1

SVKM’S

JITENDRA CHAUHAN COLLEGE OF LAW, VILE PARLE (MUMBAI).

TOPIC OF THE PROJECT –

AN OVERVIEW OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN INDIA – CONCEPT, PRINCIPLES AND

EXCEPTIONS

SUBJECT –

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

NAME –

YASHI TANSUKH JAIN

DIVISION AND ROLL NO. –

C – 136

SUBMITTED TO –

PROFESSOR SNEHA ANILKUMAR

 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

In the accomplishment of this project successfully, many people have bestowed upon me
their blessings, guidance and support, I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all of
them.

Primarily, I express my sincere thanks to, Dr. Priya Shah ,Principal, Jitendra Chauhan
College of Law for constant guidance and encouragement throughout my ongoing academic
course.

I express deep and sincere gratitude to Professor Sneha Anilkumar whose guidance,
valuable suggestions, very constructive instructions and kind supervision have contributed
immensely to the evolution of my ideas on this project.

Lastly, I will be forever grateful for the support extended by my parents, friends and
classmates and for being immensely helpful in various phases of completion of the project.
 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SR.NO PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1 INTRODUCTION 4
2 CONCEPT OF NATURAL JUSTICE 5
3 PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE – 6-12
A. Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa
 Personal bias
 Pecuniary bias
 Official bias
 Judicial obstinacy
B. Audi alterem partem
 Notice
 Hearing
 Right to cross examine
 Right to be presented by a legal
practitioner
C. Speaking Orders

4 EXCEPTIONS TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 13

NATURAL JUSTICE
5 CONCLUSION 13
6 BIBILOGRAPHY 14
 4

INTRODUCTION

The concept of natural justice though not provided in Indian Constitution but it is considered
as necessary element for the administration of justice. Natural justice is a concept of common
law which has its origin in ‘Jus Natural’ which means a law of nature. In its layman
language natural justice means natural sense of what is right and wrong and in its technical
sense it is synonymous with fairness. Natural justice has a very wide application in
administrative discretion. It aims to prevent arbitrariness and injustice towards the citizens
with an act of administrative authorities.

In its initial, the concept of natural justice was confined to the Judicial proceeding only but
with the advent of welfare state the powers of administrative authorities have considerably
increased as a result it becomes impossible for law to determine the fair procedure to be
followed by each authority while adjudicating any disputes or any quasi-judicial proceedings.

Therefore, courts have made a remedy by establishing a norm to be follow by administrative

authorities while exercising theirs powers and performing their functions. Administrative
authorities being a law executer must provide benefits to the people but such objective cannot
be fulfill in absence of effective control on the powers given to them.

Court in order to prevent abuse of power and to check on their limits has evolved the
principles of natural justice as important safeguards against injustice. The object of natural
justice is to secure justice to the citizens and prevent contempt of justice. Decisions which
violate the natural justice shall stand null and void.
 5

CONCEPT OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN INDIA

Principles of natural justice constitutes one of the most important concepts of Administrative
law. The expression natural justice has been interpreted to cover several rules of equity and
fair play and is sometimes also referred to as substantial justice coma fundamental justice
Universal justice and fair play in action. The concept has its origin and English law and
reflects the close connection between common law and moral principles. Although it may not
be very easy to give a clear and precise and scientific definition of this term, the principles of
natural justice have been accepted in and for stand all civilized countries of the world.

The underlying object of natural justice is not to secure justice, but also to prevent
miscarriage of justice coma thus ensuring that fundamental liberties and rights of citizens are
well protected. As observed by the Supreme Court its essence is good consigns in a given
situation, nothing more and nothing less (Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC
1416)1

Principles of natural justice, when applied to administrative law, keep all the acts of
administrative authorities in check by applying rules relating to reasonableness, good faith,
justice equity and good conscience. The rules of natural justice have constituted the
irreducible minimum procedure that must be observed. Where natural justice prevails, a fair
deal is bound to follow.

