PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

Introduction
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. The principle of natural justice is adhered to by all the
citizens of civilized State with Supreme importance. In the ancient days of fair practice, at the time
when industrial areas ruled with a harsh and rigid law to hire and fire, the Supreme court gave its
command with the passage of duration and establishment of social, justice and economy statutory
protection for the workmen.

Natural justice simply means to make a sensible and reasonable decision making procedure on a
particular issue. Sometimes, it doesn’t matter what is the reasonable decision but in the end, what
matters is the procedure and who all are engaged in taking the reasonable decision. It is not
restricted within the concept of ‘fairness’ it has different colours and shades which vary from the
context.
Basically, natural justice consists of 3 rules.

The first one is “Hearing rule” which states that the person or party who is affected by the decision
made by the panel of expert members should be given a fair opportunity to express his point of
view to defend himself.

Secondly, “Bias rule” generally expresses that panel of expert should be biased free while taking
the decision. The decision should be given in a free and fair manner which can fulfil the rule of
natural justice.

And thirdly, “Reasoned Decision” which states that the order, decision or judgement of the court
given by the Presiding authorities with a valid and reasonable ground.

ORIGIN
The principle of natural justice is a very old concept and it originated at an early age. The people
of Greek and roman were also familiar with this concept. In the days of Kautilya, arthashastra and
Adam were acknowledged the concept of natural justice. According to the Bible, in the case of Eve
and Adam, when they ate the fruit of knowledge, they were forbidden by the god. Before giving the
sentence, eve was given a fair chance to defend himself and the same process was followed in the
case of Adam too.
Later on, the concept of natural justice was accepted by the English jurist. The word natural justice
is derived from the Roman word ‘jus-naturale’ and ‘lex-naturale’ which planned the principles of
natural justice, natural law and equity.

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

In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner, the court held that the
concept of fairness should be in every action whether it is judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative and
or quasi-administrative work.

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.
1. No one should be a judge in his own matter.
2. No one can be condemned unheard.
3. The party is entitled to know each and every reason and the decision taken by the
authority.

When it can be claimed?

 Natural justice can be claimed when acting judicially or quasi-judicial like panchayat and
tribunals etc. as well. It includes the concept of fairness, basic moral principles and various
different kinds of biases, why natural justice is required and what all special cases or
situation it includes where the principles of natural justice will not be applicable.

 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.

AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM (FAIR HEARING)

Audi alteram partem simply includes 3 Latin words 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 OF FAIR HEARING

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.

In the case of Punjab National Bank v. All India Bank Employees Federation, the notice provided
to the party lacked clarity regarding the imposition of penalties. As a result, the penalty imposed was
considered invalid due to the improper notice.
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.

In the case of Stafford v Minister of Health, it was held that no evidence should be accepted in the
absence of the other party. If any such evidence is recorded, it is the duty of the authority to make it
available to the other party.
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 33 and 72 of the Trial & Indictments Act.
In the case of Kanungo & Co. v Collector of Customs, the issue arose when the police, acting
under the Sea Customs Act, seized watches from a business property based on information
provided by an undisclosed individual. Despite the importance of cross-examination in challenging
the evidence, the court ruled that the principle of natural justice was not violated by denying the
concerned person the opportunity to cross-examine the witness in matters involving goods seized
under the Sea Customs Act.

However, 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 of
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.

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.

In cases such as J.J. Mody v State of Bombay and Krishna Chandra v Union of India, it was
established that refusing legal representation amounts to a breach of natural justice. This is because
the party may not fully comprehend the intricacies of the law and thus should be afforded the
opportunity to be represented by legal counsel.

EXCEPTIONS
1. During the Emergency period
2. Public interest
3. Express statutory provision
4. Nature of the case is not of a serious kind
5. If it doesn’t affect the status of the individual

APPLICABILITY
Natural justice is applicable to some of the following points: -
1. Court- except to ex-parte
2. Tribunals
3. Authority entrusted with discretion but subject to legal limitations.
4.
REASONED DECISION
Basically, it has 3 grounds on which it relies: -

1. 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.
2. It is a satisfactory part of the party against whom the decision is made.
3. The responsibility to record reasons works as obstacles against arbitrary action by
the judicial power vested in the executive authority.

