Administrative Law Presentation

Submitted by: - Mohammad Asad Sayyed (05151103815)

Ahad Ahmed Khan (00751103815)

Gauri Vashist (02751103815)

Shruti Pande (08351103815)

Submitted to: - Dr. Neelam Tyagi

Topic: - Principles of Natural Justice

Principle of Natural Justice

Introduction
The words ‘natural justice’ are derived from the Roman word ‘Jus Naturale’, which means
principles of natural law, justice, equity, and good conscience. These principles did not originate
from any divine power, but are the outcome of the necessity of judicial thinking, as well as the
necessity to evolve the norms of fair play.
These are the principles which every disciplinary authority should follow while taking any
decision, which may adversely affect the rights of individuals. It is to be seen that rules of natural
justice are not codified anywhere; they are procedural in nature and their aim is to ensure
delivery of justice to the parties. 
Adherence to rules of natural justice, as recognised by all civilised States, is of supreme
importance, when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties or
any administrative or disciplinary action is in question. Rules of natural justice serve as hedge
against any blatant discrimination against rights of individuals. These rules are intended to
prevent such authority from doing injustice. They seem to be recognised by Article 21 of the
Constitution of India in a way which says, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to the procedure established by law". This is that procedure which is
held by the courts to be the rules of natural justice. 
With the evolution of society, as well as legal jurisprudence, the concept of natural justice has
also undergone change. Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied in any statute. These rules
were part of the law and procedure during the British Raj also, and are being observed in India
since time immemorial. These rules have become a part and parcel of the law, as well as
procedure. These may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute.
What particular rule of natural justice should be applied depends on the facts and circumstances
of each case. With the passage of time, the old distinction between a judicial act and an
administrative act has withered away. Orders of the disciplinary authority, which involve civil
consequence, must be consistent with the rules of natural justice, otherwise the orders are likely
to be set aside by the courts.
The nature of the rules of natural justice is flexible. They tend to change with the exigencies of
time, and circumstances of each case. Due to their flexible nature, they may seem to be vague or
uncertain, but they have been very well adopted by the Indian legal system. Their aim is to
prevent arbitrariness, as well as miscarriage of justice.
Of course, they are not enforceable as fundamental rights, but nevertheless, they ensure a strong
safeguard against any arbitrary action that may adversely affect the rights of individuals. These
have been laid down by the courts as being the minimum protection to rights of individuals
against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial or quasi-judicial authority,
while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority
from doing injustice. In the past, there were only two rules forming the rules of natural justice;
with the course of time, many more subsidiary rules came up to be added to them.

Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa

Nemo judex in causa sua (or nemo judex in sua causa) is a Latin phrase that means, literally,
"no-one should be a judge in his own cause." It is a principle of natural justice that no person can
judge a case in which they have an interest. [1] The rule is very strictly applied to any appearance
of a possible bias, even if there is actually none: "Justice must not only be done, but must be seen
to be done".
May also be called:

 nemo judex idoneus in propria causa est

 nemo judex in parte sua
 nemo judex in re sua
 nemo debet esse judex in propria causa

The first principle of Natural justice consists of the rule against bias or interest .No man shall be
a judge in his own cause or no man can act as both at the one and the same time – a party or a
suitor and also as a judge, or the deciding authority must be impartial and without bias.
“Free from bias” means there should be absence of conscious or unconscious prejudice to
either of the parties.
Types of bias -
Bias is of four types:
1. Pecuniary bias
2. Personal bias
3. Official bias or bias as to subject matter
4. Judicial Obstinacy

1. Pecuniary bias – Any financial interest howsoever small it may be is bound to vitiate the
administrative action. The judicial opinion is unanimous as to it.
In J. Mohapatra & co. v. State of Orissa, some of the members of the committee set up
for selecting books for educational institutions were themselves authors whose books
were to be considered for selection. It was held by the Supreme Court that the possibility
of bias could not be ruled out.