There are no statutes either in England nor in India which provides that rules of natural
justice must be applied to all administrative action. Nevertheless it is well settled that in both
the country's, these rules operate as implied mandatory requirements, non observance where
of invalidates the very exercise of administrative power. All the view taken earlier was that
principles of natural justice apply only to judicial and not to administrative proceedings today
it is universally accepted that they apply to "almost the whole range of Administrative
powers".(Ridge v. Baldwin 1964 AC 40)

The rules of natural justice are flexible and not rigid. As once observed by Justice Krishna
Iyer, " natural justice cannot be petrified of fitted into right moulds". According to
Justice Arijit Pasayat," what particular role of natural justice should be implied and
what its context should be in a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and
circumstances of the case".

1
https://blog.ipleaders.in/union-of-india-v-tulsiram-patel-case-analysis/
 6

PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN INDIA

Traditionally, English law recognizes two important principles of natural justice. However,
recent judicial pronouncements have seen that evaluation of one more principal and the three
rules may be set out as under-

1. NEMO DEBET ESSE JUDEX IN PROPRIA CAUSA : No man can be a judge in

his own cause.

2. AUDI ALTEREM PARTEM :A person cannot be condemned without being heard

3. An adjudicating authority must give a speaking order giving reasons supporting the
order.

Each of these principles is discussed below and necessary details.

 NEMO DEBET ESSE JUDEX IN PROPRIA CAUSA

This basic maximum of natural justice hits out at bias, interest or prejudice in any
proceeding and is based on three well-known principles, namely, -
1. No man can be a judge and the prosecutor at the same time.
2. It is not enough that justice is done it is also necessary that it must be seen to be
done.
3. Judges, like Caesar's wife, should always be above suspicion.

The principle of requirement of this rule is that the person who judges- whether he is a
judge or an administrative authority- should be impartial and free from any kind of
bias. He cannot adjudicate a cause in which he himself has any kind of interest. It is
only if he is neutral that he can decide that matter objectively. As observed in an
English case, " the object is not merely that the scales be held evenly, it is also
necessary that they may not appear to be inclined".
(R. v. Bath Compensation Authority, (1925) 1 KB 635)2

If a judge on adjudicating authority is biased either in favour of one party or against

the other he cannot be expected to do justice in the matter. Such a person is
disqualified from adjudicating and since such proceeding stand vitiated, any decisions
taken by him is liable to be set aside.

2
N.H Jhabvala – Administrative Law ( 2018 Edition)
 7

The basic rule applies to all judicial authorities as well as to all administrative
authorities who are required to act judicially or quasi judicially.

The possibility of bias disqualifies a person from acting not only in judicial or quasi-
judicial situations but also in other situations. Thus, assessment of answer books of
University examinations is not a judicial or quasi-judicial function; nevertheless, a
person whose near relative is appearing for same examination is not allowed to
undertake such assessment. Likewise a person who sits on a selection committee to
recruit candidates for jobs for admissions to a course should not be interested in any
of the candidates.

The bias referred to above can be of the following 4 types-

1. Personal bias
2. Pecuniary bias
3. Official bias (or bias regarding the subject matter)
4. Judicial obstinacy.

PERSONAL BIAS

Personal bias arises when the judge is a relative or friend, neighbour, business
associate, of one of the parties. It also arises when he has a personal grudge, enmity,
grievance or professional rivalry against one of the parties before him. In both cases
there is a strong likelihood that he would be inclined in favour of one of the parties or
prejudiced against the other.

So also when an officer was dismissed from the Army on the ground of disobeying
his superior when it was shown to the Supreme court that the very officer whose
orders he was alleged to have disappeared was a member of the enquiry Commission
coma the court held that enquiry was vitiated by bias .
( Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India)3

The leading Indian case on personal bias is A.K KRAIPAK v. UNION OF INDIA
(AIR 1970 SC 150)4, the facts whereof are as under;

In 1966, a new service called the Indian Forest Service was constituted.
The selection for the service was to be made from officers serving in the Forest
Department of the state. A selection committee was also to be set up to recommend
the names of officers and the final selection was to be made by Union Public Service
Commission.

