Introduction

The word natural justice is derived from the Roman word ‘jus-naturale’ and ‘lex-

naturale’ which means ‘Law of Nature’ which planned the principles of natural
justice, natural law and equity. And it is closely related to Common law and moral
principles but is not codified. It is a law of nature which is not derived from any
statute or constitution.
It denotes the natural sense of humans to decide what is right and what is wrong
and in a technical sense, it means fairness.

Purpose of the Principle

a. To provide equal opportunity of being heard
b. Concept of Fairness
c. To fulfil the gaps and loopholes of the law
d. To protect the Fundamental Rights
e. Basic features of the Constitution
f. No miscarriage of Justice
The principles of natural justice should be free from bias and parties should be given
fair opportunity to be heard and all the reasons and decision taken by the court
should be informed by the court to the respective parties.
A committee i.e., “Ministers Power” gave 3 essentials procedure related to the
principles of natural justice.
i. No one should be a judge in his own matter.
ii. No one can be condemned unheard.
iii. The party is entitled to know each and every reason and the decision taken by
the authority.
When it can be claimed?
Natural justice can be claimed when acting judicially or quasi-judicial like panchayat
and tribunals etc. as well. It includes the concept of fairness, basic moral principles
and various different kinds of biases
In the case of the Province of Bombay vs. Khushaldas Advani, it was said that
natural justice will be applicable on statutory as it is a basic principle of Natural
justice which leads to fairness and justice.
Effect of function
a. Administrative action.
b. Civil consequences.
c. The doctrine of Legitimate exception.
d. Fairness in action.
e. Disciplinary proceeding.
In the case of Board of high School vs. Ghanshyam, a student was caught while
cheating in the examination hall and he was debarred due to the act. Supreme Court
held that student cannot file a Public Interest Litigation against the examination
board.

Principles of Natural Justice

I. Nemo Judex In Causa Sua

“No one should be a judge in his own case” because it leads to rule of biases. Bias
means an act which leads to unfair activity whether in a conscious or unconscious
stage in relation to the party or a particular case. Therefore, the necessity of this rule
is to make the judge impartial and given judgement on the basis of evidence
recorded as per the case.

Types of Bias

1. Personal bias
Personal bias arises from a relation between the party and deciding authority. Which
lead the deciding authority in a doubtful situation to make an unfair activity and give
judgement in favor of his person.
2. Pecuniary bias
If any of the judicial body has any kind of financial benefit, how so ever small it may
be will lead to administrative authority to biases.
3. Subject matter bias
When directly or indirectly the deciding authority is involved in the subject matter of
a particular case.
In Muralidhar vs. Kadam Singh The court refused to quash the decision of Election
tribunal on the ground that the chairman’s wife was a member of Congress party
whom the petitioner defeated.
4. Departmental bias
The problem or issue of departmental bias is very common in every administrative
process and it is not checked effectively and on every small interval period it will
lead to negative concept of fairness will get vanished in the proceeding.
5. Policy notion bias
Issues arising out of preconceived policy notion is a very dedicated issue. The
audience sitting over there does not expect judges to sit with a blank sheet of paper
and give a fair trial and decision over the matter.
6. Bias on the account of the obstinacy
Supreme court has discovered new criteria of biases through the unreasonable
condition. This new category emerged from a case where a judge of Calcutta High
Court upheld his own judgement in appeal. A direct violation of the rules of bias is
done because no judge can sit in appeal against in his own case.

II. Audi Alteram Partem

This is another principle of Natural Justice and it denotes ‘hear the other side’. The
meaning of this principle in a simple sense is that both sides must be heard. As per
this rule, in any hearing, both parties must have an equal opportunity to be heard.
The literal meaning of this rule is that both parties should be given a fair chance to
present themselves with their relevant points and a fair trial should be conducted.
It is also known as a ‘rule of fair hearing’. The components of fair hearing are not
fixed or rigid in nature. It varies from case to case and authority to authority.

The essential components of this principle are:

i. Notice
After receiving the notice, he must be given a reasonable time period to prepare and
present his case in a real and effective manner.
It was held in the case of Fazalbhai vs. Custodian, Even if the statute does not
include the provision of issue of notice, then it will be given prior to making
decisions.
ii. Hearing
Both sides must be given the opportunity of fair hearing. The decision passed by a
deciding authority without given reasonable opportunity of fair hearing to both
parties, the decision will be treated invalid.
iii. Evidence
The evidence of both parties is undoubtedly considered to be the most essential
component of this principle because, on the basis of that evidence, the judicial or
quasi-judicial authorities will be deciding the case. Thus, both parties must be given
equal opportunity to present their respective evidence before the deciding
authorities.
iv. Representation by legal professionals
In order to conduct a just and fair hearing, both the parties should be allowed to be
represented by legal professionals of their own choice to present their contentions
suitably before the deciding authorities.
In the process of enquiry, every party has the right to have a legal representative.
Each party will be presented by the legally trained person and no one can deny.
v. Cross-examination
It is an effective process to establish the truth and expose falsehood. The definition
of Cross-examination has been given under Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872.
Right of fair hearing includes the right to cross-examination the statement made by
the parties. All the necessary copies of documents should be given and failure of
that will also encroach the principle. 

In Hari Nath Mishra vs. Rajendra Medical College, under this case a male student
was charged off some indecent behavior towards a female student. So, here the
right to cross-examination was denied for the male student as it will lead to
embracement for the female student and it will not also lead to violation of natural
justice.
The same situation was faced in the case Gurubachan Singh vs. the State of
Bombay, that sometimes it becomes very necessary to keep the identity confidential
as there is a threat of life and property.

III. Reasoned Decision

Basically, it has 3 grounds on which it relies,
1. The aggrieved party has the chance to demonstrate before the appellate and
revisional court that what was the reason which makes the authority to reject
it.
2. It is a satisfactory part of the party against whom the decision is made.
3. The responsibility to record reasons works as obstacles against arbitrary action
by the judicial power vested in the executive authority.

Institutional Decision

(One who decides must hear)

In ordinary judicial proceedings, the person who hears must decide. In the judicial
proceedings, thus the decision is the decision of the specific authority. But in many
of the administrative proceedings the decision is not of one man or one authority
i.e., it is not the personal decision of any designated officer individually. It is treated
as the decision of the concerned department. Such decision is called institutional
decisions. In such decision there may be division in the decision-making process as
one person may hear and another person may decide.
In Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. A. P. State Road Transport Corporation, the Supreme
Court held that the hearing by one person and decision by another person has been
held to be against the rule of fair hearing.
Exceptions to Natural Justice

1. Statutory Exclusion
The principle of natural justice may be excluded by the statutory provision. Where
the statute expressly provides for the observance of the principles of natural justice,
the provision is treated as mandatory and the authority is bound by it.
2. Emergency
In exceptional cases of urgency or emergency where prompt and preventive action is
required the principle of natural justice need not be observed.
3. Interim disciplinary action
The rules of natural justice are not attracted in the case of interim disciplinary
action.
4. Academic evolution
Where a student is removed from an educational institution on the grounds of
unsatisfactory academic performance, the requirement of pre-decisional hearing is
excluded
5. Impracticability
Where the authority deals with a large number of persons it is not practicable to
give all of them opportunity of being heard and therefore in such condition the court
does not insist on the observance of the rules of natural justice.

Conclusion
The principles of natural justice have been adopted and followed by the judiciary to
protect public rights against the arbitrary decision by the administrative authority.
One can easily see that the rule of natural justice includes the concept of fairness.