Module IV: Principles of Natural Justice

Meaning of Principles of Natural Justice

 Principle of Natural Justice is derived from the word ‘Jus Natural’ of the Roman law and it is
closely related to Common law and moral principles but is not codified. It is a law of nature
which is not derived from any statute or constitution.

“Natural justice is a sense of what is wrong and what is right.”

 ‘Natural’ justice does not simply mean justice discovered in nature. It is a compilation of
ideas that should be naturally connected with justice, regardless of whether these ideas are
part of law.

 Natural justice applies comprehensively to administrative discretion. Its goal is to prevent

mischievousness and unfairness towards the resident with managing authorities.

Purpose of the Principle:

 To provide equal opportunity of being heard.
 Concept of Fairness.
 To fulfil the gaps and loopholes of the law.
 To protect the Fundamental Rights.
 Basic features of the Constitution.
 No miscarriage of Justice.
The principles of natural justice should be free from bias and parties should be given fair
opportunity to be heard and all the reasons and decision taken by the court should be informed
by the court to the respective parties.
Supreme court said that arriving at a reasonable and justifiable judgement is the purpose of
judicial and administrative bodies. The main purpose of natural justice is to prevent the act of
miscarriage of justice.

A committee i.e. “Ministers Power” gave 3 essentials procedure related to the principles of
natural justice.
- No one should be a judge in his own matter.
- No one can be condemned unheard.
- The party is entitled to know each and every reason and the decision taken by the
authority.
 Rules/Principles of Natural Justice
1. NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA
2. AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM
3. REASONED DECISION

1. Nemo Judex In Causa Sua:

“No one should be a judge in his own case” because it leads to rule of biases.
Bias means an act which leads to unfair activity whether in a conscious or unconscious stage in
relation to the party or a particular case. Therefore, the necessity of this rule is to make the
judge impartial and given judgement on the basis of evidence recorded as per the case.

Type of Bias- (6 types)

i. Personal bias: Personal bias arises from a relation between the party and deciding authority.
Which lead the deciding authority in a doubtful situation to make an unfair activity and give
judgement in favour of his person. Such equations arise due to various forms of personal and
professional relations.
In order to challenge the administrative action successfully on the ground of personal bias, it is
necessary to give a reasonable reason for bias.
Supreme court held that one of the members of the panel of selection committee his brother was
a candidate in the competition but due to this, the whole procedure of selection cannot be
quashed.
Ramanand Prasad Singh vs. UOI: Here, to avoid the act of biases at the turn of his brother
respective panel member connected with the candidate can be requested to go out from the
panel of the selection committee. So, a fair and reasonable decision can be made.

ii. Pecuniary bias: If any of the judicial body has any kind of financial benefit, how so ever
small it may be will lead to administrative authority to biases.

iii. Subject matter bias: When directly or indirectly the deciding authority is involved in the
subject matter of a particular case.
Muralidhar vs. Kadam Singh: The court refused to quash the decision of Election tribunal on
the ground that the chairman’s wife was a member of Congress party whom the petitioner
defeated.
iv. Departmental bias: The problem or issue of departmental bias is very common in every
administrative process and it is not checked effectively and on every small interval period it
will lead to negative concept of fairness will get vanished in the proceeding.

v. Policy notion bias: Issues arising out of preconceived policy notion is a very dedicated
issue. The audience sitting over there does not expect judges to sit with a blank sheet of
paper and give a fair trial and decision over the matter.

vi. Bias on the account of the obstinacy: Supreme court has discovered new criteria of biases
through the unreasonable condition. This new category emerged from a case where a judge
of Calcutta High Court upheld his own judgement in appeal. A direct violation of the rules of
bias is done because no judge can sit in appeal against in his own case.

2. Audi Alteram Partem:

It simply includes 3 Latin word which basically means that no person can be condemned or
punished by the court without having a fair opportunity of being heard.
In many jurisdictions, a bulk of cases are left undecided without giving a fair opportunity of
being heard.
The literal meaning of this rule is that both parties should be given a fair chance to present
themselves with their relevant points and a fair trial should be conducted.
This is an important rule of natural justice and its pure form is not to penalize anyone without
any valid and reasonable ground. Prior notice should be given to a person so he can prepare to
know what all charges are framed against him. It is also known as a rule of fair hearing. The
components of fair hearing are not fixed or rigid in nature. It varies from case to case and
authority to authority.

