Authored By: Dewanshi Bhatt
Bennett University
ABSTRACT
Since administrative law remains a new field of law, there are a lot of unknowns. The application of natural justice concepts to administrative proceedings is one of these ambiguous situations. The kind of function that the administrative body is carrying out determines whether or not the natural justice principles apply. Since there are no set parameters for this specific administrative activity, the initial phase is to determine its nature.
The characterization of the administrative role determines how much the two main natural justice principles explained at the very beginning of this paper apply. It has made an effort to categorise the different kinds of administrative responsibilities and pinpoint a set of criteria that may be applied to distinguish between them. The paper then discusses the benefits and drawbacks of incorporating natural justice principles into administrative proceedings after this classification. Following this research, it comes to the conclusion that administrative activities should adhere to the fundamentals of natural justice since the benefits greatly exceed the drawbacks.
INTRODUCTION
The phrase “Principles of Natural Justice,” which comes from the Roman legal word “Jus Natural,” does not have legal effect even though it must be adhered to regardless of whether it is included in a statute. Respecting the universally acknowledged natural justice principles where a quasi-judicial body decides a dispute between the parties or when any administrative decision with potential civil repercussions is at stake, civilised States is of utmost significance. These ideas are well-established.
The laws that have been set up by the courts as the bare minimum of protection for people’s liberties against the arbitrary means by which judicial in nature, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies may issue orders that affect those rights are known as natural justice principles. The purpose of these rules is to prevent unfair behaviour by such authorities. The goal of natural justice principles is to supplement the law, not to replace it.
It is currently well accepted that natural justice principles must be upheld in all judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative settings unless specifically stated otherwise in a statute
procedures that have an impact on the parties’ civil rights. [1][2]. One should consider natural justice, a concept deeply ingrained in morality and tradition, to be essential to making right decisions. The purpose of following natural justice principles is to prevent injustices.
The discipline of Administrative Law places significant emphasis on the principles of Natural Justice, which are not codified in regulations or established by any particular court. These are standards established by judges with the intention of ensuring justice and averting injustices. This observation was made in the A.K. Kripal vs Union of India[3] case.
The Natural Justice Principles are now extended to include administrative functions as well. According to the ruling in the Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel[4] case, they are regarded as a component of the constitutional protection found in Article.
In the case of Lala Shri Bhagwan v. Ram Chand[5], it was decided that if it seemed as though a body or authority had the authority to decide issues pertaining to citizens’ rights, then the nature of the exercise of such power itself placed an obligation on the authorities to behave in accordance with natural justice principles. Therefore, it is clear from the Supreme Court’s rulings that the court has a tendency to expand the application and purview of the natural justice principles by bringing administrative as well as quasi-judicial tasks under its purview. Nonetheless, the regulations have not been enforced, meaning that it is not required that these principles be followed strictly.
As decided in the case of A.K. Kripal v. Union of India[6], non-compliance with the rule of law would’ve lost significance if the administrative authority failed to carry out their duties in a fair and just manner. Arbitrariness is the same as discrimination and an infringement of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution when the doctrines of Natural Justice are not followed.
Lord Widgery defined the Principles of Natural Justice as those essential guidelines that, if broken, will make it impossible for justice to be perceived to have been served. Justice P. N. Bhagwati asserts that natural justice entails an obligation to act justly.
PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
- Audi Alteram Partem (listening to both sides) is one of the most significant principles of natural justice.
- The Nemo Judex in Causa Sua rule, which states that no one should judge their own cause, prohibits bias.
NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA
Nemo Judex In Causa Sua means “Rule against bias”. The fundamental natural justice concept is that the individual delivering the choice must be impartial and natural, and no one should judge on their own behalf. As a result, the concept states that a court or other choice-making body will not be permitted to consider any matters that are presented to it if it is believed that they are biassed or partial. It developed the notion that justice should be carried out and regarded as such. Any proceedings before adjudication bodies must adhere to the principles of natural justice.
The authority’s dispute will not be carried out or will remain null and void if it is discovered that the judge presiding over the disagreement has personal interests or that the decision stems from that case.
It is claimed that impartiality is one of the best qualities of effective management. The nature of humans is such that it is generally impossible for a person to make an objective judgement in situations where they have an interest, and it is extremely rare for someone to make a decision against their own interests. Effective use of one’s intellect is possible when one maintains impartiality. Therefore, the bias rule removes the possibility of a biassed decision.
It also guarantees the public’s trust in a nation’s judicial system.
VARIOUS FORMS OF A BIAS
- Personal Bias
- Pecuniary Bias
- Subject matter Bias
AUDI ALTERM PARTEM
The second long arm of natural justice, known as Audi Alterm Partem, shields the “Little Man” from capricious administrative measures anytime his property or person rights are in danger. Therefore, one of the goals of holding a hearing to apply the concepts of the goal of natural justice is to prevent an illegal action choice from occurring. A fair chance may need to be given before making an administrative order since any incorrect decision could have a negative impact on an individual.[7]
The fundamental idea behind the natural justice principle is audi alteram partem. The omnipotence of the theory dictates that no one should be punished without first being heard.