3
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1572927/

4
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1162/A.K-Kraipak-v.-Union-of-India.html
 8

In the state of Jammu and Kashmir, Mr. Naquishbund (N) was appointed as the Chief
Acting Conservator of Forest. Two persons senior to him had been superseded and
had filed petitions against supersession. In the meanwhile, the Selection Committee
for recommending names was formed and Mr. Naquishbund was appointed as its Ex-
Officio Chairman. The committee recommended the names of several officers,
including Mr. Naquishbund , but excluding the two officers who had been superseded.
Mr. Naquishbund did not participate in the deliberations of the committee when his
own name was discussed, although he did so participate when the names of the two
superseded officers were discussed.
The recommendations of the selection committee was challenged on the ground that a
person who was selected was also one of the selectors. This, it was argued was a gross
violation of the rules of natural justice.

The Supreme Court had no hesitation in striking down the selection, observing that
“A man cannot be a judge in his own cause ". Countering the argument that Mr.
Naquishbund did not participate in the deliberations when his own name was
discussed coma the court held that the very fact that he was a member of the selection
committee would have an impact on the decisions of the other members of the
committee. Admittedly, he did participate when the names of two suspended officers
were discussed. He was also a party with the preparation of the list of selected
candidates. Thus, at every stage there was a conflict between his interest and his duty.
Under the circumstances, it would be difficult to believe that Mr. Naquishbund could
be impartial. In the words of Supreme Court," the real question is not whether he was
biased. What we have to see is whether there is a reasonable grounds for believing
that he was likely to have been biased".

PECUNIARY BIAS

If the person who judges, has a pecuniary on monetary interest, however slight, in the
subject matter of the dispute, he cannot decide the matter- even if it can be proved that
his decision was not in any way affected by such interest. As seen earlier, it is not
enough that justice is done it should also be seen to be done. In other words, financial
interest, however small disqualifies a person from adjudicating.

The fundamental principle of common law that no person should be a judge in his
own cause was laid down in the case of ( J. Mohapatra & Co. v. State of Orissa,
AIR 1984 SC 1572)5. In this case, a committee was set up to select books for
educational institutions. Some of the members of the committee with themselves
authors of books which were to be considered for selection. The list of books
recommended by the committee was set aside by Supreme Court as the possibility of
pecuniary bias could not be ruled out. As observed by the court, " it is not the actual
bias in favour of the author member that is material, but the possibility of such bias".
5
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1038306/
 9

OFFICIAL BIAS

The third kind of bias is official bias or bias as regards the subject matter. A judge or
an adjudicating authority should not have any interest in the subject matter of the
dispute being adjudicated. Of course, a mere general interest in the matter does not
disqualify a person from being a judge in the matter. To vitiate the proceeding, there
must be some direct connection between the judge and the subject matter of the
litigation before him. Thus, when an advocate had been elevated as a Judge, it was
held that he could not hear a case and grant an interim injunction to an employee
whom he had represented in the same matter before his elevation. (P.K Gosh v. J.G.
Rajput (1955) 6 SCC 744)6

In another case, the name of member of Institute of Chartered Accountants was

removed from the list of Chartered Accountants on the ground of misconduct. This
removal was challenge on the ground that the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the
disciplinary committee which investigated the matter and recommended the removal
were also the President and Vice President of the institute. The Supreme Court set
aside the removal, observing that although it was possible for these officials to act
objectively, as far as the member was concerned, he would be justified in suspecting
that a partisan consideration has been given to him. The Supreme Court also
suggested an amendment to the relevant statue so that the President and the Vice-
President of the Institute would not be part of the disciplinary committee. ( Institute
of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K Ratna, AIR 1987 SC 71)7