CONCLUSION

The principles of natural justice have been adopted and followed by the judiciary to protect public
rights against the arbitrary decision by the administrative authority. One can easily see that the rule
of natural justice includes; the concept of fairness: they stay alive and support to safeguard the fair
dealing.
So at all the stages of the procedure if any authority is given off the judicial function is not purely
accepted but the main motive of the principal is to prevent the miscarriage of justice. It is supreme
to note that any decision or order which violates the natural justice will be declared as null and void
in nature, hence one must carry in mind that the principles of natural justice are essential for any
administrative settlement to be held valid.

The principle of natural justice is not confined to restricted walls. The applicability of the principle
depends upon the characteristics of jurisdiction, grant to the administrative authority and upon the
nature of rights affected of the individual.
 RULE AGAINST BIAS

Additionally, this the third principle, among the principles of natural justice. It underscores the
necessity of impartiality. This principle states that the decision-making authority should avoid
making judgments that are influenced by personal prejudices or biases. It demands a fair and
unbiased approach to reaching a decision.

The rule against bias, also known as the rule of impartiality, is a fundamental principle of natural
justice that ensures decision-makers and adjudicators are free from any personal, financial, or other
biases that could influence their judgment. The rule requires those responsible for making
administrative or legal decisions to act unbiased and impartially.

In practical terms, the rule against bias means,

1. That decision-makers should not have any personal interest, prejudice, or connection to the
parties involved in a case.

2. A reasonable apprehension of discrimination can lead to the decision being considered

invalid and may necessitate a review or appeal.

3. The rule against bias is essential to maintain the integrity and credibility of judicial and
administrative processes, as it ensures that decisions are made solely on the merits of the
case and not influenced by any external factors that could compromise fairness and justice.

TYPES OF BIAS
These are categorized under the following;
i. Personal bias.
ii. Pecuniary bias.
iii. Subject matter bias.
iv. Departmental bias.
v. Preconceived notion bias.
vi. Policy notion bias.
vii. Bias on account of obstinacy.
1. PERSONAL BIAS
When a decision-maker has a personal interest or connection to one of the parties participating in
the administrative procedure, it is said to have personal bias. Due to this connection, the decision-
maker may be influenced, compromising fairness and impartiality in an administrative case.

In the case Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court quashed a
government order due to personal bias. The challenge was based on several facts, including the
owner of the Mineral Development Corporation opposing the minister in the 1952 elections, the
minister filing a suit against the owner under Section 500 of the IPC and existing political rivalry.
 2. PECUNIARY BIAS
Pecuniary bias can also be called financial bias. The term “pecuniary bias” describes a circumstance
in which the person making the judgement has a financial stake in how the case will turn out.
This occurs when a decision-maker has a direct or indirect financial stake in the outcome of the
case. It may result in a conflict of interest and cast doubt on the impartiality of the decision-maker’s
judgement. For example, having any kind of business relationship with one of the parties involved in
the case.

In the case of J. Mohapatra & Co. v. State of Orissa (AIR 1984 SC 1572), the Supreme Court
invalidated the decision of the Textbooks’ selection committee because some of its members were
also authors of the books being considered for selection. The Court held that merely withdrawing a
person while considering their own books is insufficient to eliminate the possibility of quid pro quo
with other committee members.

3. SUBJECT MATTER BIAS

Subject matter bias occurs when the person making the judgement is interested in the case’s subject
matter, either directly or indirectly. As a result, the decision-makers’ associations could influence
how the issue is decided.

In the case of Muralidhar vs. Kadam Singh, the court refused to quash the Election tribunal’s
decision, despite the chairman’s wife being a member of the Congress party, whom the petitioner
defeated. In this instance, the court did not find sufficient grounds to prove subject matter bias.

