ADMINSTRATIVE LAW

Research paper – principle of natural justice in India

SUBMITTED TO: - SUBMITTED BY: -

CHETANYA DUTT

FACULTY, VSLLS BBA LLB 4 – L

0841770351

VIVEKANANDA SCHOOL OF LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES (VSLLS),

2022 VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES

DELHI
 ABSTRACT

Natural Justice has always been an important facet in the subject of Administrative Law. The
term “Natural Justice” stands for basic principles of justice, that a litigant has access to during
trial. It has had a place in the justice system since the beginning of time.
As defined by Lord Esher M.R.- ‘the sense of what is right and wrong’. In a famous English
decision in
Abbott vs. Sullivan, it is stated that “the Principles of Natural Justice are easy to proclaim, but
their precise extent is far less easy to define”.
It has been stated that there is no single definition of Natural Justice and it is only possible to
enumerate with some certainty the main principles.

During the earlier days, the expression Natural Justice was often used interchangeably with
the expression natural Law, but in the recent times a restricted meaning has been given to
describe certain rules of Judicial Procedure. This paper will talk about the concept of natural
justice, its origin, its principles and more importantly, its evolution from the beginning of time,
and what it stands for now
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

 INTRODUCTION----------------------------------------------------------

 Overview--------------------------------------------------------------------

 NATURAL JUSTICE------------------------------------------------------

 Origin of the concept of Natural Justice--------------------------------

 Principles of Natural Justice----------------------------------------------

 . CONCLUSION-------------------------------------------------------------
 INTRODUCTION

The concept of natural justice has long been significant in the field of administrative law. The
phrase "Natural Justice" refers to fundamental standards of justice that a plaintiff can rely on
in court. Since the dawn of time, it has played a role in the justice system.

As defined by Lord Esher M.R.- ‘the sense of what is right and wrong’. In a famous English
decision in Abbott vs. Sullivan, it is stated that “the Principles of Natural Justice are easy to
proclaim, but their precise extent is far less easy to define”. It has been stated that there is no
single definition of Natural Justice and it is only possible to enumerate with some certainty the
main principles. During the earlier days, the expression Natural Justice was often used
interchangeably with the expression natural Law, but in the recent times a restricted meaning
has been given to describe certain rules of Judicial Procedure. This paper will talk about the
concept of natural justice, its origin, its principles and more importantly, its evolution from the
beginning of time, and what it stands for now.

Recently, certain rules of judicial procedure have been given a narrow interpretation. This
paper will discuss the idea of natural justice, including its history, foundational ideas, and most
importantly, how it has changed over time and what it stands for now
 ORIGIN OF NATURAL JUSTICE:

Natural Justice is a common law concept that provides minimum requirements of procedural
fairness and due process. It can be understood as ensuring that the mechanisms of justice are
such that substantive justice is delivered, and it is manifests in such principles as the right to
consult a lawyer and the right to a speedy trial. Early in the British Common Law tradition,
natural justice was embodied in two tenets: audialteramparte and nemoiudex in
causasuadebetesse

The concept of natural justice has its origins in the early Greek and Roman empires, and it is
even mentioned in Kautilya's Arthashastra. The Indian idea of dharma and the idea of natural
justice are related in more ways than others. The king maintained all branches of government,
including the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. So, in order to maintain peace and
equality in the State, it was the king's responsibility to revise and create the Code of Law.
As it is apparent, principles of natural justice are not a new invention, but also, it isn’t a product
of man either. It originated from our core moral conscience and has been since built upon by
several philosophers, jurists, kings and teachers .

In Swadeshi Cotton Mills V. Union of India

It was observed that Natural justice is a branch of public law and is a formidable weapon which
can be wielded to secure justice to the citizen.

in Canara Bank V. V K Awasthi

the supreme court observed that principles of natural justice are those rules which have been
laid down by courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the
arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, Quasi–judicial and administrative
authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such
authority from doing injustice
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner
which says: “Indeed, natural justice is a pervasive facet of secular law where a spiritual touch
enlivens legislation, administration and adjudication, to make fairness a creed of life .

PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE:

1. No man shall be judge in his own cause,

2. No man should be condemned unheard,
3.A party is entitled to know the reasons for the decision,

1. NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA (no man shall judge his own case)
In Latin the maxim literally means that no can be a judge in their own case, nemo judex in
causa sua is one of the fundamental principles of natural justice the basic principle of this
maxim is to prevent individuals from transcending from justice and fair play
For example if a person X hears a matter of the accused S who is X’S son in such a case such
a judgment would have no standing as there is inevitability of personal bias

In the case of yunus khan vs state of Uttar Pradesh

“in the cases where the judge is himself the accused or the accused is in any kind of fiduciary
relationship with the accused in such cases the judgment passed will not be considered valid

In M/S Builders Supply Corporation v. The Union of India and others

“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".

