Principles of Natural Justice:

1.Nemo Judex in Causa Sua

is a Latin maxim that translates to "no one should be a judge in their own
cause." It is a fundamental principle of natural justice aimed at ensuring
impartiality in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.

Components of Nemo Judex in Causa Sua

1. Bias:
The principle addresses both actual and perceived bias. Bias can arise in
various forms:
o Pecuniary Bias: When the judge or decision-maker has a financial
interest in the case.
o Personal Bias: Arising from relationships or personal connections
that could influence impartiality.
o Institutional Bias: When the structure or nature of the institution
inherently creates a conflict of interest.
2. Fair Hearing: It ensures that no party to a case is at a disadvantage due
to the decision-maker's partiality.
3. Perception of Justice: It’s not just about justice being done but also
about justice being seen to be done. Even an appearance of bias can
undermine public confidence in the process.

Nemo Judex in Causa Sua is a Latin maxim that translates to "no one should
be a judge in their own cause." It is a fundamental principle of natural justice
aimed at ensuring impartiality in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.

Components of Nemo Judex in Causa Sua

1. Bias: The principle addresses both actual and perceived bias. Bias can
arise in various forms:
o Pecuniary Bias: When the judge or decision-maker has a financial
interest in the case.
o Personal Bias: Arising from relationships or personal connections
that could influence impartiality.
 o Institutional Bias: When the structure or nature of the institution
inherently creates a conflict of interest.
2. Fair Hearing: It ensures that no party to a case is at a disadvantage due
to the decision-maker's partiality.
3. Perception of Justice: It’s not just about justice being done but also
about justice being seen to be done. Even an appearance of bias can
undermine public confidence in the process.

Rules under Nemo Judex in Causa Sua

1. Impartiality is Mandatory: A judge or decision-maker must be free

from bias or interest in the case.
2. Disqualification for Conflict of Interest: If a decision-maker has a
conflict of interest, they must recuse themselves from the case.
3. Application in Judicial and Administrative Proceedings: The rule
applies to both courts and tribunals or administrative bodies exercising
quasi-judicial functions.

Exceptions to Nemo Judex in Causa Sua

1. Doctrine of Necessity: When there is no other competent authority to

decide the matter, the rule may be overlooked to avoid injustice. For
example, a finance minister might decide a case involving the ministry if
no one else is available.
2. Statutory Exclusion: Certain laws may explicitly allow decision-makers
with a potential conflict of interest to preside, provided procedural
safeguards exist.
3. Waiver by the Parties: If all parties involved in the case voluntarily
agree to waive the rule, the decision-maker may continue.

Illustrations

 Pecuniary Bias: A judge owning shares in a company that is a party to

the case.
 Personal Bias: A judge presiding over a case involving a family member.
 Institutional Bias: A university disciplinary committee member deciding
a case involving their department.

Case Laws
 1. Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal (1852): A judge's financial interest in a
company disqualified him from hearing a case concerning that company.
2. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1970): A principle of natural justice
was emphasized to remove even the likelihood of bias in administrative
proceedings.

By adhering to this principle, the legal system maintains fairness and public
trust.

2. Audi Alteram Partem

is a Latin maxim that translates to "hear the other side" or "let the other side be
heard as well." It is a fundamental principle of natural justice that ensures
fairness by providing all parties to a dispute an opportunity to present their case.

Components of Audi Alteram Partem

1. Right to Notice:
o A party must be informed of the case against them, the charges, or the issues
involved.
o The notice must be clear, specific, and given in reasonable time to prepare a
defense.

2. Right to a Fair Hearing:

o Each party has the right to present their arguments, evidence, and witnesses.
o This includes the right to cross-examine witnesses and respond to any
evidence presented against them.

3. No Decision Without Hearing:

o A decision-maker cannot take any adverse action or decision without hearing
the affected party.

4. Right to Representation:
o In complex cases, the party may have the right to legal or professional
representation.

Rules under Audi Alteram Partem

1. Equal Opportunity:
o Both sides must be given equal opportunities to present their case.
 2. Neutral Decision-Making:
o The decision-maker must hear the case impartially and not prejudge the
matter.

3. Right to Know the Evidence:

o A party is entitled to know and contest any evidence or material being used
against them.

Exceptions to Audi Alteram Partem

1. Emergency Situations:
o In situations requiring urgent action to prevent harm, prior hearing may not
be possible (e.g., suspension of a license for public safety).

