ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

UNIT 2

Principles of Natural Justice

 Broad Limitations for Administration: In the contemporary administrative age, courts

impose broad limitations on the administration to ensure the proper exercise of conferred
powers.

 Definition by Justice S.M Sikri: Natural justice is considered an integral part of the rule of
law.

 Purpose According to Justice Hedge: The purpose of natural justice is to ensure justice is
served and to prevent miscarriage of justice; it complements but does not replace statutory
law.

 Menaka Gandhi vs Union of India Case: The Supreme Court affirmed that natural justice is a
fundamental part of the philosophy of law, emphasizing its non-rigidity and the importance
of its spirit and inspiration over precise definitions.

 Universal Principle: As observed in the National Textile Workers Union vs P.R. Ramakrishnan,
natural justice extends beyond administrative law and is regarded as a universal legal
principle.

 Essence of Natural Justice: The principles of natural justice are not confined to specific legal
procedures; they embody a broader commitment to fairness in the legal process.

Nemo Judex in Causa Sua

1. Personal Bias:

 Nature: Personal bias occurs when an adjudicator has a direct or indirect personal
relationship with a party involved in the proceedings. This can include friendships,
enmity, familial connections, or any other personal relations that could affect
impartial judgment.

 Implications: If an adjudicator's decision could potentially benefit or harm someone

they have a personal connection with, their ability to remain impartial is
compromised.

 Case Law Example: In "Pinochet Case" (Regina v. Bow Street Metropolitan

Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2)), the presence of Lord
Hoffmann on the panel was challenged due to his directorship in Amnesty
International, a charity that had campaigned against Pinochet.

 Judicial Response: Courts are vigilant in avoiding personal bias and often require
adjudicators to recuse themselves if there's a potential conflict of interest, to uphold
the integrity of the judicial process.

2. Pecuniary Bias:
  Nature: Pecuniary bias involves a situation where the decision-maker has a financial
interest in the outcome of the proceedings. This can be direct financial gain or loss
resulting from the decision or an indirect financial interest, such as a significant
shareholding in a company involved in the case.

 Severity: Even a minimal financial interest is considered sufficient to invalidate the

proceedings due to the strict view that justice must not only be done but must also
be seen to be done.

 Case Law Example: In "Dimes v. Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal" (1852),
Lord Cottenham’s decision was set aside because he held shares in the defendant
company, illustrating that any pecuniary interest, however small, could lead to a
decision being overturned.

 Judicial Approach: The standard approach is one of zero tolerance for pecuniary bias
to prevent any question of partiality or impropriety in the adjudicative process.

3. Subject-matter Bias:

 Nature: This form of bias occurs when an adjudicator has a connection to the subject
matter of the dispute, beyond mere familiarity. It may involve having a direct interest
in the policy outcome or being previously involved in the investigation or
development of the case.

 Concerns: The concern is that the adjudicator's involvement or interest could

subconsciously influence their decision-making, leading to a lack of objectivity.

 Case Law Example: In "Porter v Magill" (2001), the question was whether the
reasonable observer would suspect bias based on the adjudicator's previous
involvement in the matter.

 Judicial Safeguarding: Courts take a cautious approach to subject-matter bias, often

erring on the side of recusal if there is a significant connection between the decision-
maker and the case, to ensure public confidence in the impartiality of the decision-
making process.

 Origin and Meaning: Derived from the Latin phrase "audiatur et altera pars," this maxim
stands for the principle that no person should be judged without a fair hearing in which each
party is given the opportunity to respond to the evidence against them.
Meaning and Application of the Maxim

 Ensuring Fair Play: The maxim is applied to ensure justice and fairness in administrative
actions. It mandates that the procedure should be just and fair and that persons affected
should be given the chance to defend themselves.

 Comprehensive Procedure: It applies to all stages of administrative jurisdiction, from initial

notice to the final determination.

 Quoted by De Smith: It is well established that no individual should face adverse

consequences without the opportunity for a fair hearing.

Essential Elements of "Audi Alteram Partem"

1. Notice:

 Requirement: Affected parties must be given notice before any action is taken,
providing them the opportunity to prepare a defense.

 Validity of Notice: If passed without notice, actions are void ab initio. Notices must
include the date, time, place, legal authority, and specific charges.

 Case References:

 In "Punjab National Bank v. All India Bank Employees Federation", an

incomplete notice led to the invalidity of imposed penalties.

 "Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India" highlighted the need for clear and
unambiguous notice.

2. Hearing:

 Right to a Fair Hearing: Orders passed without a fair hearing are considered invalid.

 Case References:

 "Harbans Lal v Commissioner", "National Co-operative Bank v. Ajay Kumar",

and "Fateh Singh v State of Rajasthan" affirmed the necessity of providing a
fair hearing.

 Written or Oral Hearings: The authority decides the mode of hearing unless
stipulated by statute.

3. Evidence:

 Criticality: Evidence must be brought before the court with both parties present, and
decisions should be based on such evidence.