In the case of A.K.Kraipak V. Union of India

a precaution was taken by a member of the selection Board to withdraw himself from the
selection proceedings at the time his name was considered. This precaution taken could not
cure the defect of being a judge in his own cause since he had participated m the deliberations
when the names of his rival candidates were being considered for selection on merit. The
position, however, may be different when merely official capacity is involved in taking a
decision in any matter as distinguished from having a personal Interest. There are certain
statutes which provide that named officers may resolve the controversy, if any, arising between
the organization and the other persons, e.g., in the matters relating to nationalization of routes,
Government officers or authorities were vested with the power to dispose of the objections. In
such matters as above, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that proceeding will not
vitiate as it was only in official capacity that the officer was Involved and It would not be
correct to say that he was a judge 5, 5 in his own cause being an officer of the Government. It
is a kind of statutory duty which is performed by a public officer, unless of course bias is proved
in any case.
In another case Manak Lal v. Prem Chand
where a committee was constituted to enquire into the complaint made against an Advocate,
the Chairman of the Committee was one who had once appeared earlier as counsel for the
complainant. Constitution of such a committee was held to be bad and it was observed, "in
such cases the test is not whether in fact the bias has affected the Judgment; the test always is
and must be whether a litigant could reasonably apprehend that a bias attributed to a member
of the Tribunal might have operated against him in the final decision of the Tribunal." However,
such objections about the constitution of committees or Tribunals consisting of members
having bias should be taken at the earliest opportunity before start of the proceedings otherwise,
normally, It would be considered as waiver to that objection.

Metropolitan Properties Ltd. v. Lunnon

“The reason is plain enough. Justice must be rooted in confidence and confidence is destroyed
when right minded people go away thinking, the Judge was biased"
 Types of bias
1.) 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
favour of his person. Such equations arise due to various forms of personal and professional
relations.

In order to challenge the administrative action successfully on the ground of personal bias, it
is necessary to give a reasonable reason for bias.

Supreme court held that one of the members of the panel of selection committee his brother
was a candidate in the competition but due to this, the whole procedure of selection cannot be
quashed.

Here, to avoid the act of biases at the turn of his brother respective panel member connected
with the candidate can be requested to go out from the panel of the selection committee. So, a
fair and reasonable decision can be made this was held in the case of Ramanand Singh vs uoi

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.

Subject matter bias

When directly or indirectly the deciding authority is involved in the subject matter of a
particular case.

Murlidhar 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.

Exception to the Rule against Bias: Doctrine of Necessity, Doctrine of Absolute Necessity
2.) AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM (Rule of fair hearing)

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 can't cause the loss of property
or liberty for an offense by a legal continuing until he has a fair opportunity of Answering the
argument against him. In numerous statutes, provisions are made guaranteeing that a notice is
given to an individual against whom a request is probably going to be passed before a choice
is made, yet there might be occasions where however an authority is vested with the powers to
pass such requests which influence the liberty or property of an individual, yet the rule may not
contain a provision for earlier hearing. In any case, what is essential to be noted is that the
appropriateness of standards of natural justice isn't subject to any statutory provision. The rule
must be compulsorily applied regardless of the reality with respect to if there is any such
statutory provision

Components

Issuance of notice–

Valid and proper notice should be given to the required parties of the matter to further proceed
with the procedure of fair trial method. Even if the statute does not include the provision of
issue of notice, then it will be given prior to making decisions. This was held in the case of
fasalbhai vs custodian

In the case of Kanda vs govt of Malay

court held that notice must directly and clearly specify on the matter of bias, facts, and
circumstances against which needs to be taken. It is one of the rights of the individual to defend
himself so he should be familiar with the relevant matter so he may contradict the statement
and safeguard himself.

The notice should be regarding the charges framed against the accused person and proceeding
to be held. He can only be punished on the charges which are mentioned in the notice, not for
any other charges.
Right to present the case and evidence– After receiving the notice he must be given a
reasonable time period to prepare and present his case in a real and effective manner. The
refusal should not be done on the unreasonable ground or due to arbitrary.

