4.

Legal Justice:
Legal Justice means rule of law and not rule of any person. It includes two things: that all men are
equal before law, and that law is equally applicable to all. It provides legal security to all. Law does
not discriminate between the rich and the poor. Objective and due dispensation of justice by the
courts of law is an essential ingredient of legal justice.

The legal procedure has to be simple, quick, fair, inexpensive and efficient. There should be
effective machinery for preventing unlawful actions. The aim of law is the establishment of what is
legitimate; provide legal security, and prevention of unjust actions. -Salmond.

Natural Justice is an important concept in administrative law. The principles of natural justice of
fundamental rules of procedure are the preliminary basis of a good administrative set up of any country.
The concept and doctrine of Principles of Natural Justice and its application in Justice delivery system is
not new. It has its place since the beginning of justice delivery system. Natural justice is an expression of
English common law, which involves a procedural requirement of fairness. It is an important concept in
administrative law. In the words of Justice Krishna Iyer Natural justice is a pervasive fact of secular law
where a spiritual touch enlivens legislation, legislation and adjudication to make fairness a creed of life.
It has many colour and shades, many forms and shapes.1 It is no doubt, a procedural requirement but it
ensures a strong safeguard against any Judicial or administrative; order or action, adversely affecting the
substantive rights of the individuals. Different jurists have described the principle in different ways.
Some called it as the unwritten law (jus non scriptum) or the law of reason. It has, however not been
found to be capable of being defined, but some jurists have described the principle as a great
humanising principle intended to invest law with fairness to secure justice and to prevent miscarriage of
justice. With the passage of time,some principles have evolved and crystallised which are well
recognized principles of natural justice. Natural Justice is an important concept in administrative law.
The term natural justice signifies basic principles of justice, which are made available to everyone litigant
during trial. Principles of natural justice are founded on reason and enlightened public policy. These
principles are adopted to circumstances of all cases. Such principles are applicable to decisions of all
governmental agencies, tribunals and judgments of all courts. In the present world the importance of
principle of natural justice has been gaining its strength and it is now the essence of any judicial system.
Natural justice rules are not codified laws. It is not possible to define precisely and scientifically the
expression ‘natural justice’. They are 1 Lord Esher MR in Vionet VS Barrat, (1885 ) 55 LJQB 39. 2 basically
common – sense justice which are built- in the conscience of human being. They are based on natural
ideals and values which are universal in nature. ‘ Natural justice’ and ‘legal justice’ are substances of
‘justices’ which must be secured by both, and whenever legal justice fails to achieve this purpose,
natural justice has to be called in aid of legal justice. Rules of natural justice have developed with the
growth of civilization. It is not the creation of Constitution or mankind. It originated along with human
history. In order to protect himself against the excess of organized power, man has always appealed to
someone which is not been created by him and such someone could only be God and His laws, Divine
law or Natural law, to which all temporal laws must and actions must conform. It is of ‘higher law of
nature’ or ‘natural law’ which implies fairness, reasonableness, equity and equality.
the traditional English law recognises two principles of natural justice (A) NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA
(Rule Against Bias) The literal meaning of the Latin maxim ‘NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA is that 'No man
shall be a judge in his own cause' i.e. to say, the deciding authority must be impartial and without bias. It
implies that no man can act as a judge for a cause in which he has some Interest, may be pecuniary or
otherwise. Bias means an operative prejudice, whether conscious or unconscious, in relation to a party
or issue. Such operative prejudice may be the result of a preconceived opinion or a predisposition or a
predetermination to decide a case in a particular manner so much so that it does not leave the mind
open. Pecuniary interest affords the strongest proof against impartiality. The emphasis is on the
objectivity in dealing with and deciding a matter. Justice Gajendragadkar, has observed in the case of
M/S Builders Supply Corporation v. The Union of India and others5 , “it is obvious that pecuniary
interest, howsoever small it may be, In a subject matter of the proceedings, would wholly disqualify a
member from acting as a judge"

