NATURAL JUSTICE

Derived from the word 'Jus Naturale' of the Roman law which means 'a system of law
based on fundamental ideas of right and wrong'
It is also called Universal Justice, Fundamental Justice and Substantial Justice.
It can be described as “judicial fairness in decision making” and its main aim is to
secure justice or prevent miscarriage of justice.

Rules Of Natural Justice.

• NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA (Rule Against Bias)
• AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM (Hear the other side)

Does Doctrine of Natural Justice apply to Administrative Bodies?

The decision in Ridge v. Baldwin (1963) for the first time applied the
doctrine of natural justice into the realm of administrative decision making
by using the principles to overturn a non-judicial (or quasi-judicial) decision.
The Court of appeal denoted natural justice as 'fair play in action' a phrase
used by Bhagawati, J. in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978).
In Indian Scenario, In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969), Supreme Court
held that Principles of Natural Justice will apply not only to judicial functions
but also to administrative and executive functions.

NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA (Rule Against Bias)

First Rule - Justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen
to be done, and it means that there should be no chance of even a suspicion that
there has been an improper interference with the court of justice.
“It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be
done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”
“Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference
with the course of justice.”

- Lord Hewart (Rex v. Sussex Justices, 1924)

1
Second Rule - No one should be a judge in his own cause, basically means that the
decision should be free from any chances of Biasness. Biasness can be Personal,
Pecuniary or Subject Matter.
Personal Bias - Personal bias arises from near and dear i.e., from
friendship, relationship, business or professional association.
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)

The Supreme Court quashed the selections made by the selection

board on the ground that one of the candidates appeared before
selection committee was also a member of the selection board.

In this court ‘bias’ was an obvious issue, the main question was ‘Will
Principles of Natural Justice apply to Administrative Proceedings’ ?

Supreme Court held that Principles of Natural Justice will apply not
only to judicial functions but also to administrative and executive
functions.

Pecuniary Bias - When the adjudicator/ judge has monetary/ economic

interest in the subject matter of the dispute/ case.
Thomas Bonham v College of Physicians (1610) - Commonly
known as Dr. Bonham's Case,
Dr. Bonham was fined for practicing in the city of London without
license of the college of Physicians. Sir Edward Coke said that the
college was entitled to receive a portion of the fine and it will be the
prosecutor, plaintiff, and judge in the dispute and no person may be a
judge in his own cause. It was held that the impartiality of a judge is
compromised in this case.

Subject Matter Bias - When the judge possesses a general interest of the
subject matter of dispute.
Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. A. P.S.R.T.C (1958).
In this case, the government proposed nationalization of motor
transport. Objections for nationalization were referred to be heard by
the secretary to the Government, who upheld the validity of the
scheme (for nationalization). It was challenged on the ground that the
said secretary in fact, initiated the nationalization. The Supreme Court
held the government secretary's action invalid.

2
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM (Hear the Other Side)
No person can be condemned or punished by the court without having a fair
opportunity of being heard. Elements of Fair Hearing are as follows:

Issuance of Notice - There are no specific guidelines but the notice must at
least mention the following details:
• Time, place and nature of hearing.
• Legal authority under which hearing is to be held.
• Statement of specific charges and proposed action the person has to meet.
• Evidence to be used against the person.
• Reasonable opportunity to the person to comply with the requirement of notice.
Punjab National Bank v. All India Bank Employees Federation (1960)
In this case, notice did not contain the charges against which fine
was imposed. The Supreme Court held that the notice was
defective and quashed the fine.

R. v. University of Cambridge (Dr. Bentley's case) (1723)

In this case, the University authorities without giving any notice
cancelled the degree of Dr. Bentley on the ground of misconduct.
The University's action was held violative of the principle of
natural justice.

Right of Legal representative - Right to legal representation is also

included under the Ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution, Also Article 39A
provides for free legal aid for those who are not able to get it because of
economic or other disability.

Right to present the case and evidence and Cross Examination.

K.L Tripathi v. State Bank of India (1984) – Cross Examination

Supreme Court emphasized on the importance of Cross
Examination in a Suit.
“The basic concept is fair play in action` ` administrative, judicial or quasi-
judicial. The concept of fair play in action must depend upon the particular lis,
if there be any, between the parties.

3
 If the credibility of a person who has testified or given some information is in
doubt, or if the version or the statement of the person who has testified, is, in
dispute, right of cross-examination must inevitably form part of fair play in
action but where there is no lis regarding the facts but certain explanation of
the circumstances there is no requirement of cross examination to be fulfilled
to justify fair play in action.

Where there is no dispute as to the facts, or the weight to be attached on

disputed facts but only an explanation to the acts, absence of opportunity to
cross-examination does not create any prejudice in such cases. The principles
of natural justice will, therefore, depend upon the facts and circumstances of
each particular case.”

Post Decisional Hearing

Post-decisional opportunity of hearing does not sub-serve the rules of natural
justice. The authority which embarks upon a post-decisional hearing will
normally proceed with a closed mind and there is hardly any chance of
getting a proper consideration of the representation at such a post-decisional
opportunity. One cannot expect that a post-decisional hearing would be
anything more than a mere empty formalistic ritual.

Thus, in every case where the pre-decisional hearing is warranted post-

decisional hearing will not validate the action except in every exceptional
circumstance where the only two options are no hearing or post decisional
hearing.

Some Landmark Cases for post decisional hearing are H.L.Trehan V. Union
of India (1989), K.I.Shephard V. Union of India (1987), Swadeshi Cotton
Mills V. Union of India (1981) and Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India

Right to get reason for the decisions of court.

Ajantha Industries v. Central Board of Direct Taxes (1975)

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.

4
EXCEPTIONS TO NATURAL JUSTICE
“The principles of natural Justice must be confined within their proper limits and not
allowed to run wild. The concept of natural justice is a magnificent thoroughbred on
which this nation gallops forwards towards its proclaimed and destined goal of
JUSTICE, social, economic and political. This thoroughbred must not be allowed to
turn into a wild and unruly horse, careering off where it lists, unsaddling its rider, and
bursting into fields where the sign no pasaran is put up.”
- Satyabir Singh v. UOI (1986)

- Exception because of Statutory or Constitutional Provisions

- Exception in case of Legislative Act
- Exception in Public Interest or in case of Need of Prompt Action or in
Emergency
- Exception in case of Confidentiality
- Exception in cases of Academic Adjudication
- Exception When No Right of Individual Is Infringed
- Exception in case of Impracticality.
- Exception by Necessity (Doctrine of Necessity)
An adjudicator who is subject to disqualification on account of bias may
nevertheless, can validly adjudicate if:
1) No other person competent to adjudicate is available;
2) A quorum cannot be formed without him;
3) No other competent tribunal can be constituted;

Ashok Kumar Yadav v State of Haryana (1987)

During the selection process in Haryana State Public Service Commission,
relative of the member of the Selection Board was interviewed and later
personal relationship was alleged as a ground to strike down the decision of
the Selection Board.

But the situation here is different as the selection of candidates to Haryana

Civil Service (Executive) and allied services, is not done by a selection
committee made for the purpose but is provided for by Article 316 of the
Constitution of India. If a member of Public Service Commission were to

5
Public Law 2022 Natural Justice

withdraw altogether from the selection making process on the ground that a
close relative of his is appearing for selection, no other person other than a
member can be substituted in his place. And it may also happen sometimes
that no other member is available at all and hence functioning of Public
Service Commission may be affected.

Held: Supreme Court Invoked the Doctrine Of Necessity expressly and held
that the decision by the Committee valid and untarnished by any sort of bias.

Election Commission of India v. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy (1996)

Issue was misappropriation of funds by J. Jayalalitha. In order to disqualify
her from contesting elections her personal enemy Dr. Subramaniam Swamy
filed a petition before the Governor.

Governor because of Article 192 consulted the Election commission. The

Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) was T.N. Seshan, who was close friend of
Dr. Subramaniam Swamy. So, J. Jayalalitha went to the Madras High Court
claiming that Seshan was in a position to act biased.

Held: In view of the appointment of additional two members on the EC, the
EC could give its opinion through members other than CEC. But for a final
decision in case of disagreement a majority decision is required. So even if
their is divided opinion between the EC’s, then applying the doctrine of
necessity the final opinion of the CEC must be sought.