INTRODUCTION

TITLE
PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
SUBMITTED BY
KSHITIJ KATIYAR
CLASS: B.COM.LLB. (HONS)
SEMESTER: 6
OF
FACULTY OF LAW
DR. SHAKUNTALA MISRA NATIONAL REHABILATION
UNIVESITY
IN
JULY, 2021

UNDER THE GUIDENCE OF

DR.GULAB CHANDRA RAI
ASSISTANT PROFFESSOR
OF
LAW FACULTY
DR. SHAKUNTALA MISRA NATIONAL REHABILATION
UNIVESITY
 ANNEXURE

1.INTRODUCTION

2.ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

3.INDEX

4.CONTENT

5.BIBLIOGRAPHY

Principles of Natural Justice

2|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks and gratitude to my teacher

DR. GULAB RAI who gave the golden opportunity to do this
wonderful project on the topic PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL
JUSTICE, which also helped me in doing lots of research about the
topic due to which, I came across various new aspects about the topic.
I am very much thankful to her.
Secondly, I want to thank my parents and my friends who supported
me a lot and helped me in completing this assignment within limited
time frame.

Kshitij Katiyar

Semester VI Roll No. 40

B.COM LLB (HONS)

Principles of Natural Justice

3|Page
 INDEX

SR. NUMBER PARTICULSRS PAGE

NUMBER

1 INTRODUCTION &ORIGIN 5-6

2 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 6
OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL
JUSTICE IN INDIA
3 PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL 6
JUSTICE

4 DOCTRINE OF BIAS 7-9

5 AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM 9-12

6 REASONED DECISION & 12-14

DOCTRINE OF POST
DECISIONAL HEARING
7 EXCEPTIONS OF PRINCIPLES 14
OF NATURAL JUSTICE

8 CONCLUSION 15

9 BIBLIOGRAPHY 16

Principles of Natural Justice

4|Page
Introduction:
The term ―Principles of Natural Justice (PNJ), derived from the expression “Jus
Natural” of the Roman Law, does not have force of law as they may or may not form part of
statute but they are necessarily to be followed. The adherence to principles of natural justice
as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body
embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving
civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled.The principle of natural
justice is adhered to by all the citizens of civilised 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 is another name for common sense justice rules of natural justice are not in
codified form these principles imbedded or ingrained or inbuilt in the conscience of human
being. It supplies the omission made in codified law and helps in administration of justice.
Natural justice is not only confined to ‘fairness’ it will take many shade and colour based on
the context. Thus, natural justice apart from ‘fairness’ also implies reasonableness, equity and
equality. They are neither cast in a rigid mould nor can they be put in legal straitjacket.

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 too1.

The word ‘Natural Justice’ manifests justice according to one’s own conscience. It is derived
from the Roman Concept ‘jus - naturale’ and ‘Lex naturale’ which meant principle of
natural law, natural justice, eternal law, natural equity or good conscience. Lord Evershed, in
Vionet v. Barrett remarked, “Natural Justice is the natural sense of what is right and wrong.”
But Natural justice has meant different things to different peoples at different times. In its

1
Principle of Natural Justice/blog.ipleaders.in
Principles of Natural Justice
5|Page
widest sense, it was formerly used as a synonym for natural law. It has been used to mean
that reasons must be given for decisions; that a body deciding an issue must only act on
evidence of probative value.

Historical Prescriptive of Principle of Natural Justice in India:

Procedural fairness is part of our cultural heritage. It is deeply rooted in our law. It lies at the
heart of the judicial function and conditions the exercise of a large array of administrative
powers affecting the rights, duties, privileges and immunities of individuals and
organizations. Though now it is believed that Principles of Natural Justice were systematized
in ancient Rome, principles of natural justice are not new India. Principles of fair hearing and
rule against bias were well recognized in ancient India.

In ancient India foremost duty of a judge was his integrity which included impartiality and a
total absence of bias or attachment. The concept of integrity was given a very wide meaning
and the judicial code of integrity was very strict, Brihaspati Says: "A judge should decide
cases without any consideration of personal gain or any kind of personal bias; and his
decision should be in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the texts. A judge who
performs his judicial duties in this manner achieves the same spiritual merit as a person
performing a Yajna."Further, the judges and counsellors guiding the king during the trial of a
case were required to be independent and fearless and prevent him from committing any error
or injustice.2

Principles of Natural Justice:

(i) Nemo debet essc judex in propria causa. (No one should be a judge in his own
case); also known as rule against bias or Doctrine of Bias
(ii) Audi alterem partem (no person can be condemned or punished by the court
without having a fair opportunity of being heard; It is also known as a rule of fair
hearing), and
(iii) Speaking orders or reasoned decisions.