JUDICIAL OBSTINACY

Judicial obstinacy is a new phrase coined to cover a form of judicial bias. The exact
connotation of the term will become clear from the perusal of the decision of the
Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Shivananda Latham ( AIR 1955 SC
2050), below

In this case, A, a government servant, moved to the high court for writ of mandamus
directing the government to promote him. The matter was heard by single judge of the
high court, Justice X, who allowed the petition and directed the government "to
promote him forthwith". An appeal was filed against his judgment and the same was
set aside by two member bench of same high court. Two years later, A filed a fresh
red petition for payment of salary and other benefits in terms of the judgment of
Justice X (whose order had earlier been overruled).

6
https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/meta/644941

7
https://www.lawyerservices.in/Institute-of-Chartered-Accountants-of-India-Versus-L-K-Ratna-and-Others-
1986-10-21
 10

When this petition was dismissed, A went in appeal and the matter was heard by the
two member bench one of whom was Justice X. The bench allowed the appeal and
order payment of certain arrears.
When the matter reached Supreme Court, the order of two member bench was set
aside on what the court labeled a new form of bias namely, "judicial obstinacy". The
court observed that if a judgment of a judge is set aside, the judge must submit to such
a decision. He cannot re write the overruled judgment in the same or collateral
proceedings. The judgment of the higher court is binding not only on the parties but
also on the judge who passed the order.

 AUDI ALTEREM PARTEM

Audi Alterem Partem means that both sides must be heard before passing any order. It
signifies that no man can be condemned without a hearing. It is a fundamental principle
of natural justice that before an order is passed against a person he should be given an
opportunity to be heard in the matter. Practically speaking the maximum covers two
things -

1. Giving notice to the affected person; and

2. Giving him a hearing

NOTICE

If any action is proposed to be taken against the person, it is in the paramount interest of
fairness that a notice to be given to him about the proposed action, so that he may show cause
that is, give an explanation or clarification regarding the allegations made against him. Any
order that is passed without giving such a notice is against the principles of natural justice and
can be set aside and appropriate proceedings.

Several statutes expressly provided for giving of notice before passing certain orders.
However, even if there is no such provision and the act if an order is likely to affect the rights
of an individual, a clear specific and unambiguous notice should be given to him before
taking any action against that person. The object of giving such a notice is to inform the
person about the charges against him and to a Ford and opportunity to him to present his side
of the case. But if in the given case the party is fully aware of such charges the absence of a
formal notice would not invalidate the proceedings- unless some prejudice has in fact been
cause is always a question of fact which depends on the background and circumstances of a
given case.
 11

In one interesting case involving the University of Mumbai, action was taken against the
student (X) for having copy then answer from the answer book of another student (y) on the
basis of the similarity of both the answers. This action was taken without giving notice to X
and without giving him an opportunity to be heard. It was held that this was a violation of
rules of natural justice and the action against X set aside. The court accepted the two
arguments advance on behalf of x. Firstly, was it not possible that Y had, in fact, copied the
answer from the answer book of X? Secondly, how could one rule out the possibility that
both X and Y had not copied from the same book or written note? The court regarded the
action taken by the University as a good example of high handed justice given by a
University, which only judicial intervention could prevent. ( J.B Parikh v. University of
Bombay, AIR 1987 Bom 332)8

HEARING

The Other requirement of the rule of Audi Alterem Partem is that, before any adverse action
is taken by the person concerned should be given an opportunity to be heard in the matter.
This is also referred to as an, opportunity to show cause, that is, to explain why no adverse
action should be taken against him.

In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India ( AIR 1978 SC 597),9

When the passport of the petitioner was confiscated by the passport authorities in 'public
interest', the action was set aside by Supreme Court on the ground that the rules of natural
justice had been violated. The supreme court observed that even if an act does not specifically
provide for giving the affected party an opportunity to be a comma a person's passport cannot
be confiscated under the provisions of the act without hearing him full stop according to the
court are the duty to hear the affected Party before the action is taken against him or her, is
implied from the nature of function discharged by the administrative authority.