 Case References:

 "Stafford v Minister of Health" ruled no evidence should be taken in the

absence of one party.

 "Hira Nath v Principal" emphasized that the principle encompasses all

information, not just formal evidence.

4. Cross-examination:
  Opportunity: Parties should have the chance to refute evidence against them.

 Case Reference: "Kanungo & Co. v Collector of Customs" upheld the principle even
when goods were seized under the Sea Customs Act.

5. Legal Representation:

 General Rule: Legal representation in administrative adjudication isn't usually a

required element of fair hearing.

 Case References:

 "J.J Mody v State of Bombay" and "Krishna Chandra v Union of India" found
refusal of legal representation to be a violation of natural justice.

Exceptions to "Audi Alteram Partem"

 Statutory Exclusion: Mention of the right to hearing can be explicitly or implicitly excluded in
the statute.

 Legislative Functions: When actions are legislative rather than administrative, the principles
may not apply.

 Impracticability: When it is not practical to apply the rule, it may be excluded.

 Academic Evaluation: Academic assessments made by competent experts over a period are
generally not subject to this principle.

 Inter-Disciplinary Actions: Immediate actions like suspensions may not require a hearing.

Speaking Order

 Definition: A 'speaking order' or 'reasoned decision' is a decision by an adjudicating body

that explicitly states the reasons supporting its conclusions.

 Importance: It ensures transparency and fairness in the decision-making process, allowing

affected parties to understand the basis of the decision.

Characteristics of Speaking Order:

1. Sufficient Reasoning: The order must articulate adequate and sufficient reasons backing the
decision.

2. Form of Recording: There is no prescribed format, but the reasons should be clear and
understandable.

3. Applicability: It applies to both public and private law matters.

Need for Speaking Order:

 Fairness in Administration: It ensures that administrative powers are exercised fairly and
justly.

 Minimization of Arbitrariness: Providing reasons helps in reducing or eliminating arbitrary

decisions.
  Enhances Judicial Review: A well-reasoned decision facilitates effective judicial review by
higher courts.

 Good Administrative Practice: It is considered a hallmark of good governance.

 Informed Parties: It enables affected parties to understand the rationale behind decisions
and effectively use their right to appeal.

General Rules Related to Speaking Order:

 Statutory Requirement: If required by statute, authorities must record reasons.

 Implicit Obligation: Even without explicit statutory requirement, recording reasons is

generally expected.

 Judicial Scrutiny: Recorded reasons are subject to review by the judiciary.

 Confidential Proceedings: The requirement for a speaking order applies even in confidential
matters.

 Appellate Proceedings: Particularly crucial if the order is subject to appeal or revision.

Validity of Order:

 Irrelevance of Recorded Reasons: An order can be set aside if the recorded reasons are
irrelevant or extraneous to the matter.

 Judicial Assessment: Validity is judged based on the recorded reasons and not subsequent
explanations.

 Appellate Authority's Role: If the appellate authority simply affirms the lower authority's
order without additional reasons, the decision may be questioned

 Definition: The doctrine of legitimate expectations relates to how a person's expectations

can be protected legally, particularly in administrative law. It refers to an individual's
anticipation of a certain outcome based on prior actions, representations, or promises of a
public authority.

Legitimate Expectations

Origins and Development:

 The doctrine has evolved in common law jurisdictions, especially in the UK, as part of
administrative law. It has been adopted and developed in various forms in other common
law countries.

Types of Legitimate Expectations:

1. Procedural Expectations: The expectation that a public body will follow a certain process or
procedure, often based on past practices or explicit assurances.

2. Substantive Expectations: This involves an expectation of a particular outcome or benefit,

often arising from repeated past practices or specific assurances by public authorities.

Formation of Legitimate Expectations:

  Based on Conduct or Promises: Expectations may be based on explicit promises, established
practices, or regular conduct of a public authority.

 Consistency and Regularity: A pattern of consistent behavior by an authority can lead to

expectations that such behavior will continue.

 Representations: Statements or assurances by public officials can create expectations if they

are clear and unambiguous.

Legal Protection of Legitimate Expectations:

 Judicial Review: Individuals can challenge administrative decisions that frustrate their
legitimate expectations through judicial review.

 Balance of Interests: Courts balance the individual's expectation against the public interest.
The protection of expectations must not conflict with statutory duties or the wider public
interest.

 Procedural Fairness: Even if a substantive expectation is not upheld, procedural fairness

must be maintained, meaning individuals should be given a chance to present their case
before their expectations are frustrated.

Limitations and Considerations:

 No Absolute Right: Legitimate expectations do not grant an absolute right. They are subject
to the discretion of the authority and can be overridden by overriding public interest.

 Vagueness and Ambiguity: Vague or ambiguous assurances may not be sufficient to create a
legitimate expectation.

 Policy Changes: Legitimate expectations cannot constrain authorities from making changes
in policy, especially if these changes are in public interest.