of notice
and it may vary from case to case, depending upon the facts of each
case. The broad test applied by the courts is whether the individual has
been prejudiced in presenting his case or that whether the individual
had a fair chance to know the details of the action proposed to be taken
against him.
• Cases:
 Joseph Vilangandan v. Executive Engineer (PWD) AIR 1978 SC 930.
 Food Corporation of India v. State of Punjab AIR 2001 SC 250.
 Suresh Chandra Verma (Dr.) v. Chancellor, Nagpur University AIR
1990 SC 2023.
 State of J & K v. Haji Wali Mohammed (1972) 2 SCC 402.
 State of U.P. v. Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd (2010) 6 SCC 222.
 Consequence of Non-Issue of Notice
• The Apex Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Subhash & Co. AIR 2003SC 1628
explained the different meaning and purposes behind the issuance of notice, as also
the consequences for its non-issue. The court culled out the following principles:
1. Non -issue of the notice or mistake in the issue of notice or defective service of
notice does not affect the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, if otherwise
reasonable opportunity of being heard has been given;
2. Issue of notice as described in the Rules constitutes a part of reasonable
opportunity of being heard;
3. If Prejudice has been caused by a non issue or invalid service of notice the
proceeding would be vitiated;
4. Irregular services of notice would not render the proceedings invalid; more so, if
assesse by his conduct has rendered service impracticable or impossible;
5. In a given case when the principle of natural justice are stated to have been
violated it is open to the appellate authority in appropriate cases to set aside the
order and require the assessing officer to decide the case de novo.
 2. Right to know the evidence against him

 Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. V. CIT AIR 1955 SC 65.

 R v. Ex Parte Jagger (1945)II AER 131.
 K. Vijay Lakshmi v. Union of India AIR 1998 SC 2961
 Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Corporation 301 U.S. 293.
 Morgan v. United States 298 U.S. 468 (1936) Held that the right to
hearing not only the right to present evidence, but also a reasonable
opportunity to know the claims of the opposing party and to meet
them.
 R. V. Gaming Board for Great Britain (1970) 2 QB 417.
 3. Right to present his case, produce evidence

