ALI

GARHMUSLI
M UNI
VERSI
TY
MALAPPURAM CENTER

Mi
d-Ter
m Pr
oject

Topi
c:Pr
inci
plesofNat
uralJust
ice
Subj
ect:Admi
nist
rat
ivel
aw

Submi
tt
edBy:
- Submi
tt
edTo:
-
MohdNat
iqKhan Dr
.ShahnawazAhmedMal
ik
GI
0153 Assi
stantPr
ofessor
18BALLB78 Depar
tmentofLaw
I
II
rdYear
 CONTENT
I
ntr
oduct
ion
Pr
inci
pleofNat
ural
Just
ice
Ki
ndsofBi
as
1.Pecuni
aryBi
as
2.Per
sonal
Bias
3.Bi
asast
osubj
ectmat
ter(
off
ici
albi
as)
Except
ion t
othe r
ule agai
nstbi
as ort
he Doct
ri
ne of
Necessit
y
Rul
eofaudi
alt
eram par
tem (
heart
heot
hersi
de)
i
)Not
ice
i
i
)Hear
ing
Concl
usi
on
Ref
erence
I
ntr
oduct
ion
Thepr inciplesofnat uraljust icear esupposedt obeasol dasAdam and
Eve.WhenAdam di sobey edGodbyeat ingthef orbiddenf r
uitfrom t het r
ee
ofknowl edge, Goddi dnotpuni shAdam wi thoutgi vinghi m anoppor tuni
ty.
Iti
ssai d, Godcal ledhi m andaskedhi m" Hastt houeat enoft het reewher e
Icommandedt heet hatthoushoul dnoteat ? "Ther ear einnumer abl efacets
ofnat ural j
ust ice.Suf fi
cet osayt helawhasbeendev elopedi nt he
twentiethcent urybymanyhi stor i
caldeci si
ons.I nor dinar ypar l
ancei t
meanssuchpr inci pleswhi chgov ernt hejust icet obedonei nnat ural
mannerorpr incipl eswhi char eadher edt owhenj usticei sdonebyt he
nature.Inst at ut es, suchpr inciplesar especi fi
cal lypr ov i
dedandev eni f
unprov i
ded, ar er eadi ntoast at ute,tosav ei tf rom t hev iceofar bitrariness,
unequal ity,unf airnessandbadconsci ence.Suchpr incipl esar einher ent
andbackboneoft hej udicial system aswel lasadmi nist r
ative,quasi -
j
udicial ordi sci plinaryact ion.I tisrathert hesoul ofanor derorj udgment .
Wher et hest atut ei t
selfpr ov i
desf orapar t
icul arf orm ofoppor tuni t
y ,
ithas
tobest r i
ctlyf ollowed, elsei namannerwel l def inedbyt hejudgement sand
theprecedent s.I tist r
ite,just i
cenotonl yshoul dbedone, i
tshoul dappear
tohav ebeendone, toav oidcr i
tici
sm, doubtandsuspi cion.
Pr
inci
pleofNat
uralJust
ice
Pri
ncipl
eofnaturalj
usticeisbasedonthetwolegalmaxims"Nemodebet
essajudexinpropri
acause"whi chmeansnoonecanbej udgeofhisown
cause."AudiAl
teram Part
em"whi chmeansopportuni
tyoff
airhear
ingt
o
theothersidemustbeaf for
ded.

Thi
sisar ul
ewhi chgenerallyappli
esindisci
pli
naryproceedingsagainstan
employeechargeofmi sconductoranygui lt
.Asperther uleofpr
inci
pleof
natur
aljust
ice,anenquir
yi ntotheall
egati
onlabell
edagai nstt
heempl oyee
mustbei ni
ti
atedandaf airopportunit
yofbearingheardmustbeaf forded
tosuchempl oyee.Thusthisrulerequir
esthat:

(1)char
gedemployeeshoul
dbegivennot
iceoft
hechar
gesheiscal
l
ed
upontoexpl
ainandtheall
egat
ionsonwhi
chthosear
ebased;