Within the administrative action file, this idea has been put into practice to guarantee equal treatment and justice for the impacted parties. But in the process, the concept is not a panacea for all ailments. The factual matrix determines how it should be applied in order to maximise administrative effectiveness, expediency, or the administration of justice.
The chosen process ought to be equitable and just.[8]
As has often been noted, God bestowed upon Adam and Eve the advantage of this law even prior to their punishment for violating him. Administrative challenges in providing a person with notice and a hearing offer any explanation for denying the individual the chance to be heard. Additionally, adhering to the principles of natural justice depends more on the demands of a given situation than it does on the magnitude of the stakes.[9]
the entire series of rulings, commencing R. V. University of Cambridgevi[10], popularly known as the DR Bentley case, in which the King’s Bench Court determined held the University of Cambridge could not revoke the degree without offering him a chance to explain himself, a distinguished but disobedient professor unequivocally proved that, even in cases when the legislature fails to impose a legal obligation on both sides to be heard, the common law’s judicial system will make up for their lack of inclusion. In the same way, the right to a fair trial is guaranteed by the Indian Constitution’s Articles 14[11] and 21[12]. This means that even if legislators expressly approve an administrative decision without a hearing, the law would still be broken, unless there is a known exception.[13]
Therefore, the court decided that although while the regulations allow an inmate of condemnation entry without notice or hearing, they should be interpreted in accordance with natural justice principles, and no wards of censure entry can be granted without being given a chance to hear or observe.[14]On the other hand, declining to take part in an investigation without a good reason cannot subsequently be said to constitute a violation of natural justice.[15]
THE AUDI ALTERAM PARTAM’S INGRIGEINTS
NOTICE: An order is void ab initio, or void from the start, if it is passed without providing notice. This is in violation of the natural justice principle. A notice must be sent to the subject of any action to provide them an opportunity to present their case before further action is taken. Prior to initiating any action. The truth of the matter is that nobody can protect oneself.
The notification needs to include the jurisdiction for which the claim is filed as well as the hearing’s date, time, and location. The intended accusation against the individual must also be included.
The notice shall be deemed invalid if one or more of the required items are missing. The principle of natural justice is affected by non-issuance of notice, not jurisdiction. It was decided in the Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India[16] case that the notice sent to the parties needed to be unequivocal and plain. It’s unclear if the notification will be seen as appropriate and reasonable.
HEARING: The rule of hearing is the second component of the audi alteram partam (hear the other side) principle. If the authority gives the subject at hand a fair opportunity to be heard before issuing the direction. Its detrimental effects will be felt by this was decided in the cases of Fateh Singh v. State of Rajasthan,[17] Harbans lal v. Commissioner, National Cooperative Bank v. Ajay Kumar[18], and invalid and has to be overturned.
EVIDENCE: When both parties are present, evidence is one of the most significant aspects that are submitted before the court. Judicial or quasi-judicial power will act based on the evidence that is presented to the court.
CROSS-EXAMINATION: In a fair hearing, the adjudicating authority must not only inform the person in question of the evidence or materials that will be used against him, but also provide him the chance to refute the information.
LEGAL COUNSEL: Perhaps the right to legal counsel is part of the ability to be represented is a crucial question. To be fair, legal assistance at the administrative level is not seen as a necessary component of the fair listening. However, in some circumstances, depriving someone of their access to legal counsel amounts to a breach of natural justice. Therefore, in cases where the law is at issue, such as J.J. Mody v. the State of Bombay[19] and Krishna Chandra v. Union of India[20], it has been decided that the denial of legal counsel will be considered a breach of natural justice since the party may not be able to comprehend the legal issue clearly under such circumstances, and as a result, he ought to have a fair hearing.
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM EXCEPTIONS
It is decided that the audi alteram partem criterion does not apply in a particular situation to “Reasonable play in real life.” However, since failing to manage cannot result in anything unreasonable an opportunity to make a case
EXCLUSION OF STATUTES / STATUARY EXCLUSION -Whenever the primary legislation for which an action is taken by the administration are silent about their application or exclude making mention to one side of the other parts’ hearing is not disregarded by the proceedings in the statutory arrangement.
CASE: Ram Krishna Varma v. Province of UP[21], Karnataka Public Service Commission v. B.M. Vijay Shankar[22], and Maneka Gandhi v. Association of India.[23]
Natural justice could be explicitly prohibited by a rule, or it could be implied by necessity. Nonetheless, a rule of such kind might be examined under Article 14, thus it should be valid.
LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION -Under some circumstances, hearings may not be permitted. Simply put, the administrative activity in question is authoritative rather than regulatory in nature. A general order is considered legislative in nature because it does not apply to any one individual or group of people. Administrative action as a whole is not covered by the natural justice principles. Standards of natural justice can also be prohibited by a constitutional agreement, as these principles describe a process without naming any specific person on the same grounds. By arrangement, the Indian Constitution’s Articles 22, 31(A), (B), (C), and 311(2) reject the natural justice standard.However, a court may invalidate a legislative exclusion under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution if it primarily addresses arbitrary, unreasonable, or unjust practices.
INPRACTIBILITY- The concept of natural justice is followed when it is practical to do so; however, it isn’t utilised when it is not practical to adhere to the standard and is disregarded in such situations.
ACTION ACROSS DISCIPLINARIES -The natural justice norm is not necessary in situations like these since phrases like suspension and other inter-disciplinary actions suffice.
CASE: In this case, the state of Haryana, S.A. Khan. Mr. Khan worked for General Haryana as a deputy inspector and IPC officer. The Haryana government fired him after he was the subject of several accusations. He brought a case before the Supreme Court, but he never got the opportunity to hear it. The Supreme Court decided that the interdisciplinary approach and the requirement for a hearing were the grounds for the suspension.
CONCLUSION
There are several concerns when natural justice rules are not followed, particularly for the subjects. The failure to adhere to the principles of natural justice can taint whole procedures, highlighting how crucial it is to apply these guidelines to every moving forward. The parties involved in a legal action that disregards natural justice principles experience prejudice and anticipate receiving unfair orders against them. The subjects become fearful and feel oppressed as a result, which may further contribute to their perception of the tyranny of the rulers. A fierce struggle between the subjects and the government could result from this. Furthermore, as natural justice is a natural law, it must be upheld and offered to all parties in all kinds of proceedings. All processes, if judicial, quasi-judicial, or simply administrative, must adhere to the fundamental principles of natural justice; yet, the strict and inflexible rules of procedure, evidence, and other technicalities may be disregarded. A biassed judge cannot render a reasonable and equitable verdict because, despite his best efforts, he is still subject to the influence of his bias as a human being. There must be a fair and reasonable chance for each party to be heard in order for the relevant authority to make a fair decision on the case’s merits and to issue an informed order. Last but not least, no authority’s decree can be justified if it is based just on whims. Therefore, the application of natural justice principles is essential for a just and fair system.
REFERENCE(S):
[1] A.K. Karpiak v. Union of India AIR 1970 S.C.150
[2] Makena Gandhi AIR 1978 S.C.597
[3] Supra 1
[4] Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel AIR 1984 Sc
[5] Lala Shri Bhagwan v. Ram Chand AIR 1965 Sc 1767
[6] Supra 1
[7] (Balco) Employees’ Union V. Union Of India, (2002)2 Scc 333.
[8] Sarat Kumar Dash V. Biswajit Patnaik 1995 Supp(I) Scc 434
[9] Jain Exports(P) Ltd. V Union Of India,(1988)³ Scc 379.
[10]R. V. University of Cambridgevi (1723) I Str. 757:93 Er 698.
[11] Art. 14 of Indian Constitution states that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
[12] Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution states that No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
[13] (Olga Telis V. Bombay. Municipal Corp. (1985)³ Scc 545, Sec Also D.K Yadav V J.M.A Industries Ltd,(1993)³ Scc 259.
[14] State Of U. P V.Vijay Kumar Tripathi, 1995, Supp (I) Scc 552. Sec Also, Saji Gram Panchayat V. State Of Gujarat, (1999)² Scc 366, Piara Singh V. State Of Punjab , (2000) ⁵ Scc 765.
[15] Bank Of India V. Apurba Kumar Saha (1994)² Scc 615.
[16]Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India 1973 Air 389, 1973 Scr (3) 22
[17] Fateh Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1995raj15
[18] Harbans lal v. Commissioner, National Cooperative Bank v. Ajay Kumar A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 39
[19] J.J. Mody v. the State of Bombay AIR1962GUJ197, (1962)IILLJ507GUJ
[20] Krishna Chandra v. Union of India AIR1974SC1589, 1974LABLC1010, (1974)4SCC374, AIR 1974 SUPREME COURT 1589, 1974 LAB. I. C. 1010, 1974 2 SERVLR 178, 1974 4 SCC 374
[21] Ram Krishna Varma v. Province of UP (1992) 2 SCC 620
[22] Karnataka Public Service Commission v. B.M. Vijay Shankar 1992 AIR 952, 1992 SCR (1) 668, AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 952, 1992 (2) SCC 206, 1992 AIR SCW 773, 1992 (2) UJ (SC) 242, (1992) 4 JT 348 (SC), (1992) 1 SCR 668 (SC), 1992 (4) JT 348, 1992 SCC (L&S) 362, (1992) 58 ELT 558, (1993) 1 MAD LW 521, (1992) 1 SCJ 478, (1992) 2 SERVLR 77, (1992) 1 CURLR 903
[23] Supra 2