This rule is, however, flexible and cannot be allowed to stretched to unreasonable lengths
.Thus, it has been held that students who have appeared for examination cannot be allowed to
participate in the process of evaluation of the answer papers of verify the correctness of the
evaluation by the examiners. (Maharashtra State Board v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Seth
, AIR 1984 SC 1543)10

8
https://www.lawyerservices.in/JBParikh-Versus-University-of-Bombay-1987-03-10

9
https://blog.ipleaders.in/maneka-gandhi-v-union-of-india/

10
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/174675/
 12

Post decisional hearing

Requirement of an opportunity to be heard implies that affected person should be heard

before any discussion is taken. Sometimes however, action needs to be taken immediately
and the exigencies of the situation may demand that it should be taken without giving any
advance notice or an opportunity to be heard to the affected person in such cases post
decisional hearing which is a remedial hearing is given after taking the decision.

Right to cross examine

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 the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

In certain exceptional cases, the right to cross-examination can be denied or rejected. Hari
Nath Mishra vs. Rajendra Medical College11, under this case a male student was charged
off some indecent behavior 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.

Right to be represented by a legal practitioner

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 (A.K.Roy). 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).

 SPEAKING ORDERS

In addition to the two rules of natural justice, some writers have added one more common
name, that a person who adjudicates must pass a speaking order, that is, an order which
contains reasons in support thereof. In other words an order must speak for itself. This

11
https://blog.ipleaders.in/tracing-need-application-doctrine-audi-alteram-partem-legal-service/
 13

third limb of natural justice stipulates that a party to a proceeding has the right to know,
not only the result of an enquiry, but also the reasons in support of the decision.
 14

EXCEPTIONS TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

Although the rules of natural justice have a definitive connotation in law and have been
firmly established by the judiciary, it must not be forgotten that these rules are, after all, not
statutory rules. As once observed, “They are not cast in a rigid mould; nor can they be put in
a legal strait jacket”. The rules are flexible and can be adapted, modified – or even excluded –
by statutes.

In the following circumstances, the provisions of natural justice may be excluded,-

1. When statute excludes the application of natural justice- expressly or impliedly;

2. When the action is legislative in nature;
3. When the facts are admitted or undisputed;
4. When the inquiry is of a confidential nature;
5. When the preventive action needs to be taken immediately;
6. When prompt and urgent action is necessary in the circumstances of the case;
7. When non-observance of the rules of natural justice has not led to anything unfair or
unjust.

The following observation of the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal
Corporation (AIR 1986 SC 180)12 is relevant in this connection:

“A departure from the fundamental of natural justice may be presumed to have been intended
by the legislature only in circumstances which warrant it. Such circumstances must be shown
to exist, the burden being on those who affirm their existence”.

CONCLUSION

The principles of natural justice have been adopted by the judiciary to protect public rights
against the arbitrary decision by the administrative authorities. At all the stages of the
proceedings the main motive of the principles of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of
justice. One must keep in mind that in order to held the decision of the adjudicating
authorities as valid principles of natural justice is equally important in procedure.

12

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olga_Tellis_and_ors_Vs._Bombay_Municipal_Corporation_and_ors#:~:text=Olg
a%20Tellis%20v.,AIR%20180%2C%201985%20SCR%20Supl.&text=It%20came%20before%20the%20Court,by
%20the%20Bombay%20Municipal%20Corporation.
 15

BIBILOGRAPHY

1. http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1549-concept-of-natural-justice.html

2. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1519/Principles-of-Natural-Justice-In-
Indian-Constitution.html

3. https://blog.ipleaders.in/natural-justice/

4. www.indiankanoon.com

5. www.legalservicesindia.com

6. www.lawyersservices.in

7. N.H Jhabvala – Administrative Law – 2018 Edition