(
2)ev
idenceshoul
dbet
akeni
nthepr
esenceoft
hechar
gedempl
oyee;

(
3)heshouldbegi
venoppor
tuni
tyt
ocr
oss-
exami
net
hepr
osecut
ion
wi
tnesses;

(
4)heshoul
dhav et
heoppor
tuni
tyofadduci
ngal
lrel
evantev
idenceon
whi
chherel
ies;

(5)nomater
ialshoul
dber el
iedonagainsthi
m wi
thoutgi
vi
nghi
m an
opport
uni
tyofexplai
ningsuchmateri
al.
Ki
ndsofBi
as
 uni
arybi
as

 Per
sonal
bias

 Bi
asast
osubj
ectmat
ter
.

1.Pecuni
aryBi
as:
pecuniar
ybi asarises,
whent headj
udicator
/j udgehavemonet ar
y/
economici nter
estinthesubjectmatt
eroft hedispute/case.Thejudge,
whiledecidingacaseshoul dnothaveanypecuni aryoreconomicinter
est.
Inotherwor ds,pecuni
aryi
nteresti
nthesubj ectmatterofli
ti
gati
on
disqual
if
iesaper sonfrom acti
ngasaj udge.

Rel
evantl
eadi
ngcasesont
hispoi
ntar
e:

Dr.Benham'scase-Dr .Benham wasf inedforpract

ici
ngi nthecit
yof
Londonwi t
houtlicenseoft hecoll
egeofPhy sici
ans.Accordingtothe
stat
ute,t
hecollegeisent it
ledtohalfoftheamountandt heremaininggoes
totheKing.CokeCJ.Di s-all
owedthecl ai
m( f
ine)onthegr oundthatthe
coll
egehadapecuni ar
yi nter
est.(
FineagainstDr.Benham wasdi smissed)
.
Theruleofpecuni ar
ybiaswasl aiddowni nthecaseof :Dimesv .D.JCanal.

Acompanyf iledasuitagainstalandowner.LordChancel
lor(
judge),who
wasashar eholderoftheplaint
if
fcompanyhear dthecaseanddecidedin
favouroft
hecompany .Onappeal ,
theHouseofLor dsquashedthis
decisi
onont hegroundthatnomanshal lbej udgeofhi
sowncause.R.v .
HendonRur alDistr
ictCouncil,
Expartecharl
ey .

Inthi
scase,oneofthemembersoft hepl
anningcommi ssi
onwasan
estat
eagentandhewasact i
ngfortheappli
canttowhom permissi
onwas
grant
edbyt hepl
anningcommissi
on.Thedecisi
onoftheplanning
commi ssi
ongrant
ingtheper
missi
onwasquashedont hegroundof
pecuni
arybi
as.

Jeej
eebhoyv
.Asst.Col
lector
.Inthi
scase,i
twasfoundthatoneoft
he
membersofthebenchofthecourtwasalsoamemberoft heco-
operat
ive
soci
etyf
orwhicht
hedisputedlandhadbeenacqui
red.

Thebenchwasr econstituted.Similar
ly,Visakhapatnam Co-operative
MotorTr ansportLtd.v.G.BangarRaj u.Inthiscase,thedistri
ctcoll
ector
asthechai r
manoft heregionaltransportauthori
tygrantedmot orpermitto
theaboveco- operat
ivesoci ety
,towhi chhewasal sothepresident.The
courtsetasidethecollector'sacti
onont hegroundofpecuni arybi
as.

2.Per
sonalBi
as:
Personalbiasari
sesf rom nearanddeari .
e.from f
riendship,
relati
onship,
businessorprofessionalassociat
ion.Suchrelati
onshipdisqualif
iesa
personfrom acti
ngasaj udge.Relevantcasesont hispointi
sA. k.kr
ipakv.
UnionofI ndi
a.TheSupr emeCour tquashedt heselectionsmadebyt he
sel
ectionboardont hegr oundthatoneoft hecandidatesappear edbefore
sel
ectioncommi tteewasal soamemberoft heselecti
onboar d.