2. Impracticability:
o When giving a hearing is impracticable or impossible (e.g., during large-scale
administrative actions).

3. Legislative Exclusion:
o Certain statutory provisions may explicitly exclude the requirement of a
hearing.

4. Confidential Matters:
o In cases where confidentiality is critical (e.g., national security issues), the
right to a hearing may be limited.

Illustrations

 Termination of Employment: An employee must be given notice and an

opportunity to be heard before dismissal.
 Revocation of License: A driver’s license cannot be revoked without
informing the person and allowing them to defend themselves.

Case Laws

1. Ridge v. Baldwin (1964): A dismissal of a public servant without giving

him a chance to be heard was held invalid.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): The government’s decision
to impound Maneka Gandhi’s passport without giving her a chance to
explain was held to violate the principles of natural justice.
 3. Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978): The
Supreme Court reiterated the necessity of a hearing before making
decisions that affect the rights of individuals.

Importance of Audi Alteram Partem This principle protects individuals from

arbitrary actions, ensures transparency in decision-making, and fosters public
confidence in legal and administrative systems. It upholds the rule of law and
equality before the law.

Reasoned Decision
A Reasoned Decision refers to a decision by a judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative authority that is accompanied by clear and logical reasons
explaining the basis for the decision. This principle is essential for fairness,
transparency, and accountability in decision-making.

Components of a Reasoned Decision

1. Clarity of Reasons: The decision must explain the facts, evidence, and
reasoning that led to the conclusion.
2. Legal Basis: It should reference relevant laws, rules, or principles on
which the decision is based.
3. Addressing Arguments: All significant arguments or submissions made
by the parties should be considered and addressed.
4. Fair Process: The reasoning must demonstrate that the decision was
reached through a fair and impartial process.

Importance of a Reasoned Decision

1. Transparency: Provides a clear rationale for the decision, increasing

public confidence.
2. Accountability: Ensures decision-makers are accountable for their
judgments.
3. Right to Appeal: Enables the affected party to understand the decision
and challenge it if necessary.
4. Prevention of Arbitrary Decisions: Protects against decisions made
based on bias or without proper consideration.
Exceptions

1. Routine or Ministerial Decisions: Not all routine administrative

decisions require detailed reasoning.
2. Statutory Exclusions: Some statutes may not mandate giving reasons,
but even then, courts often insist on fairness.

Relevant Case Laws

1. Siemens Engineering v. Union of India (1976):

The Supreme Court held that giving reasons is a requirement of natural
justice.
2. Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010):
The court emphasized that the recording of reasons is essential for
ensuring justice and preventing arbitrariness.

3. Legitimate Expectation

The doctrine of Legitimate Expectation refers to the anticipation or belief of

an individual or group that they will receive a certain benefit or treatment based
on past actions, practices, or assurances from an authority.

Components of Legitimate Expectation

1. Past Practice or Conduct: A consistent and predictable action or

promise by the authority.
2. Assurances: Express or implied promises by the authority that create an
expectation.
3. Reasonableness: The expectation must be reasonable, logical, and based
on sound grounds.
4. Procedural Fairness: The authority is obligated to consider the
legitimate expectation when making decisions.

Rules Governing Legitimate Expectation

1. No Violation of Law: The expectation must not conflict with statutory

provisions.
 2. Public Interest: Legitimate expectations can be overridden if it is
necessary to serve the larger public interest.
3. Fair Consideration: Authorities must fairly evaluate the expectation
before making decisions.

Exceptions to Legitimate Expectation

1. Policy Change: Authorities have the right to modify policies to address

new circumstances.
2. Larger Public Interest: Expectations can be set aside if fulfilling them
would harm the public interest.
3. Unreasonable Expectations: Expectations that are irrational, vague, or
not grounded in reality are not protected.

Case Laws

1. Navjyoti Co-op. Group Housing Society v. Union of India (1992):

The court held that legitimate expectations arise when consistent
practices have been followed.
2. Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation (1993):
The Supreme Court clarified the concept, stating that the expectation
must be reasonable and cannot override statutory provisions.
3. Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries
(1993):
Legitimate expectation was explained as not a legal right but an equitable
one, enforceable only under fair consideration.

Conclusion

Both Reasoned Decision and Legitimate Expectation are pillars of justice and
fairness in administrative law. While the former ensures transparency and
accountability in decision-making, the latter protects the reasonable
expectations of individuals based on the authority’s past conduct or assurances.
Together, they uphold the principles of natural justice.