Authored By: MOVEEKA K
Government Law College, Coimbatore (Affiliated to Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University )
INTRODUCTION
Natural justice is a timeless and universal doctrine that lies at the core of all fair legal and administrative systems. It originates from the notion of “jus naturale” and “lex naturale” found in Roman law. The doctrine of natural justice is not written in any specific statute but is regarded as indispensable for upholding procedural fairness and protecting individual rights within any society. This doctrine is so vital that it is reflected in constitutional guarantees like those found in Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
DEFINITION
Natural Justice is an important concept in administrative law. In the words of Megarry J It is “justice that is simple and elementary, as distinct from justice that is complex, sophisticated and technical”. The principles of natural justice or fundamental rules of procedure for administrative action are neither fixed nor prescribed in any code. They are better known than described and easier proclaimed than defined.
It is true that the concept of Natural Justice is not very clear and, therefore, it is not possible to define it, yet the principles of natural justice are accepted and enforced. In reply to the above criticism against natural justice, Lord Reid in the historical decision of Ridge v. Baldwin observed:
In modern times opinions have sometimes been expressed to the effect that natural justice is so vague as to be practically meaningless. But I would regard these as tainted by the perennial fallacy that because something cannot be cut and dried or nicely weighed or measured therefore it does not exist…
The Three Principles of Natural Justice
Natural justice is based on three primary principles:
Hearing Rule (Audi Alteram Partem)
Bias Rule (Nemo Judex in Causa Sua)
Reasoned Decision (Speaking Orders)
Hearing Rule (Audi Alteram Partem)
This Latin maxim means “let the other side be heard.” It ensures that no individual should be condemned or punished without having a fair opportunity to present their case.
In the case of R. v. University of Cambridge where a scholar was deprived of his degrees on the ground of insulting the Vice-Chancellor’s court but he was reinstated as this step was considered very harsh and it was realized that the scholar had the right to get a noticebefore hand as it is the appropriate step as per the laws of both God and Man.
COMPONENTS OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTERM
Notice
Before any proceeding is commenced a Notice is sent to the concerned party to show the cause of action and give that party a fair chance to prepare and present an explanation. An order passed without furnishing any Notice is considered void ab initio and against the rules of natural justice.
In the case of Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India there was provision to provide notice for seven days but the notice was provided for just 3 days. It was stated by Justice S.C. Agrawal that if there has been a breach of natural justice, the then relief may be denied, but where the individual has been deprived of the right of a fair hearing by the breach, it was held as valid because the principles of natural justice are flexible.
Hearing
Before any action is taken against the person he should be given a fair chance of being heard.
In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Petitioner was not given any opportunity to be heard and her passport was taken from her. This was considered against the principles of natural justice.
Disclosure of Evidence
Every person before the adjudicating authority has the right to know about all the evidence and material submitted against him/her. This is to give the person an opportunity to prepare for his defence.
Cross-examination
Cross-examination is considered as very important for bringing out the truth but it is not an obligatory part of natural justice. Whether this opportunity should be given or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
Like in the case of Khem Chand v. Union of India the Supreme Court held that cross-examination isan important right whereas in the case of Gurbachan Singh v State of Bombay, which dealt with the issue of externment under the Bombay Police Act the Supreme Court held that cross-examination was not a part of natural justice.
He who hears must decide
As per this rule the deciding authority must hear the party as only then this rule of fair hearing will be utilized in the right sense. Like in the case of Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. State of A.P. the order was held valid as the Minister who had heard the parties decided the case.
Right to Counsel
There were views that counsels should be kept away from the administrative decisions for the sake of brevity, but with time it has been realized that this right should be given to parties as everyone is not skilled enough to present their case.
Bias Rule (Nemo Judex in Causa Sua)
The second principle of natural justice ensures impartiality in decision-making. It translates to “no one should be a judge in their own case.” This rule prevents bias, whether actual or perceived, in judicial and administrative processes.
Personal Bias: Occurs when a decision-maker has a personal relationship (friendship, enmity, or professional rivalry) with one of the parties involved.
In the case of Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court quashed a government order due to personal bias..
Pecuniary Bias: Arises when the decision-maker has a financial interest in the outcome of the case. Even a small financial benefit can be enough to raise concerns about fairness.
In the case of J. Mohapatra & Co. v. State of Orissa, the Supreme Court invalidated the decision of the Textbooks’ selection committee because some of its members were also authors of the books being considered for selection.
Subject Matter Bias: Occurs when the decision-maker has a personal stake in the case’s subject matter. If an adjudicator has previously expressed an opinion about an issue before them, it can create an impression of prejudice.
Departmental Bias: Common in administrative law, this bias occurs when officials from the same department handle disputes where their department is an interested party.
Policy Notion Bias: Relates to bias arising from preconceived notions or policy decisions made by the decision-maker.
Pre-conceived Notion Bias: Refers to bias arising from the decision-maker’s pre-existing opinions or ideas about the case.
Reasoned Decision (Speaking Orders)
The third principle of natural justice requires that decisions be supported by valid reasoning. Known as the “speaking order” principle, it mandates that authorities provide an explanation for their rulings.
Meaning of Speaking Order
A speaking order is a decision or order that explicitly states the reasons for the decision. It “speaks” for itself by detailing the rationale behind the adjudicating body’s conclusion.
In Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India v. Union of India, the Supreme Court emphasised that providing reasons for an order is a fundamental principle of natural justice.
Also, in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978),the Supreme Court ruled that administrative authorities must provide reasons for decisions affecting fundamental rights, reinforcing the need for transparency and accountability.
Exceptions of the principles of natural justice
DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY AND ABSOLUTE NECESSITY
Doctrine of necessity allows authorities to do certain things which are necessary to be done at the moment. It is invoked in situations where there is no definite authority to decide on a matter.
In Ashok Kumar Yadav vs. State of Haryana, it was decided by the court that a member of Public Service Commission can’t exclude himself from the selection process completely just because they might be related to some of the candidates, and may exclude themselves only during the selection process of those candidates to whom he might be related.
Exception during situations of emergency
In Mohinder Singh Gill vs. CEC, there were constituency elections going on in Firozpur, which were interrupted by mob violence, which caused some ballot papers and boxes to be destroyed, while the elections were still underway in some places. The ECI ignored the right to be heard and without any notice ordered re-elections. The court did not interrupt the work of the ECI and dismissed the claims for notice by saying that the said act was necessary in an emergency situation and Audi alteram partem can be ignored in this situation.
Exception where no right of an individual has been infringed
Where a person does not have any right, and neither can he derive any right from any statute or any common law provision, he cannot ask for a remedy in that case under the principles of natural justice, and he may in such case forfeit procedural fairness.
EMPTY FORMALITY THEORY
This theory emphasis that when there would be no difference on whether giving notice or opportunity for being heard is given or not. Those have become a mere procedure which have no effect on the outcome of the case or the decision.
In Board of High School and Intermediate Education M.P.& Ors. v. Kumari Chitra Srivastava& Ors.,, Petitioner’s Examination was cancelled due to the shortage of attendance. No notice was given by the university. The court held that there would be no difference in the decision of the university even if the notice was given, so notice may not be given.
CONCLUSION
The principles of natural justice have ancient origins, tracing back to Roman law concepts such as jus naturale and lex naturale, and were recognized by early civilizations like the Greeks and Romans as essential for fairness and justice. Ancient Indian texts like Kautilya’s Arthashastra and religious scriptures also acknowledged the importance of giving a fair chance to be heard before passing judgment. Over time, these principles were refined and incorporated into English common law, forming the foundation of modern procedural fairness in legal and administrative systems worldwide.