Components-
o Issuance of notice- Valid and proper notice should be given to the required parties of the
matter to further proceed with the procedure of fair trial method. Even if the statute does not
include the provision of issue of notice then it will be given prior to making decisions. This
was held in the case of Fazalbhai vs. custodian.
In the case of Kanda vs. Government of Malaya, the court held that notice must directly and
clearly specify on the matter of bias, facts and circumstances against which needs to be taken.
It’s one of the rights of the individual to defend himself so he should be familiar with the
relevant matter so he may contradict the statement and safeguard himself.
The notice should be with regard to the charges framed against the accused person and
proceeding to be held. He can only be punished on the charges which are mentioned in the
notice, not for any other charges.

o Right to present the case and evidence- After receiving the notice he must be given a
reasonable time period to prepare and present his case in a real and effective manner. The
refusal should not be done on the unreasonable ground or due to arbitrary.

o Right to Cross Examination- Right of fair hearing includes the right to cross-examination the
statement made by the parties. If tribunals denied the right to cross-examination then it will
violate the principles of natural justice. And all the necessary copies of documents should be
given and failure of that will also encroach the principle. The department should make
available officers who are involved in the procedure of investigating and do cross-
examination. Cross-examination is defined under Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (amended).

 In certain exceptional cases, the right to cross-examination can be denied or rejected. Hari
Nath Mishra vs. Rajendra Medical College, under this case a male student was charged off
some indecent behaviour towards a female student. So, here the right to cross-examination
was denied for the male student as it will lead to embracement for the female student and it
will not also lead to violation of natural justice.

 Sometimes it becomes very necessary to keep the identity confidential as there is a threat of
life and property. And the same situation was faced in the case Gurubachan Singh vs. the
State of Bombay.

 Let’s take an illustration, In the matter where lawyer and client are involved so, nobody can
force a lawyer to reveal what all information is given by the client to the lawyer in relation to
the case.

 In the case of Ludhiana food product, the court held that if the party itself refuse to cross-
examine the witness then it will not fall under miscarriage of natural justice.

o Right of Legal representative- In the process of enquiry, every party has the right to have a
legal representative. Each party will be presented by the legally trained person and no one
can deny (A.K.Roy). Similarly, the department has the same right to direct its officer even
 though there are investigating officer in conducting an adjudicating proceeding (Sanghi
textile processor vs. Commissioner).

3. Reasoned Decision:
"Reasoned Decision," which describes an order, judgement, or other court action made by the
presiding authority on a justifiable and valid basis.
Basically, it has 3 grounds on which it relies-
i. The aggrieved party has the chance to demonstrate before the appellate and revisional court
that what was the reason which makes the authority to reject it.
ii. It is a satisfactory part of the party against whom the decision is made.
iii. The responsibility to record reasons works as obstacles against arbitrary action by the
judicial power vested in the executive authority.

Doctrine of Post-Decisional Hearing

Meaning:
Pre-decisional hearing is a hearing managed before making a choice or sanctioning an order.
Post-decisional hearing, as opposed to its counterpart, is a hearing given by the adjudicating
authority subsequent to making a choice or a decision.
As a general rule, a hearing should be afforded before a decision is taken by an authority.
In the leading case law Ridge v. Baldwin which is sometimes referred as the be all and end all
of Natural Justice, a Constable was accused of conspiracy followed by the prosecution by the
authorities but in the end he was held not guilty and was acquitted of blame. While the judge
was deciding the matter, certain remarks were made by the judge against the character of the
Constable based on which he was expelled from his service. The Court of Appeal held that the
committee which had expelled the Constable from his job as a result of the remarks made by the
judge against his character, was exercising Administrative and Judicial or Quasi-Judicial power
and therefore the Principles of Natural Justice did not fit here. Soon, this decision was reversed
by the House of Lords by a 4:1 majority and the order of dismissal was therefore, not upheld.

Post-Decisional Hearing:
The principle of the post-decisional hearing was propounded by the Supreme Court in Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of lndia. For this situation, the Supreme Court set out the rule that if in the
interest of the general public, quick action was fundamental and it is impractical to manage the
cost of a hearing before the decision, it ought to be managed after the decision. The passport of
the petitioner who also happened to be a journalist was seized by the Government of India in
light of a legitimate concern for public wellbeing.
The petitioner was not given any chance before making the impugned move. At the point when
the legitimacy of the impoundment request was checked, the Government battled that the use of
the audi alteram partem rule would have gone against the very reason for seizing the passport.
Despite the fact that the Supreme Court dismissed the conflict, it acknowledged the principle of
post-decisional hearing in instances of outstanding nature. It set out the recommendation that
wherein an emergent circumstance, requiring prompt activity, it is not possible to give prior
notice of hearing the preliminary action should be soon followed by a full remedial hearing.

Exceptions to Rule of Natural Justice

Exceptions to the principles of natural justice refer to circumstances where the usual
requirements of procedural fairness, such as the right to be heard or the impartiality of decision-
makers, are set aside or modified due to specific considerations.
These exceptions may arise in situations of emergency, statutory provisions, where disclosure
would prejudice public interests or when prompt action is necessary. While these exceptions
provide flexibility in decision-making processes, they must be applied judiciously to ensure
fairness, transparency and the protection of individual rights within legal systems.