The first two have come to us from the Roman Law and the third one is a recent Innovation
due to the rapid development of the constitutional as well as administrative law.

1. Nemo debet essc judex in propria causa or Doctrine of Bias:

2
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/ Origin and development of principle of Natural Justice/
Principles of Natural Justice
6|Page
 The first principle of impartiality roughly translated into English means nobody
shall be a judge in his own cause or in a cause in which he is interested. This principle
is more popularly known as the Doctrine of Bias. That is the authority sitting in
judgment should be impartial and act without bias. To instil confidence in the system,
justice should not merely be done but seen to be done. Rule of judicial conduct, since
early times, has been laid down that the presiding officer should be free of any
prejudices
The rule against bias has its origin in the following
principles, which are:
1). No one should be a judge in his own cause;
2). Justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done

Article 14 of The Constitution of India contains a guarantee of equality before the law to all
persons and a protection to them against discrimination by any law. What Article 14 forbids
is discrimination by law, that is, treating persons similarly circumstanced differently or
treating those not similarly circumstanced in the same way, or, as has been pithily put treating
equals as un equals and un equals as equals. Article 14 prohibits hostile classification by law
and is directed against discriminatory class legislation. Arbitrariness can take many forms
and shapes but whatever form or shape it takes, it is nonetheless discrimination. It also
became apparent that to treat a person or a class of persons unfairly would be an arbitrary act
amounting to discrimination for- bidden by Article 14. The Apex Court has recognised that to
treat a person in violation of the principles of natural justice would amount to arbitrary and
discriminatory treatment and would violate the guarantee given by Article 14.

The principles of natural justice have thus come to be recognized as being a part of the
guarantee contained in Article 14 because of the new and dynamic interpretation given by the
Supreme Court to the concept of equality. Violation of a rule of natural justice results in
arbitrariness which is the same as discrimination; where discrimination is the result of State
action, it is a violation of Article 14: therefore, a violation of a principle of natural justice by
a State action is a violation of Article 14.

Types of Bias:

Personal bias

Principles of Natural Justice

7|Page
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.

In A.K. Kraipak V. Union of India3, the Supreme Court held that a person who sits on a
Committee for selection of candidates for certain job must not be a Candidate himself for the
Job. The logic is that Judges could be impartial and neutral. He must be free from any
controversy, suspicion of bias in rendering Justice.

In case of Ramanand Prasad Singh vs. UOI4Supreme 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.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.

Pecuniary Bias

Judicial approach is unanimous and decisive on the point that any financial interest,
howsoever small it may be, would vitiate administrative action. The disqualification will not
be avoided by non-participation of the biased member in the proceedings if he was present
when the decision was reached. In the age of free market economy where investment in
shares is very common there is very much chance of the bias of this type. However
considered opinion is that it would serve no public interest if the deciding officer rescues
himself where he has no substantial pecuniary interest.
In Mohapatra v. State of Orissa5, case, it was held that when the author of a book was a
member of the committee set up for selection of books, and his book was also under

consideration by that committee, the possibility of bias could not be ruled out and the
selection by that committee cannot be upheld.

Subject Matter Bias

3
AIR 1970 SC A
4
AIR 1996 (4) 64
5
AIR 1984 SC 1572
Principles of Natural Justice
8|Page
Those cases fall within this category where the deciding officer is directly, or otherwise,
involved in the subject-matter of the case. Here again mere involvement would not vitiate the
administrative action unless there is a real likelihood of bias.

Muralidhar v Kadam Singh 6, the court refused to quash the decision of the Election
Tribunal on the ground that the wife of the chairman was a member of the Congress party
whose candidate the petitioner defeated

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.

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.