Right to Cross Examination– Right of fair hearing includes the right to cross-examination
the statement made by the parties. If tribunals denied the right to cross-examination, then it
will violate the principles of natural justice. And all the necessary copies of documents should
be given and failure of that will also encroach the principle. The department should make
available officers who are involved in the procedure of investigating and do cross-examination.
Cross-examination is defined under section 137 of Indian evidence act

In certain exceptional cases, the right to cross-examination can be denied or rejected. Hari
Nath Mishra vs. Rajendra Medical college under this case a male student was charged off
some indecent behaviour 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.

Sometimes it becomes very necessary to keep the identity confidential as there is a threat of
life and property. And the same situation was faced in the case Gurbachan Singh vs state of
Bombay

Let us take an illustration, In the matter where lawyer and client are involved so, nobody can
force a lawyer to reveal what all information is given by the client to the lawyer in relation to
the case.

In the case of Ludhiana food product, the court held that if the party itself refuse to cross-
examine the witness, then it will not fall under miscarriage of natural justice.

Right of Legal representative– 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. Similarly, the department has the same right to direct its officer even though there are
investigating officer in conducting an adjudicating proceeding (sanghi textile processor vs
commissioner)
Exceptions

1. During the Emergency period

2. Public interest
3. Express statutory provision

(C) REASONED DECISION:

Reason is an essential requirement of the rule of law. It provides a link between fact and
decision, guard against non-application of mind, arbitrariness, and maintains public confidence
in judicial and administrative authorities. Reasons also serve a wider principle that justice must
not only be done, but it must also appear to be done. Doctrine of Post Decisional Hearing: Post
decisional hearing is a hearing which takes after a provisional decision is reached. Post
decisional hearing takes place where it may not be feasible to hold pre decisional hearing. The
idea of Post Decision Hearing has been developed to maintain a balance between administrative
efficiency and fairness to individuals14. In Post Decisional Hearing, an individual is given an
opportunity to be heard after a tentative decision has been taken by the authorities. In certain
situations, it is not feasible for the authorities to have a normal predecisional hearing and
decisions are being taken on first instance before providing the individual to present his views,
than it would be consider reasonable if the authorities provide Post Decision Hearing as well,
asset will be in compliance with the Principle of Natural Justice. In Post Decision Hearing, the
prominent point is that authorities must take only a tentative decision and not a final decision
without hearing the party concerned15. The fundamental objective is that when a final decision
is taken than it becomes difficult for the authorities to reverse it and the purpose of providing
a fair hearing gets defeated, therefore, for an accused it turns out to be a less effective than pre
decision hearing. The similar proposition was ingeminated by the Apex Court. With the
introduction of this concept, the prospect of Principle of Natural Justice has widened. The
Supreme Court has been emphatic and prefers for Pre-Decision Hearing rather Post Decision
Hearing which must be done only in extreme and unavoidable cases. It strengthens the concept
of Audi Alteram Partem by providing Right to Heard at a later stage.

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.
 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 include the concept of fairness: they stay alive and support to
safeguard the fair dealing.

So at all the stages of the procedure if any authority is given off the judicial function is not
purely accepted but the main motive of the principal is to prevent the miscarriage of justice. It
is supreme to note that any decision or order which violates the natural justice will be declared
as null and void in nature, hence one must carry in mind that the principles of natural justice
are essential for any administrative settlement to be held valid.

The principle of natural justice is not confined to restricted walls the applicability of the
principle but depends upon the characteristics of jurisdiction, grant to the administrative
authority and upon the nature of rights affected of the individual.
 REFERENCES

 I.P. Massey, Administrative Law, (6th edition 2005) M P Jain & S C Jain,

 Principles of Administrative Law (5th edition, 2007) De Smith,

 ‘Judicial Review of Administrative Action’ (1980),

 ' Interpreting Natural Justice'' [2011]

 Law Times Journal, 'Concept, Evolution and Importance of Natural Justice' (

lawtimesjournal.in December 7, 2019) accessed 20/04/202

 Board of high school vs. Ghanshyam AIR 1962 SC 1110

 High water mark case- Eurasian equipment and company limited vs. State of West

Bengal AIR 1975 SC 266

 Ramanand Prasad Singh vs. UOI, AIR 1996 SCC 64

 Muralidhar vs. Kadam Singh AIR 1954 MP

 Fazalbhai vs. custodian, AIR 1961 SC 284

 Kanda vs. Government of Malaya, 1962 A.C. 322

 Hari Nath Mishra vs. Rajendra Medical College, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1260

 Gurubachan Singh vs. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 221

 A.K.Roy, AIR 1982 SC 710