Meengl assTeaEstatev.Thei
rWor kmen.I
nthi
scase,
themanageroft
he
factor
yconduct edi
nqui
ryagai
nsttheworkmenwhower eal
l
egedtohave
assault
edhi m.Thecour
tdisqual
i
fiedthemanageront
hegroundof
personalbias.

StateofU.Pv .Mohd.Nooh.I nthiscaseadepar tmental i

nquirywasheld
againstanempl oyeeandoneoft hewi t
nessesagai nsttheempl oyeet
urned
hostil
e.Theinquir
yofficert
henlefttheinquir
yandgav eevidenceagai
nst
hi
m andt her
eafterresumedt ocompl et
et heinqui
ryandpassedt heor
der
ofdismissal
.Theor derofdismissalwasquashedont hegr oundof
personalbi
as.

Mi
ner
alDev
elopmentLt
d.v
.St
ateofBi
har
.Int
hiscase,
thepet
it
ioner
companywasownedbyRaj aKamakshy aNar ainSingh.Thepetit
ionerwas
grantedmi ninglicensefor99years.Thelicensewascancel l
edbythe
mi ni
sterofr evenueacti
ngunderBi harMicaAct .RajaKamakshy aNar ai
n
Singh,theowneroft hecompanyhadopposedt hemi nist
erandfil
eda
cri
mi nalcaseundersect ion500oft heI
ndi anPenal code.Thecasewas
polit
icalri
valrybetweent hemini
sterandRaj aKamakshy aNarai
nSi ngh.
Thecancel lati
onor derwassetasideont hegr oundofper sonal
bias.

Kirt
iDeshmankarv .UnionofI ndia.I
nt hiscase,themot her
-in-l
awofa
studentselect
edfortheadmi ssiontot hemedi calcoll
egewasv i
tall
y
i
nterestedinheradmission.Themot herinlawwasamemberoft he
coll
egeandhospi t
alcouncilandshepar ti
cipat
edi nthemeetingofthe
council
.Ont hi
sgroundthecour theldt hattheselecti
onofthestudentfor
theadmi ssi
ontothemedi calcollegewasv i
ti
ated.Thecourtmadei tcl
ear
thatitwasnotnecessarytoest abli
shbi as.

Reasonablelikel
i
hoodofbi aswasconsi deredsuffi
cienttovit
iat
ethe
select
ionforadmi ssi
on.I
nshor t
,forv
iti
atingthedeci si
onont hegroundof
bias,i
tisnotnecessarytoestabli
shbias.Itissuffi
cientt
oinvali
datethe
decisi
onifitcanbeshownt hatt
herehasbeenr easonablel
ikeli
hoodof
bias.

3.Bi
asast
osubj
ectmat
ter(
off
ici
albi
as)
:
Anyi nter
estorpr ej
udicewilldi
squalif
yaj udgef rom hearingthecase.
Whent headjudicat
orort hejudgehasgener al
interestinthesubjectmat t
er
i
ndi sputeonaccountofhi sassociati
onwi ththeadmi ni
strati
onorpr i
vate
body ,hewillbedisquali
fi
edont hegr oundofbi asi fhehasi nt
imately
i
dent if
iedhimselfwi t
htheissuesi ndispute.Todi squali
fyont heground
theremustbei nti
mat eanddirectconnectionbet weent headjudicatorand
theissuesindi spute.Nowt hequestionis,whet herthisprinci
plecanbe
extendedt oadmi ni
strat
iveadjudicat
ionalso.
Ifso,nodeci sionwi l
lbefreef rom bi
as.Gull
ampallyNageswar aRaov .A.
P.S.R.T.
C.I nt hi
scase, t
hegov er
nmentproposednational
izat
ionofmot or
transport.Objectionsfornationali
zat
ionwererefer
redtobehear dbythe
secretar
yt ot heGov ernment, whoupheldtheval
idit
yofthescheme( for
national
ization).I
twaschal lengedont hegroundthatthesaidsecret
aryin
fact,i
nit
iatedt henational
ization.