2. Personal bias – Various factors contribute to personal bias in the adjudicator for or
against one party in a dispute before him. He may be a friend or relation of the party, or
have some business or professional relation with him, or may have some personal
animosity or hostility against him.
– When there is some relationship between one of the parties and the deciding authority
that might incline him to decide in favor or against one of the parties.
In a leading case of A.K. Kraipak, one N was a candidate for selection of the Indian
Foreign Service and was also a member of the selection board. N did not sit on the board
when his own name was considered. Name of N was recommended by the board and he
was selected by the Public Service Commission. The candidates who were no selected
filed a writ petition for quashing the selection of N on the ground that principles of
Natural Justice were violated.

3. Official bias or subject matter bias- Bias may arise because the adjudicator may have a
general interest in the subject matter in dispute because of his association as a member or
otherwise of a private body, or with the administration in his official capacity. Generally speaking
these do not operate as disqualification, unless the adjudicator has intimately identified himself
with the issues in question.

4. Judicial obstinacy- The word Obstinacy implies unreasonable and unwavering persistence and
the deciding officer would not take ‘no’ for an answer. This new category of bias was discovered
in a situation where a judge of the Calcutta High Court upheld his own judgment while sitting in
appeal against his own judgment. Of course a direct violation of the rule that no judge can sit in
appeal against his own judgment is not possible, therefore, this rule can only be violated
indirectly. In this case in a fresh writ petition the judge validated his own order in an earlier writ
petition which had been overruled by the Division Bench. What applies to judicial process can be
applied to administrative process as well.
Audi Alteram Partem (Hear the other side)
Meaning
“Audi Alteram Partem” means “hear the other side” or “no man should be condemned unheard”
or “both the sides must be heard before passing any order”.
Doctrine explained
This is the basic requirement of rule of law. It has been described as “foundational and
fundamental” concept. It lays down the norm which should be implemented by all courts and
tribunals at national as also at international level.
Before any order is passed against any person, reasonable opportunity of being heard must be
given to him. Generally, this maxim includes: 1. Notice, and 2. Hearing.
Notice
The other party must be given the notice with the relevant information that what charges are
there on the accused to whom the notice is issued.
The notice should be in proper format.
Hearing
The person concerned must be given an opportunity of being heard before any adverse action is
taken against him.
In State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei (1967), the petitioner compulsorily retired from the service
on the ground that that she had completed the age of 55 years. No opportunity for hearing was
given to her before this order was passed. The Supreme Court set aside the order as it was
violative of principal of Natural Justice.
Disclosure of Materials
An adjudicating authority must disclose all the evidence and materials placed before it in the
court of proceedings. The object of such disclosure is such that to provide an opportunity to the
person to enable him to prepare his defence, and rebut the evidence relied upon by the
complainant against him and put forward his case before the authority.
In Dhakeshwari ZZZCotton Mills Ltd. v. C.I.T (1955), the Supreme Court set aside the order
passed by the appellate tribunal on the ground that it did not disclose some evidence produced by
the department and used against the assesse.
Cross examination
It was never considered as a part and parcel of the doctrine of Natural Justice. It always depends
upon the facts and circumstances of the case of each case whether the opportunity to cross
examine should be given to the party against whom the proceedings are initiated.
If the statute permits the cross examination of witnesses, then the opposite party can claim right
to cross examine them.
In Khem Chand v. U.O.I (1958), the S.C held that an opportunity to defend a delinquent by
cross examining the witness produced against him is an important right.
One who decides must hear
As a general rule, “he who hears should decide” or “one who decides must hear”. This is the
statutory principle based on the proper administration of justice.
“Empty formality” theory
The following propositions can be said to have been established.
1. The adjudicating authority must be impartial and without any interest or bias of any type.
2. The adjudicating authority must give full opportunity to the affected person to produce all
