GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE

KOZHIKODE

ASSIGNMENT

SUBJECT : ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

TOPIC : THEORY OF NATURAL JUSTICE

SUBMITTEDTO : AHAD SIR

SUBMITTEDBY : ANUVESH S
3/3 BATCH A
ROLL NO: 35

SL NO: CONTENT PAGE NO:

1 INTRODUCTION 2-3

0
2 OBJECTIVE OF THE PRINCIPLES 3-4

3 CLAIMING OF NATURAL JUSTICE 4-5

4 TYPES OF BIAS 5-9

5 EXCEPTIONS 9-10

6 APPLICABILITY 10

6 CONCLUSION 10-11

7 REFERENCE 11

INTRODUCTION

1
In India there is no statute laying down the minimum procedure
which administrative agencies must follow while exercising
decision making powers. There is, therefore, a bewildering variety
of administrative procedure. Sometimes the statute under which
the administrative agency exercises power lays down the
procedure which the administrative agency must follow but at
times the administrative agency is left free to devise its own
procedure. However, courts have always insisted that the
administrative agencies must follow a minimum of fair procedure.
This minimum fair procedure refers to the principles of natural
justice.The concept and principles of natural justice are not
something new. It is as old as the dispensation of law itself.
Natural justice is involved with moral justice and is regulated
through the law of equity. In a layman’s language, natural justice
means protecting an individual and taking reasonable discretion
with utmost fairness and legality. The need for natural justice
arose from the excessive use of organized power which leads to
jeopardizing an individual’s right to defend him. These principles
are not restricted to formulas or codified but are part of human
ethics. It’s just common law that insists on giving a minimal level
of fairness to an individual when his rights are being misused in
any of a broad range of factual scenarios. Natural justice ensures
a fair hearing of the matter. Here the concern does not exist with
the decision being reasonable but the procedure of decision
making should be reasonable. It implies providing justice to
everyone without menacing another. Its belief lies in maximizing
the beneficiaries and decreasing the disadvantaged. In order to
eradicate the abuse of power and to check on their limits has
evolved to lessen the injustice in decision making and safeguards

2
from any biased decisions and non-hearing. Natural justice
amounts to fairness, equality, and equity.

These are the two main rules of natural justice:

1. Hearing rule: The rule states that the people who are being
affected by the decision being made must be given a fair
chance of presenting and defending themselves.
2. The bias rule: Here the judgment maker should be entirely
impartial and reasonable in making the decisions. The
decision taken must be biased free and taken in a free and
fair manner to ensure total justice of the law.

OBJECTIVE OF THE PRINCIPLES

The main objective of the concept is to provide justice to both the

parties of the case. Everyone should be given an equal
opportunity to be heard. The hearing done should be made by a
person who is not related to the parties either directly or indirectly.
The concept of natural justice is the concept of fairness. Natural
justice is a way of protecting one’s fundamental rights. It fills all
the gaps and loopholes of the law. The main objective of natural
justice is to prevent the act of miscarriage of justice.

The concept of natural justice says that the principles should be

free of bias and the parties should be given an equal chance to
present themselves and get to be heard and the decisions taken
by the courts should be informed to the respective parties and the
decision made must be in good faith and not arbitrary but
reasonably. There has been no mention in the provisions of the
said concept and questions were raised whether the adjudicating

3
authority is bound to follow the principles. This confusion was
resolved by the Supreme Court in the case of Manohar s/o
ManikraoAnchule v State of Maharashtra &Ors. The apex court
held that the adjudication process should be in accordance with
the doctrine of Nemojudex in causa sea i.e., no one should be the
judge of his own as it may lead bias decisions and impartiality and
Audi alterampartem i.e., no one should be left unheard and given
a fair chance of defending themselves. These two stands as the
pillars of natural justice. The principles of natural justice are in a
fair sense a guiding tool to prevent judicial, quasi-judicial, and
administrative bodies from doing injustice.

CLAIMING OF NATURAL JUSTICE

Natural justice can be claimed where the procedure is judicial,

quasi-judicial like panchayat and tribunals, etc. It endeavors
around the concept of fairness, basic moral principles. With the
increasing number of cases, the administrative authority is vested
with excess power which might affect the individual right without
any safeguard and protection of the rights. Therefore, the
principle of natural justice is important for fair procedures.