4. DEPARTMENTAL BIAS
Departmental bias is when administrative authorities show unfair favoritism or prejudice towards
particular groups or departments. It’s a problem because they might treat some people better than
others or make unfair choices.
In the case of Krishna Bus Service Pvt Ltd. V State of Haryana (AIR 1985 SC 1651), private bus
operators alleged that the General Manager of Haryana Roadways, who was also involved in a rival
business within the state, would not be able to perform his duties impartially. They argued that he
might show leniency in inspecting vehicles belonging to his own department. The Supreme Court
quashed the notification in question because it found a conflict of interest between the duty of the
General Manager and the department’s interests. This conflict of interest led to a loss of public
confidence in the fairness of administrative justice.

5. PRECONCEIVED NOTION BIAS

Preconceived notion bias refers to a situation when the decision maker holds any opinions or pre-
existing beliefs about any issue or party involved in the case.
It can significantly influence decision-making and lead to unfairness and impartiality in
administrative proceedings.

In the case of Kondala Rao v. APSRTC (AIR 1961 SC 82), the Supreme Court did not quash the
order of the Minister who heard objections from private operators regarding the nationalization of
road transport. It was argued that the Minister had previously presided over a meeting where
nationalization was favoured, suggesting a preconceived notion on the matter.
However, the Court rejected this contention, emphasizing that the decision of the committee was not
final and irrevocable but merely a policy decision. In this context, the Court implied that the
Minister’s prior involvement did not necessarily imply bias in the hearing process, as the decision was
still open to discussion and modification.
 6. POLICY NOTION BIAS
This relates to bias arising from preconceived notions or policy decisions made by the decision-
maker. In the case of T. Govindaraja Mudaliar v. State of T.N. (AIR 1973 SC 974), the Tamil
Nadu government made a policy decision in principle to nationalize road transport and formed a
committee to devise the scheme. The Home Secretary was appointed as a member of this
committee. Subsequently, the nationalization scheme was finalized, and published, and the Home
Secretary heard objections.
The petitioner argued that the Home Secretary’s hearing was tainted by policy notion bias because he
had already made up his mind on the question of nationalization while serving as a member of the
committee that formulated the policy. However, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge, stating
that as a committee member, the Secretary did not finally determine any issue that could have
foreclosed his mind. Instead, he merely assisted the government in framing the scheme. The Court
found no evidence of bias in the hearing process based on the Secretary’s prior involvement in the
policy decision-making committee.

7. BIAS ON ACCOUNT OF OBSTINACY

Occurs when a decision-maker unreasonably and persistently upholds their own decision, despite
valid reasons for reconsideration.
This type of bias was discovered in a case where a Calcutta High Court judge upheld his judgment
while sitting in appeal against his ruling. While it is not possible for a judge to directly violate the rule
of not sitting in appeal against their own judgment, they can indirectly violate it, as demonstrated in
the case.

In the case of A.U. Kureshi v. High Court of Gujarat (2009) 11 SCC 84, a judicial officer (the
appellant) was dismissed from service after being found guilty in a disciplinary inquiry. The appellant
had previously acquitted an accused under the Gambling Act and returned the seized money.
A complaint was later filed against the appellant, leading to a disciplinary inquiry. The High Court
recommended the appellant’s dismissal based on the suggestion of the Disciplinary Committee.
The Supreme Court held that a judge who was part of the Disciplinary Committee should not have
decided the matter on the judicial side. It was improper for a member of the Disciplinary Committee
to adjudicate on a challenge against the same dismissal order while acting in a purely judicial
capacity.
Such actions create an apprehension of bias on the part of the judge. Consequently, the Supreme
Court set aside the High Court’s order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, adhering to
the principle that no judge should decide a dispute they have dealt with in any capacity other than a
purely judicial one.

CONCLUSION

The rule against bias is a crucial principle of natural justice and fair administrative proceedings. It
ensures that decision-makers remain impartial and free from any personal, financial, or preconceived
biases that could influence their judgment.
The rule guards against different forms of bias, such as personal bias, pecuniary bias, subject matter
bias, policy notion bias, pre-conceived notion bias, and bias on account of obstinacy.
EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS TO PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

The principles of natural justice, often referred to as the twin pillars of procedural fairness, are
fundamental tenets in legal systems worldwide. These principles, audi alteram partem (hear the other
side) and nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause), serve as safeguards
to ensure fair decision-making and protect individuals from arbitrary or biased actions by authorities.

