PRINCIPLES OF

NATURAL
JUSTICE

BY: MS. SUPARNA

THUKRAL
MEANING:

 It involves procedural requirement of fairness.

 It is the backbone of law and justice.
 Judge made principles.
 Also called as “fair play in action”.
 It is concerned with procedure and it seeks to
ensure that the procedure is just, fair and
reasonable.
Contd:

 It extends to judicial & quasi judicial

functions.
 Administrative functions are also brought
within its scope.
 These principles are treated as part of
constitutional guarantee under article 14.
Contd..

 Norm to be implemented by courts &

tribunals.

 Object: to prevent the authority from acting

arbitrarily in matters concerning the rights of
concerned persons.
Principles:

 1) NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA:

 It implies-:
 ( a)Rule against bias
 ( b) No one should be a Judge in his own cause.
 2) AUDI ALTERUM PARTEM:
 It implies-:
 (a) Hear the other side.
 (b) No person should be condemned
unheard.
Kinds of bias:

 (1)Pecuniary bias;

 (2) Personal bias; and

 (3) Bias as to subject matter

Principles of Natural
Justice
 2. Audi Alteram Partem'.
 It means 'hear alternate party ' Or ‘hear the
other side’

 It also indicates that 'no one should be

condemned unheard'.
Contd..

 Ingredients of Fair Hearing-:

 A) Notice
 B) Hearing
Notice:

 Hearing starts with the notice by the

authority concerned to the affected person.

 Notice may be taken as the starting point

of hearing.

 Unless a person knows the case against him,

he cannot defend himself.
Contd:

 NOTICE:
 Details of place, time and the date, authority
before whom the proceedings is to be
conducted must be given.
 It must be sufficient, clear and specific.
 It should be unambiguous and understandable
by the concerned/affected person.
 There should be sufficient time to make
representation.
Contd:

 If the notice does not specify the action

proposed to be taken, it is taken as vague
and therefore, not proper.

 The proceedings started without giving

notice to the affected party, would violate
the principles of natural justice
Contd:

 The omission to serve notice would not be

fatal if the notice has not been served on
the concerned person on account of his own
fault.
Cases:

 L.P. SINGH v/s BOARD OF GOVERNORS

 PNB v/s ALL INDIA BANK EMPLOYEES

FEDERARTION

 STATE OF BOMBAY v/s ATMA RAM

2) HEARING

 Object: to enable a person to deny the

allegations made and put forward his case.
 Adequate opportunity must be provided for a
hearing.
 No material or evidence should be used
against the affected person without giving on
opportunity to him to defend.
 Hearing may be either oral or written.
CONTD..

 State of Orissa V. Dr. Binapani Dei,

The petitioner had been compulsorily retired
on the basis that she had attained 55 years of
age. On the facts of the case, the supreme
Court held that the order was bad an no
opportunity had been given. It held that even
if the order was administrative in character, it
should follow the principles of natural justice
Contd…

 Authority should give the concerned person

an opportunity to produce all relevant
material which he wishes to produce.
 The authority should disclose to the
individual the evidence which it wishes to use
against him.
 Generally , the evidence is required to be
taken in presence of the party concerned.
Contd…

 But in certain circumstances this rule may be

relaxed. Relevant case:
 Hira nath Misra v/s Rajendra Medical College
 (where some male students were charged
with indecent behaviour towards girl
students. Court held that evidence of girl
students in absence of accused male students
is justified.)
Cross examination

 Normally, cross examination of witness

cannot be refused.
 Where the statute permits cross examination
of witnesses produced at the inquiry or
adjudication, then the opposite party can
claim right to cross examination.
Contd..

Cross examination may be refused in :

 Proceedings before custom authorities.
 Where identity of the witnesses is required to
be kept confidential.
Legal representation

 Ordinarily, the representation through a

lawyer is not considered as indispensible part
of fair hearing.
 However, in certain cases it is considered as
an indispensible part of the fair hearing.
Institutional decision

 Usually, in judicial proceedings, the person

who hears must decide.
 But in administrative proceedings, the
decision is not of one man or one authority.
 It is treated as a decision of the concerned
department. Such decisions are institutional
decisions where one hears and other decides.
Case:

 Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v/s A.P State Road

Transport corporation
 (Supreme Court held that hearing by one
person and decision by another is against the
principles of natural justice.)
Post decisional hearing:

 Meaning : hearing after the decision .

 At times, public interest demands immediate
action and it is not found practical to afford
hearing before the decision or order.
 Case: Swadeshi Cotton Mills v/s Union of India
( Supreme court held that where pre decisional
hearing is dispensed with, a provision for post
decisional hearing will be necessary.)
Contd…

 In short, in situations where prior hearing is

dispensed with on the ground of public
interest or expediency or emergency the
Supreme Court insists on the post
decisional hearing.
3) Reasoned decision or
Speaking order:
 Meaning: a decision which contains reason
in its support.
 When the adjudicatory bodies give reasons in
support of their decisions, the decisions are
treated as reasoned decision.
 It is also called speaking order as the order
speaks for itself or it tells its own story.
 Union of India v. Jai prakash singh
SC held that the reasons induces clarity in the
order.
Contd:

 If reasons are not stated, the affected party

may not be able to exercise his right of
appeal effectively.
 The reasoned decision introduces fairness
in the administrative powers.
 It minimizes the scope of arbitrariness.
 The giving of reasons is one of the
fundamentals of good administration.
Exceptions to Natural
Justice
 1. STATUTORY EXCLUSION
IF STATUTE STATES PNJ TO BE FOLLOWED OR NOT
YES YES
Silent YES
Not to be followed It is not followed, if it is
not violative of
constitutional mandate
CONTD…

 2. IN CASES OF PUBLIC INTEREST:

Where prompt action is to be taken in the
interest of public safety, or public health, and
public morality.
Contd…

3. ON GROUND OF IMPRACTICABILITY:
Where the authority deals with a large number of
person 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.
 In R. Radhakrishna v. Osmania University, the entire
M.B.A. entrance examination was cancelled on the
ground of mass copying. The court held that it was not
possible to give all the examinees the opportunity of
being heard before the cancellation of the
examination.
Contd..

 4. Emergency:
In exceptional cases of urgency or
emergency where prompt and preventive
action is required the principle of natural
justice need not be observed.
contd…

 5. ACADEMIC ADJUDICATION & EVALUATION:

In Jawahar Lal Nehru University v. B.S Narwal
A student was removed from an educational
institution on the grounds of unsatisfactory
academic performance, and the requirement of
pre-decisional hearing was also excluded. The
Supreme Court held that if the competent
academic authority assess the work of a student
over period of time and thereafter declare his work
unsatisfactory the rule of natural justice may be
excluded.
Contd.

 6. In cases of CONFIDENTIALITY:
For instance, Surveillance register

7. WHEN NO RIGHT OF AN INDIVIDUAL IS

INFRINGED. For instance: Landlord and
tenant in an tenancy agreement..
Contd…

 8. INTERIM PREVENTIVE ACTION:

 The rules of natural justice is not attracted in the case of
interim preventive action.
 In Abhay Kumar v. K. Srinivasan ,
An order was passed by the college debarring the student
from entering the premises of the college and attending
the class till the pendency of a criminal case against him for
stabbing a student. Court held that the order was interim
and not final. It was preventive in nature. It was passed
with the object to maintain peace in the campus. The rules
of natural justice were not applicable in such cases.
Thank you..