As per se the traditional English common law, natural justice has

the following principles:
1. Nemojudex in causasua (Against the bias): This Latin
maxim means no one should be a judge in his case as well
as neither directly nor indirectly connected to the respective
parties. It is also called the ‘Doctrine of bias’ as the judge
may be prejudiced in the case. However, the concept has
undergone a lot of changes in recent times but still, it
remains fundamentally the same. The rule goes for impartial
justice and the decision was taken on all the evidence

4
 present for the case. Where a judge is found to have an
interest in a particular case then the decision given by the
authority shall be accounted as void. It's in human nature
that one can’t partake in the decision righteously without any
bias where his own interest lies impartially. There are still
some cases where the discretion is made impartially but
shall not be executed because of the connection that lies
between the authority and the case administered. The rule
against bias instils a sense of belief in the legal system of
the country.

TYPES OF BIAS

 Personal bias: This is the most derivative as well as common

bias that arises out of a certain relationship between the
decision-making authority and the parties to the case. There
is a likelihood that the judge to the party may be biased
towards one and prejudice towards another. In accordance
to successfully prove the personal bias by the administrative
authority, it is necessary to provide the necessary evidence
to prove the biasness.
In the case of A.K. Kraipakvs Union of India, who was the chief
conservator of forests, was a member of the Selection board as
well as a candidate for selection to the All India cadre of the forest
Service. Although he did not make any consideration of the
selection procedure and his name was approved, the apex court
observed that there were chances of being biased as the mere
presence of the candidate on the selection boards indicates
personal interests which can influence the judgment of other
members.
In the case of CottlevsCottle, the chairman of the bench was a
friend of the wife's family who initiated matrimonial proceedings

5
against his husband. The wife had also told her husband her
closeness with the chairman and how he is going to make the
decision in her favour. The court ordered rehearing and observed
the closeness of the chairman and dismissed the judgment given
prior.

 Pecuniary bias: This bias is a very crucial kind of rule against

bias. Numbers of cases in the English courts have laid down
the importance of this kind of rule. Notwithstanding the
amount involved, this kind of pecuniary interest will invalidate
the whole proceedings. This principle can be better
explained in the case of Dimes v Grand Junction Canal, a
public limited company that filed a suit against the landowner
in the matter largely involving the interest of the company.
Here the Lord Chancellor who gave the decision in the
favour of the company was a shareholder in the company.
His decision was quashed by the House of Lords because of
the Lord Chancellor’s pecuniary interest in the company.
The same principle was adopted by the Indian adjudicating
authority. It is non-arbitrary that the pecuniary interest lest being
small holds the power to completely disqualify a member from
acting as a judge in the subject matter of the proceedings.
 Bias as to subject matter: When the decision-making
authority is involved directly or indirectly in the subject matter
of the proceedings.
In the case of Muralidhar v.Kadam Singh, the court revoked the
decisions taken by the Election tribunals on the ground that the
wife of the chairman was a member of the Congress party whose
candidate the petitioner defeated.
 Departmental bias: The strenuousness of departmental bias
is very common in every administrative process and it is not
something checked efficiently and every then and now due
to the lack of attention will lead to unfairness in the
proceeding of the case.

6
  Policy notion bias: This kind of bias is uncommon and
difficult to prove as we never know what's happening in
another person's mind. The judges are expected to be like a
clean slate but sometimes preconceived notions can lead to
destroying the even-handed justice.

Audi alterampartem: This three-word maxim literally means no

person should go unheard in the court. All the respective parties
have the chance to defend themselves in court against all the
charges imposed against them. No person should be adjourned of
the charges unless that person is well aware of the proceedings
with a notice and an opportunity to present his case fully. It’s a
rule of fair hearing.
This rule covers various stages in the subject matter of the
proceedings which starts from notice to final determination. Right
to fair hearing thus comprises of:

 Right to give notice: The word notice is driven by Latin word

‘notifa’ which means being known. In order to proceed with
any legal proceedings against or with a person, a notice
must be given to the said party to make thee aware of the
cause of the proposed action. The hearing starts when the
notice has been given to the affected person.
Any commencement of the case without issuing a legal notice to
the affected person is against the moral of natural justice and
considered void ab initio. In the case of K.A. Abdul Khadervs Dy.
Director, the statutory rule prescribed the way the notice should
be served:
 By delivery to the affected person

 Sending the notice through mail

 If the above two fails then affixing the notice at the doorstep
of the affected person.

