List of Cases

Vionet v.Barrett 1985, 55LLJ QB, 39

Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner AIR 1978 SC 851

M/S Builders Supply Corporation v. The Union of India & ors AIR 1965 SC 1061

A.K.Kraipak v. UOI AIR 1970 SC 150

J.Mohopatra & Co. v. State of Orissa 1985 SCR (1) 322

Maneka Gandhi v. UOI 1978 SCR (2) 621

Principles of Natural Justice in the light of core principles of Administrative
Law

Introduction

Concept and doctrine of Principles of Natural Justice and its appliance in Justice delivery
system is not new. It seems to be as aged as the system of dispensation of justice itself. It has by
“

now assumed the importance of being, so to say, “an essential inbuilt component” of the
mechanism, through which decision making process passes, in the matters touching the rights
and liberty of the people. It is no doubt, a procedural requirement but it ensures a strong
safeguard against any Judicial or administrative, order or action, adversely affecting the
substantive rights of the individuals, ‘Natural Justice’ is an expression of English common law.

In one of the English decisions, Justice Haldane observed “…..those whose duty it is to decide
must act judicially. They must deal with the question referred to them without any bias and they
must act judicially. They must deal with the question referred to them without bias and they must
give to each of the parties the opportunity of adequately presenting the case made. The decision
must come to the spirit and with the sense of responsibility of a tribunal whose duty it is to meet
out justice”1

Aristotle, before the era of Christ, spoke of such principles calling it as universal law. Justinian
in the fifth and sixth centuries A.D called it “jura naturalia” i.e Natural Law.

It is said that the principles of natural justice is of very early origin and was known to Greek and
Romans. The principles were acknowledged as early as on the days of Adam and of Kautilya’s
Arthashastra. According to the Bible, when Adam and Eve ate fruit of knowledge, which was
forbidden by God, the latter did not pass sentence on Adam before he was called upon to defend
himself. Same thing happened in the case of Eve.

Later on, the principle of natural justice was accepted by English Jurist to be so essential as to
over-ride all laws.

1
Local Government Board v. Abridge (1915) AC 120 (138) HL
The principles of natural justice were related with a few ‘accepted rules’ which have been
fabricated up and prominent over a long period of time. The word ‘Natural Justice’ establishes
justice according to one’s own morality. It is derived from the Roman Conceot ‘jus-naturale’ and
‘Lex naturale’ which intended principle ofnatural law, natural justice, eternal law, natural equirty
or good conscience. Lord Evershed, Master of the Rolls in the case of Vionet v.Barrett2
remarked that “Natural Justice is the natural sense of what is right and wrong”

In India the principle is prevalent from the early times. We find it raised in kautilya’s
Arthashastra. In this context, it can be quoted from the judgment of Mohinder Singh Gill v.
Chief Election Commissioner3 where it was said

“Indeed, natural justice is a pervasive facet of secular law where a spiritual touch enlivens
legislation, administration and adjudication, to make fairness a creed of life. 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. It is the bone of healthy government, recognized from earliest
times and not a mystic testament of judge-made law. Indeed from the legendary days of Adam
and of Kautilya’s Arthashastra- the rule of law has had this stamp of natural justice which makes
it social justice. We need not go into these deeps for the present except to indicate that the roots
of natural justice and its foliage are noble and not new-fangled. Today its application must be
sustained by current legislation, case law or other extant principle, not the hoary chords of legend
and history. Our jurisprudence has sanctioned its prevalence even like the Anglo-American
system.”

Let us now discuss what the principles of natural justice are. There are basically two rules of
Principles of Natural Justice. They are:

2
1985, 55LLJ QB, 39
3
AIR 1978 SC 851
Two rules of Principles of Natural Justice

Nemo judex in causa sua

no one should be made a judhe in his own cause or the rule against bias. It is also called as the
‘doctrine of bias’ as the judge may have a prejudice in the case. It has been briefly put forward
by Sir Edward Coke as “Vacate, Interrogate and Judicate” i.e, call, question and adjudicate.
However, this concept has undergone a lot of changes in recent times, but fundamentals still
remain the same.

Audi alteram partem

Hear the other party or the rule of fair hearing or the rule that no one should be condemned
unheard. In other words, No person accused of any charge or likely to suffer any civil
consequences, must be adjudged unless and until he is aware of the proceedings together with a
notice thereon and an opportunity to present his case fully.

Reasoned decision

Speaking order is an order speaking for itself and giving reasons. Lord Denning says, the giving
of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.

NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA

the first principle is that ‘No man shall be a judge in his own cause’ i.e, the deciding gauthority
must be impartial land without bias. It implies that no man can act as a judge for a cause in
which he himself has some interest, may be pecuniary or otherwise. Pecuniary interest affords
the strongest proof against impartiality. The emphasis is on the objectivity in dealing with and
deciding a matter. Justice Gajendragadkar, observed in the case of M/S Builders Supply
Corporation v. The Union of India & ors.4,
4
AIR 1965 SC 1061
“it is obvious that pecuniary interest, howsoever small it may be, in a subject matter of the
proceedings, would wholly disqualify a member from acting as a judge”

It has been laid down as a principle of law that pecuniary interest would disqualify a Judge to
decide the matter even though it is not proved that the decision was in any way affected. This is
thus a matter of faith, which a common man must have, in the deciding authority.

Nemo Judex In causa sua means rule against bias. Bias means an operative prejudiuce, whether
conscious or unconscious in relation to a party or issue. The rule against bias flows from
following two principles:-

a. No one should be a judge in his own cause

b. Justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly seen to be odne

Thus a judge should not only be impartial but should be in a position to apply his mind
objectively to the dispute before him. The rule against bias thus has two main aspects:-

1. The administrator exercising adjudicatory powers must not have any personal or
proprietory interest in the outcome of the proceedings
2. There must be real likelihood of bias. Real likelihood of bias is a subjective term, which
means either actual bias or a reasonable suspicion of bias. It is difficult to prove the state
of mind of a person. therefore, what the courts see is whether there is reasonable ground
for believing that the deciding factor was likely to have been biased.

Bias can take many forms such as personal bias, pecuniary bias, subject-matter bias,
departmental bias, pre-conceived notion bias

In the case of A.K.Kraipak v. UOI5 Naquishband, who was the acting Chief Conservator of
forests, was a member of the Selection Board and was also a candidate for selection to All

5
AIR 1970 SC 150
 India cadre of the Forest Service. Though he did not take part in the deliberations of the
Board when his name was considered and approved, the SC held that

“there was a real likelihood of a bias for the mere presence of the candidate on the Selection
Board may adversely influence the judgment of the other members”

Also, in the case of J.Mohopatra & Co. v. State of Orissa6, the SC quashed the decision of
the Textbooks’ selection committee because some of its members were also the authors of
the books, which were considered for selection. The Court concluded that withdrawal of
person at the time of consideration of his books is not sufficient as the element of quid pro
quo with other members cannot be eliminated.

AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM

This is the basic concept of principles of natural justice. The expression audi alteram partem
implies that a person must be given opportunity to defend himself. This principle is sine qua
non of every civilized society.

Right to a fair hearing includes:

1. Right to notice
2. Right to present case and evidence
3. Right to rebut adverse evidence
i. Right to cross examination
ii. Right to legal representation
4. Disclosure of evidence to party
5. Report of enquiry to be shown to the other party
6. Reasoned decisions or speaking orders

6
1985 SCR (1) 322
This also includes the right to be heard even after the decision is reached. This is called post-
decisional hearing. The idea of post0decisoinal hearing has been developed by the SC in
Maneka Gandhi v. UOI7 to maintain the balance between administrative efficiency and fairness
to the individual.

CONCLUSION

The requirements of natural justice come from general administrative law, not the particular
statute being administered. Many statutes do, however, spell out procedures that must be
followed when making decisions; for example, the statute might stipulate who is entitled to
notice, when notice should be given and in what form, what kind of hearing is to be given, and
how much time is allowed for a person to respond.

Natural justice imposes similar requirements, independently of the statute. If the statutory
procedures are equivalent or superior to what natural justice would require, compliance with the
”

statutory procedures will also satisfy the requirements of natural justice.

7
1978 SCR (2) 621
REFERENCES

 Schwarzenberger, G. (1972). The Nemo Judex in Sua Causa Maxim in International

“

Judicial Practice. Anglo-American Law Review, 1(4), 482-498.

 Jones, D. P. (1977). Institutional Bias: The Applicability of the Nemo Judex Rule to
Two-Tier Decisions. McGill LJ, 23, 605.
 Kelly, J. M. (1964). Audi alteram partem. Nat. LF, 9, 103.
 Macdonald, R. A. (1979). Judicial review and procedural fairness in administrative law:
I. McGill LJ, 25, 520.
 de Smith, S. A. (1954). The Right to a Hearing in English Administrative Law. Harv. L.
Rev., 68, 569.
 https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/tag/audi-alteram-partem/ ”

 https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2018/03/principles-natural-justice-origin-
relevance/