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

1. 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.The principle of audi
alteram partem is the basic concept of principle of natural justice. The expression audialteram
partem implies that a person must be given opportunity to defend himself. This principle is
sine qua non of every civilized society. It is also known as Concept of fair trial or Right to
Fair Trial

This rule covers various stages through which administrative adjudication passes starting
from notice to final determination. Right to fair hearing/fair trial thus includes: -

6
AIR1954 MP III
Principles of Natural Justice
9|Page
Right to Notice

Before any action is taken against the party who is affected. A notice must be provided to
them in order to present a cause against the proposed action and pursue his application. If any
order is passed without giving notice then it is against the principle of natural justice and is
void ab initio which means void from the beginning.

It is a right of person to know about the facts before any action is taken and without knowing
the proper facts, a person cannot protect himself. The right to notice means right to be known.
The facts should be known by the party before the hearing of the case. Notice is essential to
begin any hearing. Notice must contain the date, time, place of hearing and also the
jurisdiction under which a case is filed. It must also contain the charges and proposed against
the person. If any of the thing is missing in the notice then notice will be considered invalid.
Non-issuance of notice does not affect the jurisdiction but affects the rules of natural justice.

Right to Fair Hearing

The second most essential element of audi alteram partem is fair hearing. If the order passed
by the authority without hearing the party or without giving him an opportunity of being
heard then it will be considered as an invalid.Right to hearing provides an individual to
present his case before the court and put forward evidences in support of his case. It also
includes the right of representation and at the same time to defend his side.

Fateh Singh v State of Rajasthan 7

In this case, it was held that if a person gets a reasonable opportunity of being heard or fair
hearing it is an essential ingredient of the principal of audi alteram partem. This condition is
accompanied by the authority providing written or oral hearing which is discretion of the
authority, unless the statute under which action is taken by the authority provides otherwise.
It is the duty of authority to ensure that affected parties should get a chance of oral or
personal hearing or not.

Right to Present Case and Evidence

After the issuance of notice, one should be given reasonable time to prepare and present the
case and evidences; Supreme Court overruled the decision of the administrative bodies in

7
A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 39
Principles of Natural Justice
10 | P a g e
Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. on the grounds of not being allowed to provide sufficient
materials; this is violative of the principle of natural justice.

Evidence to be collected in presence of parties

Evidence is considered as a most important part which is brought before the court when both
the parties are present there and the judicial or quasi-judicial authority will act upon the
evidence which is produced before the court so that both the parties have equal opportunity to
provide an explanation if any is required.

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

In certain exceptional cases, the right to cross-examination can be denied or rejected. Hari
Nath Mishra vs. Rajendra Medical College8, 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.

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)9

The requirement of fair trial involves two things:

a) an opportunity to the accused to secure a counsel of his own choice, and
b) the duty of the state to provide a counsel to the accused in certain cases.

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)
8
AIR 1973 SC 1260
9
AIR 1982 SC 710
Principles of Natural Justice
11 | P a g e
Reasoned Decision
“Reason is an essential requirement of the rule of law. It provides a link between fact and
decision, guard against non-application of mind, arbitrariness, and maintains public
confidence in judicial and administrative authorities. Reasons also serve a wider principle
that justice must not only be done, it must also appear to be done.Reasonhelps in establishing
precedents to the system therefore it adds more certainty. Reasons provided must be clear,
cogent and succinct.

Doctrine of Post Decisional Hearing

Post decisional hearing is a hearing which takes after a provisional decision is reached. Post
decisional hearing takes place where it may not be feasible to hold pre-decisional hearing.
The idea of Post Decision Hearing has been developed to maintain a balance between
administrative efficiency and fairness to individuals. In Post Decisional Hearing, an
individual is given an opportunity to be heard after a tentative decision has been taken by the
authorities. In certain situations, it is not feasible for the authorities to have a normal pre-
decisional hearing and decisions are being taken on first instance before providing the
individual to present his views, then it would be considered reasonable if the authorities
provide Post Decision Hearing as well, asset will be in compliance with the Principle of
Natural Justice.