7
The way of sending mail is of procedural matter. If the notice is
given to a large number of people, it may be published in the
newspaper meanwhile the case is not similar to an individual.
In the case of Punjab National Bank v. All India Bank Employees
Federation, the notice served was held improperly by the judge as
the penalty charged was not mentioned in the notice and
eventually, the imposition of penalty was held invalid.

 Right to present the case and provide evidence: After

serving the notice, the concerned party should be given a
reasonable amount of time to process the whole situation
and collect the evidence for the proceedings. Dismal of
providing time shall not be done on a reasonable basis or
due to arbitrary.
 Right to cross Examination: The right of fair hearing includes
the right to cross examine the statement given by the
parties. No administrative adjudicating body can deny the
process of cross examination as it may lead to miscarriage
of natural justice.
Sometimes the rule of fair hearing does not comply with the case
and the right to cross examination is rejected or denied. As in the
case of HariNath Mishra v.Rajendra Medical college. Here in the
case the process of cross examination was denied as the male
student who was charged off with some indecent behavior
towards a female student. The right of cross examination would
have amounted to embarrassment and discomfort to the female
student.
Also, if the concerned parties themselves denies to the process of
cross examination, then it may not fall under the ambit of a
miscarriage of natural justice and this observed in the case of
Ludhiana food product.

8
  Right to legal representation: In the process of the inquiry,
every person accused has the right to have a legal
representation. No one can deny the access of the parties to
their legal representative.
 Right to deny wrong evidence: The concerned party has the
right to know his case and deny the wrong evidence present
in the case. The very essence of natural justice is not only
making decisions but also how and on what basis the
evidence is made. No evidence can be taken into
consideration which is irrelevant to the subject matter of the
legal proceedings.
 Disclosure of evidence to party: The concerned party has the
right to know all the evidential facts and documents on the
basis of which the authority is going to make the decisions. It
is a violation to take evidence off the witnesses behind the
concerned party and this was observed in the case of S.P
Paul v. Calcutta University.

Reasoned Decisions: It means that the parties in the case have

the right to know not only the decisions but also the reasons
behind them. As Lord Denning said, the giving of reasons is one
of the fundamentals of good administration. However, this is not a
universally accepted law but may find its way to be statute. It is
called speaking orders. As it's the order speaking itself and giving
reasons.

EXCEPTIONS
In certain circumstances adhering to such principles is not
mandatory.
Some of the case such as:

1. During the emergency period

2. Public interest
9
 3. Express statutory provision
4. Nature of the case is not of a serious kind
5. If it doesn’t affect the status of the individual.

APPLICABILITY

Natural justice can be applied to following points:

1. Tribunals
2. Courts except the ex-parte
3. Authority entrusted with decision but subject limitations
applied.

CONCLUSIONS

The concept of natural justice has been acquired and followed by

the judiciary to protect the rights of the citizens against arbitrary
decisions by the administrative authorities. The very motive of
adopting natural justice is to protect the miscarriage of justice at
all costs. Natural justice ensures the fair dealing of the decisions
taken and the reasons behind them. It is essential to keep in mind
the importance of natural justice in making a decision as the
absence of natural justice can result in declaring the decisions
void and null. Natural justice is vital to keep any administrative
settlement valid. Natural justice is firmly grounded to Articles 14
and 19 of the Indian Constitution. Violation of natural justice leads
to arbitrariness hence, in a violation of justice is violation of
equality.

10
REFERENCES

1. Dr.J.J.R Upadhayaya’s “Administrative law” 8th edition

2. Dr.S.R Myneni’s “Administrative law” 6th edition
3. I.P Massey’s “Administrative law” 8th edition

11