TheSupr emeCour theldthegovernmentsecretary'

sacti
oninval
id.K.
Chell
iahv .Chairman,I
ndustri
alFi
nanceCorporation.I
nthiscase,the
disci
pli
naryactionagainstanemployeewast akenbyt hechai
rmanoft he
corporat
ion.Therewasst atut
oryprovi
sionf
ort heappealfr
om the
chair
mant otheboardofdirect
ors.Thechai
rmanwasal soamemberof
theboardofdi r
ectors.

Thechairmanpartici
patedinthemeet ingoftheboardinwhichtheappeal
wasconsidered.Theorderoft heboardwasquashedont hegroundofbias.
Thepresenceofthechai r
mani nthemeet i
ngoft heboardinwhichthe
appealwasconsideredcreatedar easonabl
eappr ehensi
oninthemindof
thepart
ythattherewasr eall
ikel
ihoodofbias.Lavanyav.Osmani a
Univer
sit
y(1999)A. P.

Br
ieff
act
s:l
avany
awr
oteB.
Sc.(
mat
hs)exami
nat
ionsofOsmani
a
Univ
ersit
yin1999.Intheresult
,itwasinti
matedt hatshefail
edinmat hs.
Sheappliedforre-
val
uati
on.Inre-val
uati
onshepassed.Sheappear edfor
M.B.A.entr
anceexaminati
oni n1999andqual i
fiedforadmission.Howev er
,
OsmaniaUni ver
sit
yauthor
iti
esr ef
usedtoadmi therrej
ect
ingher
appl
icati
onthatshepassedinr e-v
aluat
ion.Shesoughtdirecti
onsfrom the
A.PHighCour t.

Judgment
:TheAndhr
aPr
adeshHi
ghcour
tgav
ejudgmenton13-
10-
1999
i
nfav
ourofLav
any
aandor
der
edt
heOsmani
aUni
ver
sit
yaut
hor
it
iest
o
admi
ther
.
Except
iontot
her
uleagai
nstbi
asort
heDoct
ri
neof
Necessit
y
Whenbiasisprovided,itdi
squal
if
iedt
headjudicat
orandani mpar t
ial
adj
udi
catorshouldreplacehim.However,t
herearecertainext
remecases
i
nwhichsubstit
uti
on/ r
eplacementofimpart
ialadj
udicatori
snotpossible.
I
nsuchsituat
ions,thepr i
nci
pleofnat
ural
justi
ce,undernecessit
yhast o
gi
veway.

Otherwisetheadmi ni
strat
ionofjusti
cebr eaksdownandt hereisnoot her
meanst odecide.ThoughI ndi
ancour tshavenotexpr esslyadoptedit,t
his
(doctr
ineofnecessity)hasbeenimpl iedl
yappl i
edinsev er
aloccasions.In
contemptofcour t,t
herulethatnooneshal lbeajudgei nhi
sowncausei s
notfoll
owedst ri
ctl
y.Simil
arl
y,indepar t
ment alenqui
ryinservi
cemat t
ers
theempl oy
eeappoi ntsenquir
yof f
icerandt hereiseverypossibi
li
tythatthe
enquir
yof f
iceractsinfavourofempl oyer.
Rul
eofaudial
ter
am par
tem (
heart
heot
hersi
de)
Bot hparti
esshouldbehear dbeforeanydeci si
on.Ther i
ghttoafairhearing
hasbeenusedbyt hecour tast hebaseonwhi cht obuil
dakindofcodef or
admi nist
rat
iveprocedurecompar ablewithduepr ocessoflaw.Apr oper
hear i
ngmustal waysincludeaf airandadequat eopportuni
tytothosewho
arepar ti
esinthecontroversyforcor r
ectingandcont r
adict
inganything
prejudici
altothei
rview.Thedi sclosureofachar georopposingcasemust
bemadeandi tmustbemadewi thinreasonabletimetoall
owt heper son
affectedtopreparehisdefenceorhi scomment s.Hemusthav efairnoti
ce
ofanyaccusat ionagainsthim.Thepr i
ncipleofaudialt
eram part
em has
twoaspect s