Key Exceptions and Exclusions to Principles of Natural Justice:

1) Exclusion in Cases of Emergency-
In times of emergency or crisis, swift action is often paramount to prevent harm or protect
public safety. In such situations, the usual procedural requirements of natural justice may be set
aside to allow authorities to respond promptly and effectively.

2) Express Statutory Exclusion-

Legislatures may enact laws that explicitly exclude or modify the application of natural justice
principles for certain administrative actions. These statutory exclusions provide legal clarity and
may be deemed necessary to achieve specific policy objectives or streamline decision-making
processes.
However, any such statutory exclusion must comply with constitutional principles and be
subject to judicial review to prevent abuse or arbitrary exercise of power by authorities.

3) Where Disclosure Would Be Prejudicial to Public Interests-

Certain information or procedures may be exempt from the principles of natural justice if their
disclosure could compromise public safety, security or other vital interests.
For example, in matters concerning national security or sensitive diplomatic negotiations, strict
adherence to procedural fairness may need to be balanced against the imperative of protecting
classified information or state secrets. While transparency is essential in a democratic society,
there are instances where the public interest outweighs the individual’s right to procedural
fairness.

4) Where Prompt Action Is Needed-

In situations where delay could result in significant harm or loss, decision-makers may need to
take immediate action without adhering to the usual procedural requirements of natural justice.
For instance, in cases of imminent threats to public health or safety, authorities may need to
issue emergency orders or directives without conducting extensive hearings or consultations.
While such actions are justified in exigent circumstances, decision-makers must exercise
caution to avoid arbitrary or disproportionate measures.

5) Where It Is Impracticable to Hold a Hearing or Appeal-

In certain circumstances, holding a formal hearing or allowing for an appeal may be impractical
or unfeasible.
For example, in cases involving national security or military operations, the exigencies of the
situation may preclude the possibility of conducting hearings or providing for appeals. While
this exclusion may be necessary in exceptional circumstances, decision-makers should strive to
provide alternative mechanisms for review or redress where feasible.

6) Exclusion in Cases of Purely Administrative Matters-

Decisions that are purely administrative in nature and do not involve substantial legal rights or
interests may not require adherence to the principles of natural justice.
For instance, routine administrative tasks such as scheduling, record-keeping or procedural
matters may be exempt from the requirements of audi alteram partem and nemo judex in causa
sua. However, even in administrative matters, decision-makers must act fairly and reasonably to
uphold the principles of procedural fairness.

7) Where No Right of the Person Is Infringed-

If a person does not possess any legal right or interest that could be adversely affected by a
decision, they may not be entitled to the protections of natural justice.
For example, in cases involving discretionary decisions or matters of policy, individuals may
not have a legal right to procedural fairness if their interests are not directly impacted. However,
decision-makers should still exercise discretion judiciously and consider the broader
implications of their actions on affected parties.

8) The Procedural Defect Would Have Made No Difference to the Outcome-

If a procedural error or defect would not have altered the final decision or outcome, it may be
considered immaterial and not invalidate the decision.
For instance, minor irregularities in the conduct of a hearing or procedural oversight that does
not prejudice the rights of the parties involved may be deemed inconsequential. However,
decision-makers should strive to adhere to procedural norms to maintain public confidence in
the integrity of the process.

9) Exclusion on the Ground of “No Fault” Decision-Maker-

Suppose the decision-maker has acted in good faith and without any bias or wrongdoing. In that
case, the requirements of natural justice may be relaxed, particularly if adherence to those
principles would not have changed the outcome.
For example, if a decision-maker inadvertently overlooks a procedural requirement due to an
honest mistake or misunderstanding, courts may be more lenient in assessing the validity of the
decision. However, decision-makers must exercise diligence and ensure procedural regularity to
minimise the risk of legal challenges.

Effect of Breach of Natural Justice

When the authority is required to observe the principle of natural justice in passing an order but
fails to do so, the general judicial opinion is that the order is void.
In England, in the case of Ridge v. Baldwin, the court held the decision of the authority void on
the ground of the breach of the rule of fair hearing.
In India, the position is well settled that the order passed in violation of the principles of
natural justice is void.
Failure to give reason:
Where the reason for the decision are not given to the person concerned or reasons are not given
to the court, the order is quashed and the authority is directed by the court to examine the matter
afresh. Where the reasons are not communicated to the person concerned that they are on
record, in some cases, the court has upheld the action but in some other cases, the court has not
upheld it.
In Ajantha Industries v. Central Board of Direct Taxes, the court has held that recordings of
reasons on the file are not sufficient. It is necessary to give reasons to the person concerned. In
this case, the order was quashed on the ground that the reasons were not communicated to the
person concerned. The view expressed in the Ajantha Industries case appears to be the better
view. Reasons are for the benefit of the party concerned and, therefore, they should be
communicated to the person concerned and they should not be confined to the record or file.