the relevant evidence in support of his case.
3. The adjudicating authority must give an opportunity to the party concerned to rebut the
evidence and material placed by the other side.
4. As a general rule, hearing should be pre-decisional hearing. In exceptional cases,
however, post-decisional hearing is permissible.
5. Representation through Counsel or an advocate cannot be claimed as a part of natural
justice.
Oral (personal) hearing
Every adjudicating authority must principles of natural justice and a reasonable opportunity must
be given to the person against whom the action is sought to be taken.
In India, oral hearing is not regarded as sine qua non (a necessary condition without which
something is not possible) of natural justice. A person is not entitled to an oral hearing, unless
such a right is conferred by the statute. (A.K GOPALAN v. STATE OF MADRAS (1950))
Pre-decisional and Post-decisional hearing
Pre-decisional hearing is a hearing afforded before taking a decision or passing an order.
Post-decisional hearing, on the other hand, is a hearing given by the adjudicating authority after
taking a decision or passing an order.it is developed to maintain a balance between
administrative efficiency and fairness between the individuals. It can be resorted only when Pre-
decisional hearing is not possessed.
Speaking Orders
In simple words, speaking orders are those orders or decisions that speak for themselves.
Speaking orders are also known as reasoned decisions, which as the name suggests, are decisions
with the reason for the decision inherent in them. Speaking orders have emerged out to become
one of the principles of natural justice.
As a matter of fact, speaking orders now constitute the third principle of natural justice. The
purpose behind such orders/decisions is that the party that loses an administrative case has a right
to know its fault. Further, reasoned decisions act like properly interpreted and easily understood
precedents.
Throughout the decades, different judgment have been passed with relevance to speaking orders.
Some of these cases can be briefed as follows:
Azadpur Market Produce Committee v. Qasami Janab Ajmatalla Salamulla (2009)
In this case, the apex court held observed the common practice of some judges of writing short
orders in order to speed up the adjudication and reduction of the pendency of cases. The court
said that while expedition is to be encouraged, the importance of reasons in support of decisions
cannot be ignored. Besides, the litigants must not lose faith in the system due to lack of
reasoning and might end up puzzled.
The Court emphasized that while writing orders, Judges must remember the following functions
of a reasonable judgment:
1) To inform litigants the reason for the decision
2) To demonstrate fairness and correctness of the decision
3) To exclude arbitrariness and bias
4) To enable appellate court to pronounce upon the correctness of the decision
State of West Bengal v. Atul Krishna Shaw (1990)
The Supreme Court held that reasoned decisions are not only for the purpose of showing that the
citizen is receiving justice, but also a valid decision for the tribunal itself. Therefore, statement of
reasons is one of the essentials of justice.
Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer (1985)
In today’s epoch of Administrative Law, the proposition is firmly established that an
adjudicatory body is to give reasons for its decisions. In the case, the Supreme Court reiterated
the principle with an emphasis that a rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is a
basic principle of natural justice which must inform the quasi-judicial process. It should be
observed in its proper spirit and mere pretense of compliance with it would not satisfy the
requirements of law.
Bhagwati Prasad Sharma v. Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants (1991)
The High Court has held in this case that even when the Council holds a member not guilty, it
must give reasons because the High Court has revisional powers and may confirm, modify or set
aside the order. In this case, the finding of the council was set aside as the finding recorded by
the council was slipshod.
Harbhajan Singh Dhalla v. Union of India (1987)
The Supreme Court held that the Central Government must pass a reasoned order while
exercising its power under Section 86 of the Civil Procedure Code for granting or rejecting
permission to a person to sue a foreign embassy. Absence of reasons may indicate non-
application of mind by the decision making authority.
It may be concluded that although, initially Speaking Orders were not a principle of natural
justice, need was felt to protect the interests of litigants and protect and preserve their faith in the
administrative system, and thus, speaking orders ultimately become a part of the principles of
natural justice. To adjudge such decisions that contain the appropriate reasons within them has
become a compulsion.