(
i)not
iceand

(
ii
)hear
ing

(
i)Not
ice
Beforeanyact i
oni staken,theaf fectedpartyshouldbegi venanoti
ceto
showcauseagai nstthepr oposedact i
onandseekhi sexpl
anati
on.Any
orderpassedwi thoutgi v
ingnoticei sagainstthepri
nciplesofnatur
al
j
ustice.Accordi
ngl y,
ev enifthereisnopr ovisi
onint hestatut
eaboutgi
ving
ofnot i
ce,i
ftheor derinquest i
onadv er
sel
yaf fect
sther i
ghtsonan
i
ndividual
,thenot i
cemustbegi v en.

Thenot i
cemustbecl ear,specif
icandunambi guousandt hecharges
shoul
dnotbev agueanduncer tain.Theobj ectofnot i
ceistogivean
opportuni
tytotheindividualconcer ned,topr esenthiscase.Moreover,
the
noti
cemustgi vear easonabl eoppor tunit
ytocompl ywiththerequi
rement
s
mentionedthereon.Nat uralj
ustice,therefore,requi
resthattheperson
dir
ectl
yaffectedbyt hepr oposedact s,decisionsorpr oceedi
ngsbegiven
adequatenoticeofwhati spr oposedsot hathemaybei napositi
on,
 t
omaker
epr
esent
ati
ononhi
sownbehal
f,or

t
oappearatt
hehear
ingori
nqui
ry(
ifany
),and

 ef
fect
ivel
ytopr
epar
ehi
sowncaseandt
oanswert
hecasehehast
o
meet.

Accor di
ngly,t
henoti
ceshoul
dbeser vedinsuff
ici
entti
met oenabl
ethese
representati
ontobemadeeffecti
vel
y.Ifanoralhear
ingistobehel
d,the
ti
meandt heplacemustbeproperl
ynot i
ced.I
fthechargesaret
obe
brought,theyshoul
dbespeci
fiedwithparti
cul
ars.

(
ii
)Hear
ing
Thesecondrequir
ementofaudi al
teram part
em isthatt
heperson
concer
nedmastbegi venanoppor
tunit
yofbei ngheardbef
oreanyadver
se
acti
onist
akenagai nsthim.Ahear
ingwillnormall
ybeanor al
heari
ng.
Whenanor alhear
ingisgivent
heTr i
bunalmust: —

 Consi
deral
lrel
evantev
idencewhi
chapar
tywi
shest
osubmi
t.

I
nfor
m ever
ypart
yofallt
heevidencetobetakenint
oaccount
,
whet
herderi
vedf
rom anot
herpartyori
ndependentl
y.

 Al
l
owwi
tnessest
obequest
ioned.

 All
owcomment sonevi
denceandar
gument sonthewholecase.The
ri
ghtt
ocallandtocr
ossexaminewi
tnesses,asagener
alrul
e,i
spart
ofnat
ural
justi
ce.

Wrongf
ulrefusalofanadjour
nmentwhenr
easonabl
yrequest
ed,
may
amounttorefusaloff
airhear
ing.
Concl
usi
on
Pri
nciplesofnat uralj
usticear esoul ofanadmi ni
str
ati
onofjust
iceand
needt obeadher edtoinor dertomaket heor derasajustandfairorder.
Abov est at
edprincipl
esar ewel lsett
ledandneedt obecompl i
edbyal l
Courts,authorit
iesandTr ibunalswhi ledispensati
onofjusti
ce.I
tisadut y
andobl igati
onandi tsvi
ol ati
onisi nf
ringementoff undamentalr
ights
conferredbyt heConst i
tutionofI ndi
aandshal lal
somakemocker yoflaw,
whichisi mpermi ssi
bleindemocr acy.
Ref
erence
 Dr
.I.
PMassey:
Admi
nist
rat
ivel
aw8t
hedi
ti
on2012

 DrJ.
J.RUpadhy
aya:
Admi
nist
rat
ivel
aw11t
hedi
ti
on2019

 www.
legal
ser
vicei
ndi
a.com

 www.
scr
ibd.
com

 www.
lawct
opus.
com