• The right to a hearing embrace the right to present evidence. A party

is thus entitled to present his case or defense by oral or documentary
evidence.
• Justice Stone of the American Supreme Court once observed: the
minimal constitutional requirement, in proceeding before an
administrative agency…..is that it cannot rightly exclude from
consideration facts and circumstancen relevant to its inquiry. Refusal
by an administrative agency to receive evidence that is competent,
relevant and material is a “reversible error”.
• As regard oral hearing, it is not an integral part of fair hearing unless
the circumstances are so exceptional that without an oral hearing a
person cannot put up an effective defence.
 Right to Rebut Adverse Evidence
• The purpose of the right to rebut adverse evidence is to bring out the truth
and expose the falsehood. Rebuttal may be done orally or in writing at the
discretion of the adjudicating authority, provided the statute does not
otherwise provide.
• Two factors relevant to the right to rebut evidence:
(i) Cross examination of witness
(ii) Legal Representation
• Cross examination is a most powerful weapon to elicit and establish the
truth. The Courts do not insist on cross-examination in administrative
adjudication unless the circumstances are such that in the absence of it a
person cannot put an effective defence.
 State of J & K v. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad AIR 1967 SC 122.
 Kanungo & Co. v. Collector of Customs AIR 1972 SC 2136.
 Hira Nath Mishra v. Rajindra Medical College AIR 1973 SC 1260.
 Legal Representation
• Normally, representation through a lawyer in any administrative proceeding
is not considered an indispensable part of the rule of natural justice, as oral
hearing is not included in the minima of fair hearing.
• As regards to what extent legal representation would be allowed in
administrative proceedings depends on the provisions of the statute. It is
regarded more of an exception rather than the general rule.
• In India, Situations where the person is illiterate or matter is complicated and
technical or expert evidence is on record or question of law is involved, some
professional assistance must be given to the party to make his right to defend
himself meaningful.
• Cases:
 M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1978 SC 1548.
 Khatri (2) v. State of Bihar AIR 1981 SC 928.
 Nandini Satpathy v. P.L.Dhani AIR 1978 SC 1025.
 No evidence can be taken at the back of other party
Errington v. Minister of Health ( 1935) 1 KB 249.
S.P. Paul v. Calcutta University AIR 1970 Cal 282.
Hira Nath Mishra v. Principal, Rajendra Medical College AIR 1973
SC 1260.
 T.V.R. Radhakrishna v. State of T.N.AIR 1974 SC 1862.
Mahadayal Prem Chandra v. Commercial Tax Officer AIR 1958 SC
667.
 Right to the Enquiry Report
• Two main questions arises regarding the enquiry report:
1. Whether a copy of the report of the hearing officer be supplied to the
affected party, before a final decision is taken by the decision maker?
2. Whether failure to comply with this procedural step, would violate the
principle of natural justice.
In America, it has been held that where the hearing officer does prepare a
report, it must be disclosed to the private parties. Since the report becomes a
part of the record, it must be submitted to the parties “so that they can take
exceptions thereto”. Without disclosure, Chief Justice Vanderbilt of the New
Jersey Supreme court declared, “the use of a hearer’s report is like a
performance of Hamlet without the prince of Denmark.
In India, Supreme Court has refrained from laying down an inflexible rule that
the report of the Inquiry officer was necessary to be disclosed to the affected
party. It must depend in every individual case on the merits of that case.
Cases:
 Union of India v. E. Bashyan (1998) 2 SCC 196.
 Kailash Chander Asthana v. State of U.P. (1988) 3 SCC 600.
 Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan AIR 1991 SC 471.
 Managing Director, Electronic corporation of India (ECIL) v. B. Karunakar
AIR 1994 SC1074.
 Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. V. Union of India AIR 1973 SC 389.
 Hira nath Mishra v. Rajender Medical college AIR 1973 SC 1124.
 Reasoned Decision: Speaking order
• Meaning of reasoned decision : speaking order or order speaks for itself
or that the order tells its own story or decisions supported by reasons.
• Merits of reasoned decision:
1. It gives satisfaction to the person against whom the decision has been
given. It convinces him that the decision is not arbitrary but genuine.
2. It enables the affected party to examine his right of appeal.
3. It cautions the authority to consider the matter carefully and to apply
serious his mind to the facts and question of law involved in the
matter.
4. An important check on the abuse of administrative powers.
5. It bring fairness and transparency in the administrative action and
considered to be one of the fundamentals of good administration.
• In England, the need for giving reasons for decisions was recognized both by the
Committee on Minister’s powers 1932 and by the Committee on Administrative
Tribunals and Enquiries, 1957.
• In America, the Federal administrative Procedures Act, 1946 requires all decisions
shall include a statement of findings and conclusions and the reasons or basis
therefore, on all the material issues of fact, law or discretion presented on the record.
• In India, the courts insists that the adjudicating authorities should give reasons for
their decisions which is said to be hallmark of an order and exercise of judicial
power. Where a statute imposes the requirement of giving reasons for taking a
decision, the provision is treated as mandatory and the failure to give reasons would
invalidates the action taken.
• Judgements:
 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597.
 Bhagat Raja v. Union of India AIR 1967 SC 1606.
 Union of India v. Jai Parkash Singh AIR 2007 SC 1363.
 Sunil Batra V. Delhi Administration AIR 1978 SC 1675.
 Post Decisional Hearing
• A hearing given by the authority, after taking a decision or making an order is
Known as post decisional hearing.
• In America, post decisional hearing or ‘postponed hearing’ has been held to
satisfy due process provided, the affected individual is not injured in the
interim. If a party cannot get his hearing in advance of the action taken, he is
held to have it afterwards.
• In England, it has been held to be unfair procedure when the decision is first
taken and hearing is afforded to the affected party afterwards. When an
administrative authority has failed to give a fair hearing before it takes a
decision, usually the only possible course is that the same authority should
rehear the case.
 Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) AC 40.
• In India, it has been said that if in a given case prior hearing would frustrate
the object and purpose of the exercise of power, it can be dispensed with, but
in that event it must be substituted by post decisional hearing.
 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597.
 Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India AIR 1981 SC818.
 Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India AIR 1480.
 H.L. Trehan v. Union of India AIR 1989 SC 568.
 Exception to The Rule of Natural Justice
• Exclusion in Emergency
• Exclusion in cases of confidentiality
• Exclusion in cases of purely administrative matters
• Exclusion based on impracticability
• Exclusion in cases of interim preventive action
• Exclusion in cases of legislative action
• Exclusion where no right of the person is infringed
• Exclusion in case of statutory exception or necessity
• Exclusion in case of contractual arrangement
• Exclusion in cases of government policy decision
• “Useless formality” theory.