In Post Decision Hearing, the prominent point is that authorities must take only a tentative
decision and not a final decision without hearing the party concerned. The fundamental
objective is that when a final decision is taken than it becomes difficult for the authorities to
reverse it and the purpose of providing a fair hearing gets defeated so to prevent it this
doctrine was formulated. It strengthens the concept of Audi Alteram Partem by providing
Right to Heard at a later stage.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India10case, the petitioner’s passport was confiscated by the
union government under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967. The provision under
which impoundment took place authorizes the central government to carry out the same if it
was necessary for the interest of the general public at large. But the government did not
provide any reasons for carrying out the same. In this case mainly there was breach of the
principle of natural justice (Audi Alteram Partem). The petitioner asked the Passport Office
10
AIR 1978 SC 597
Principles of Natural Justice
12 | P a g e
to furnish the grounds on which her passport is impounded upon as provided under Section
10(5), the Government refused to provide the same stating in the interest of the general
public, they will not provide the reasons for this order. The petitioner filed a writ petition
challenging the order passed by the Government.The argument presented by the Attorney
General regarding the applicability of Audi alteram partem was rejected by the Court. The
court stated that is necessary for the authorities to comply by the principle of Natural Justice
and an opportunity to be heard must be provided to the petitioner before passing any final
order.

Finally, the court did not pass any order as assurance was provided by the Attorney General
to provide the petitioner with the opportunity to present her views within two weeks (Post
Decisional Hearing) and prior to the taking of final decision authorities will consider the
views given by the petitioner. Hence first time in Indian Legal Jurisprudence the concept
to Audi Alteram Partem was evolved.

Canara Bank vs. V.K. Awasthi11

The respondent was served with a show cause notice on 6.08.1992 and was granted 15 days
to reply. The respondent failed to reply and as a consequence was terminated from the service
on17.08.1992. The respondent contended that principles of natural justice was not followed
and High Court upholding the said contention ordered the bank to provide proper hearing to
the respondent before the disciplinary committee. Hence, the bank filed an appeal before the
Supreme Court. The respondent was served with a show cause notice on 6.08.1992 and was
granted 15 days to reply. The respondent failed to reply and as a consequence was terminated
from the service on17.08.1992. The respondent contended that principles of natural justice
was not followed and High Court upholding the said contention ordered the bank to provide
proper hearing to the respondent before the disciplinary committee. Hence, the bank filed an
appeal before the Supreme Court.

Exceptions of principles of Natural Justice:

 During the Emergency period

 Public interest
 Express statutory provision
11
(2005) 6 SCC 321
Principles of Natural Justice
13 | P a g e
  Nature of the case is not of a serious kind
 Exceptions where no right of the person is infringed: Principles of natural justice are
not applied where no fundamental right of the person is infringed.
 Exception during contractual agreement: Termination of agreement is neither quasi-
judicial nor administrative hence principles of natural justice cannot be attracted.
 Exception due to government policy decision: Principles of natural justice are
excluded in exercise of executive policy matters as it is impractical to provide proper
hearing to all the individuals whenever an executive decision is taken in light of
public interest.

CONCLUSION

Principles of Natural Justice

14 | P a g e
Law is a very dynamic field of study. The sole purpose of the study of this branch is to
maintain peace, order and provide justice to the society. But the process of delivering justice
and maintaining peace and order is not that easy and it is not possible without using
Principles of Natural Justice in the process of delivering justice. Principle of natural justice
are made so that there should be no injustice with anyone. The concept of fair trial or fair
hearing (Audi Alteram Partem) is also one of theprinciples of natural justice which is itself
the soul of the legal system.

Basically, these principles were evolved in ancient time for fulfilment of one purpose only
that is to provide justice to each and every person of the society. Since olden times these
principles have evolved more according to the need of the society. The only way or means to
deliver justice in society can be achieved by two things delivering justice without any bias or
prejudice & right to be heard or fair hearing before delivering justice. These two things
mentioned are the two main principle of natural justice.

According to the need of the society and delivering justice properly the Supreme Court of
India has developed a third principle of natural justice i.e. Reasoned Decision which means
the judgement given by any authority in any matter should compulsorily give reasons for the
decision or judgement given as was held in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.

These principles were formulated for fair process of delivering justice and when need arises
some new principles can also be added to make the process of delivering proper justice to
everyone more clear and transparent.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Principles of Natural Justice

15 | P a g e
 BOOKS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
- BY Dr. U.P.D. Kesari
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
- I.P. Massey

WEBSITES:
 https://blog.ipleaders.in/principle of natural justice/
 http://acadamike.in/principle of natural justice/
 http://www.legalserviceindia.com/origin and development of principle of natural
justice/
 http://www.lawtimesjournal.com/principle of natural justice/

Principles of Natural Justice

16 | P a g e