(B) AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM-The next principle is audi alteram partem, i.e. no man should be
condemned unheard or that both the sides must be heard before passing any order. A man cannot incur
the loss of property or liberty for an offence by a judicial proceeding until he has a fair opportunity of
Answering the case against him. In many statutes, provisions are made ensuring that a notice is given to
a person against whom an order is likely to be passed before a decision Is made, but there may be
instances where though an authority Is vested with the powers to pass such orders which affect the
liberty or property of an individual but the statute may not contain a provision for prior hearing. But
what is important to be noted is that the applicability of principles of natural justice is not dependent
upon any statutory provision. The principle has to be mandatorily applied irrespective of the fact as to
whether there is any such statutory provision or not. De Smith, in his Judicial Review of Administrative
Action (1980), at page 161,observed, I "Where a statute authorises interference with properties or other
rights and is silent on the question of hearing, the courts would apply rule of universal application and
founded on plainest principles of natural justice." Wade in Administrative Law (1977) at page 395 says
that principles of natural justice operate as implied mandatory requirements, non- observance of which
invalidates the exercise of power. In the case of ,Cooper v. Sandworth Board of Works12, it was
observed, "...Although there is no positive word In the statute requiring that the party shall be heard,
yet justice of common law would supply the omission of Legislature."

Exception to rule of natural justice

Doctrine of necessity and absolute necessity

Doctrine of necessity is an exception to the rule of bias under natural justice. It
allows authorities to do certain things which are necessary to be done at the
moment, and those acts which would in a normal situation not be allowed by
the law. It is invoked in situations where there is no definite authority to decide
on a matter. The Supreme Court has although established that the Doctrine of
Necessity should not be invoked every now and then for even small matters,
which might lead to absence of rule of law. If there is a choice to whether let a
biased person act on a matter or whether to stop the matter itself, the
preference will be given to the biased person to act on it to get definite
decisions, although which may be affected by the bias of that particular person
or authority, but nonetheless, the decision of that biased authority is necessary
to come to a conclusion under a said matter.

Statutory exceptions to the rule of natural justice

The principle of natural justice can be excused by certain acts of the parliament.
Parliament may through its powers get rid of the procedures that are otherwise
necessary for any administrative action. It must also be noted here that any
action of the parliament which does not permit the individuals certain rights
during the time period of the act, such act is bound to come under the scrutiny
of the courts and may be challenged under Article 14 of the Constitution. A
statute may exclude natural justice either expressly or by necessary implication

Exception during situations of emergency

India has witnessed its share in situations of emergencies. It is generally
observed in India that during a situation of emergency, in those cases where
the right to be heard will affect the government process, it will be excluded by
the law for the time being. This means that any hearing or any process which
may jeopardize the interest of the public at large would not be needed under
the principle of natural justice and any such right would be obviated for the time
being. It is necessary in those situations where the process of fair hearing may
take too much and in consequence put the society in trouble either due to any
external force, natural force or any internal troubles.

Exception in cases of academic evaluation

In cases where the authority involved is academic in nature, or if the authority
is of complete administrative nature, in such cases, their evaluations may be
excluded from the ambit of the rule of natural justice
Kinds of Bias: The rule against bias may be classified under the
following three heads:

1. Pecuniary bias
2. Personal bias
3. Bias as to subject matter.

1. Pecuniary Bias:
pecuniary bias arises, when the adjudicator/ judge have monetary/ economic interest in the subject
matter of the dispute/ case. The judge, while deciding a case should not have any pecuniary or
economic interest. In other words, pecuniary interest in the subject matter of litigation disqualifies a
person from acting as a judge.

2. Personal Bias:
Personal bias arises from near and dear i.e. from friendship, relationship, business or professional
association. Such relationship disqualifies a person from acting as a judge. Relevant cases on this
point is A.k. kripak v. Union of India [8]. 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.

3. Bias as to subject matter (official bias):

Any interest or prejudice will disqualify a judge from hearing the case. When the adjudicator or the
judge has general interest in the subject matter in dispute on account of his association with the
administration or private body, he will be disqualified on the ground of bias if he has intimately
identified himself with the issues in dispute. To disqualify on the ground there must be intimate and
direct connection between the adjudicator and the issues in dispute. Now the question is, whether
this principle can be extended to administrative adjudication also.

Dr. Benham's case [3] - Dr. Benham was fined for practicing in the city of London without license of
the college of Physicians. According to the statute, the college is entitled to half of the amount and
the remaining goes to the King. Coke CJ. Dis- allowed the claim (fine) on the ground that the college
had a pecuniary interest. (Fine against Dr. Benham was dismissed).