However, like any legal doctrine, the application of natural justice is not absolute. There are
situations where adherence to these principles may be impractical, unnecessary or even detrimental
to the broader interests of society. In such cases, exceptions and exclusions to the principles of
natural justice come into play, allowing decision-makers to navigate complex scenarios while still
upholding the principles of fairness and justice.

MEANING OF EXCEPTIONS PRINCIPLES 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

• 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.
For example, during a natural disaster or public health emergency, decision-makers may need to
make quick decisions without the luxury of extensive hearings or appeals processes. While this
exclusion is necessary to address urgent situations, it is crucial to ensure that decisions made under
these circumstances are still fair and proportionate.

• Express Statutory Exclusion

Statutory exclusion occurs when the governing statute does not explicitly provide for a hearing or
does not mention the application of natural justice principles. In such cases, the courts may uphold
the exclusion, as long as it does not lead to unfairness or arbitrariness.
However, if the exclusion is arbitrary, unreasonable or unfair, it may be challenged.
As held in: Maneka Gandhi versus Association of India, Karnataka Public Service Commission
versus B.M. Vijay Shankar and Ram Krishna Verma versus Province of U.P.)

• 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.
• 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.

• 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.

In the case of Harbans Lal v Commissioner and others, it was emphasised that a fair hearing is an
essential part of natural justice. Parties should be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard, either
orally or in writing, as determined by the authority. However, this requirement may vary if the statute
under which the action is taken provides otherwise. The authority has a duty to ensure that affected
parties have the opportunity for an oral or personal hearing.

• 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.

In the case of Jawaharlal Nehru University v. B.S. Narwal, a student was expelled for poor academic
performance without a pre-decisional hearing. The Supreme Court recognised that in academic
adjudication, where experts assess the quality of work over time, the principle of natural justice may
not always apply in the same manner as in legal proceedings.

• 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.

• 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.
• 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 minimize the
risk of legal challenges.

CONCLUSION
The exceptions and exclusions to the principles of natural justice play a crucial role in balancing the
need for procedural fairness with practical considerations and the broader interests of society.
While these exceptions provide flexibility to decision-makers in navigating complex legal scenarios,
they must be applied judiciously and with due regard for the principles of fairness, transparency and
accountability. Ultimately, the goal of any legal system should be to uphold the rule of law while
safeguarding individual rights and promoting the public interest.
Reference

1.
1. https://www.academia.edu/23092337/Title_PRINCIPLES_OF_NATURAL_
J
USTICE_IN_THE_LIGHT_OF_ADMINISTRATIVE_LAW_An_Analyti
cal_
and_comprehensive_study_of_Principle_of_natural_justice_especially_in_the
_field_Of_administrative_law
2. https://www.nacenkanpur.gov.in/download3.inc.php?rid=164
3. Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner AIR 1978 SC 851
4. Province of Bombay vs. Khushaldas Advani AIR 1950 SC 222
5. Board of high school vs. Ghanshyam AIR 1962 SC 1110
6. High water mark case- Eurasian equipment and company limited vs. State of
West Bengal AIR 1975 SC 266
7. Ramanand Prasad Singh vs. UOI, AIR 1996 SCC 64
8. Muralidhar vs. Kadam Singh AIR 1954 MP
9. Fazalbhai vs. custodian, AIR 1961 SC 284
10. Kanda vs. Government of Malaya, 1962 A.C. 322
11. Hari Nath Mishra vs. Rajendra Medical College, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1260
12. Gurubachan Singh vs. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 221
13. Ludhiana food product, 1990 (47) ELT 294
14. A.K.Roy, AIR 1982 SC 710
15. Sanghi textile processor vs. Commissioner, 1991 (55) ELT 151 A.P.

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises
as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various
opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity