Admin Unit III

Unit III
Principles of Natural Justice
in the case Russell v Duke of Norfolk, justice Tucker observed that

natural justice cannot be confined within strict and rigid definitions. Instead, it
takes on various colors, shades, shapes, and forms,
depending on the circumstances surrounding a case, the nature of the inquiry
being conducted, the rules governing the tribunal, and the specific subject
matter under consideration.
{ there's no universal rule that applies to every situation.
Instead, what's fair and just depends on factors like the
nature of the case, the rules governing the tribunal, and the
rights involved.}
This suggests that the principles of natural justice are not static or fixed but
rather dynamic and contextual.
In simple terms, natural justice is about ensuring fairness in legal proceedings.

It's like a guiding principle that ensures everyone gets a fair shake, but it's
flexible and adaptable, just like the circumstances it deals with.
Byrne v. Kinematograph Renters Society Ltd., Lord Harman outlines the

essentials of natural justice succinctly:
● The accused individual must be informed of the accusations
against them, ensuring they understand the nature of the claims being
made.
● They should be provided with an opportunity to present their
side of the story, giving them a fair chance to defend themselves.
● The tribunal or decision-making body must operate in good
faith, meaning they should approach the proceedings honestly and
impartially.
According to Lord Harman, these three principles encapsulate the essence of
natural justice in such cases.
In Union of India v. P.K. Roy, the Supreme Court of India, In Union of India v. P.K.
Roy, the Supreme Court of India, emphasized that the application of natural
justice cannot be restricted by rigid formulas. Instead, its application should be
flexible and context-dependent.
here the Supreme Court stressed that natural justice shouldn't be confined by
strict rules. Instead, it should be adaptable to different situations. This means
considering all factors to ensure fair treatment and procedural fairness in
administrative proceedings.
Additionally, English Law recognizes two fundamental principles of natural

justice:
● Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa: This Latin phrase
●
means "no one should be a judge in their own case." It ensures that
decision-makers remain impartial and unbiased by preventing them
from presiding over cases in which they have a personal interest.
● Audi alteram partem: This Latin phrase translates to "hear
the other side." It emphasizes the importance of giving both parties an
opportunity to present their arguments and evidence before a decision
is made. This principle ensures fairness in the decision-making
process and guards against judgments made without considering all
relevant perspectives.
. Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa:

The first principle of natural justice involves the rule against bias or interest,
which is based on three maxims:
"No man shall be a judge in his own cause."
"Justice should not only be done but should also be seen to be done."
"Judges, like Caesar's wife, should be above suspicion."
Bias means having a leaning or preference that might make someone decide
unfairly, without looking at all the evidence properly.
Lord Thankerton described bias as departing from the fair and impartial
standard expected from judges or those in similar roles, like arbitrators.
In simple terms, bias undermines the fairness and impartiality that are crucial
for justice.
Requirement of natural justice:

Judge must be impartial and unbiased.
should have no personal interest in the case, whether it's financial or
otherwise, as this would undermine their neutrality.
he should be objective and capable of making decisions based solely on
the facts presented. They must remain unaffected by personal
prejudices.
The goal is not just to maintain fairness but also to ensure that there's no
appearance of bias. In other words, the Judge's neutrality should be clear to
everyone involved.
{A Judge is required to think objectively and set

aside personal feelings when considering every
aspect of a case. Despite common belief that
wearing the judicial robe doesn't alter the person
underneath, it actually does. This means that judges
are expected to adopt a dispassionate approach and
not let their personal biases influence their
decisions. The judicial role demands a level of
detachment to ensure fairness and impartiality in
the administration of justice.}
This rule applies to the judicial and administrative authorities required to act
judicially or quasi-judicially.
Types of bias
Bias is of three types:
(i) Pecuniary bias,
Griffith and Street46rightly state that "a pecuniary interest, however
slight, will disqualify, even though it is not proved that the decision is in
any way affected".
The principle of natural justice regarding pecuniary bias is clear:
– even the slightest financial interest in a case disqualifies a
Judge from presiding over it.
– aims to eliminate any suspicion or doubt about the impartiality
of the tribunal
– to uphold public confidence in the administration of justice.
For instance, in the case of Dr. Bonham, where the College of Physicians fined
Dr. Bonham, the Court Chief Justice disallowed the claim as the College had a
financial stake in the outcome, making them a judge in their own cause.
Similarly, in Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal, Lord Cottenham's decision was
overturned by the House of Lords because he had a significant shareholding in
the canal company involved in the case, even though his decision wasn't
influenced by his personal interest.
Lord Hewart in R v. S' ex Justices, stated: "Nothing is to be done which creates

even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course
of justice
The principle is upheld in India as well. In cases like Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem
Chand, the Supreme Court emphasized that any pecuniary interest, no matter
how small, would disqualify a member from acting as a judge.
Likewise, in Visakhapatnam Coop. Motor Transport Co. Ltd. v. G.

Bangaruraju, a decision was set aside because the Collector, who had financial
ties to a cooperative society involved in the case, had granted a permit in favor
of the society, violating natural justice principles.
Even the possibility of bias, not just actual bias, is considered relevant, as seen
in Mohapatra & Co. v. State of Orissa, where the Supreme Court noted that
the selection committee members who were authors themselves might be
biased in favor of their own books.
This underscores the importance of ensuring impartiality and avoiding even the
appearance of bias in judicial proceedings.
(ii) Personal bias, and

Personal bias, the second type of bias, arises from various circumstances
where a Judge may have a personal connection or animosity towards one of the
parties involved.
This bias can occur if the Judge is a relative, friend, or business associate of a
party, or if they hold a grudge or rivalry against someone involved in the case.
State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh:

Departmental inquiry against A by B.
Witness turned hostile during the inquiry.
B intervened by giving evidence against A.
B resumed presiding over the inquiry and dismissed A.
Supreme Court ruled B's actions violated rules of natural justice.
Rattan Lal v. Managing Committee:

X was a witness and a member of the inquiry committee.
X participated in the proceedings despite being a witness.
X contributed to A's dismissal.
Supreme Court declared the proceedings flawed due to X's bias.
Both cases emphasize:
● Importance of maintaining neutrality and impartiality in inquiries.
● Violation of natural justice principles when those overseeing
proceedings exhibit bias.
AK. Kraipak v. Union of India:

N was a candidate for selection to the Indian Foreign Service.
N was also a member of the Selection Board.
N's name was recommended by the Board, and he was selected by the
Public Service Commission.
Candidates who were not selected filed a writ petition, alleging violation of
natural justice principles.
Court quashed the selection, citing the principle of "man should not be
judge in his own cause."
Despite N not participating in deliberations about his own candidacy, his
mere presence on the Board could have influenced the decision.
N participated in discussions involving rivals' claims and the preparation of
the selected candidates' list, creating a conflict of interest.
The real issue was not proving bias but determining if there were
reasonable grounds to believe N could have been impartial.
The real question is not whether he was biased. It is difficult to prove the state
of mind of a person. Therefore what we have to see is whether there is
reasonable ground for believing he could have been impartial. that he was
likely to have been biased.'
(iii) Official bias or bias as to subject-matter.

The third type of bias is official bias or bias as to the subject-matter.
This may arise when the Judge has a general interest in the subject-matter
mere general interest in the general object to be pursued would not disqualify a
Judge from deciding the matter. There must be some direct connection with
the litigation

Admin Unit III

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Admin Unit III

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Admin Unit III

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unit III

Principles of Natural Justice

in the case Russell v Duke of Norfolk, justice Tucker observed that

In simple terms, natural justice is about ensuring fairness in legal proceedings.

Byrne v. Kinematograph Renters Society Ltd., Lord Harman outlines the

Additionally, English Law recognizes two fundamental principles of natural

. Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa:

Requirement of natural justice:

{A Judge is required to think objectively and set

Lord Hewart in R v. S' ex Justices, stated: "Nothing is to be done which creates

Likewise, in Visakhapatnam Coop. Motor Transport Co. Ltd. v. G.

(ii) Personal bias, and

State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh:

Rattan Lal v. Managing Committee:

AK. Kraipak v. Union of India:

(iii) Official bias or bias as to subject-matter.

You might also like