APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE TO ADMINISTRATIVE

ACTIONS
- BY PRAGYA RAKSHITA

Administrative law is a developing branch of law. With the transition of the state from a police
state to a welfare state, the role of the administrative authorities also increased manifold. The
administrative authorities in today‟s welfare state perform not only administrative, but also
quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative functions. But, since administrative law is still developing,
the law regarding the powers, functions, procedures and control on administrative authorities are
not yet settled. Moreover, administrative law in India is not codified, and is only derived and
interpreted through principles and case laws. One of these principles is the principle of natural
justice. The three basic rules of natural justice are-

1. Rule against biased judge- According to this principle, the judge must not be biased in
any manner, whether personal, pecuniary or official. This is to ensure a just and unbiased
decision.
2. Audi alteram partem- This principle encapsulates the rule that each party must be given
an opportunity to be heard. The parties must be given a fair chance to present their case,
before a decision can be delivered.
3. Speaking Order- This means that the order passed by any authority, or the decision given
must be supported by reasons. Such an order is known as a speaking order, as it speaks
for itself. This is to reduce any scope for arbitrariness.

These principles are not applied strictly to the administrative actions. In this research paper, the
extent of the applicability of these principles to administrative functions, and the factors on
which this extent depends, will be discussed.

There are two major problems with the current understanding and method of application of
principles of natural justice to administrative functions, which will be discussed in this research
project. The first problem is that there are no clear cut guidelines to decide that which functions
of the administrative bodies are purely executive in nature and which are quasi-judicial. It is


Student of B.A. LLB (Hons.) at National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3622103

necessary to know this distinction so as to be able to decide the extent of applicability of the
principles of natural justice.

The second issue is that in administrative functions, whether executive or quasi-judicial, the
principles of natural justice are not strictly applicable, but even the question as to how much of
natural justice needs to be applied so as to ensure fairness is not ascertained. This could lead to
unfair and unjust proceedings. In this research paper, these two questions and issues will be
discussed and deliberated upon.

TYPES OF ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS:

There are three types of administrative functions-

1. Executive,
2. Quasi-judicial, and
3. Quasi-legislative

The classification of administrative functions into these three types is a very difficult task. There
are no clear cut guidelines available as to which functions of the administrative bodies would
amount to executive and which would amount to quasi-judicial. These functions cannot be
separated into water-tight compartments. All administrative functions are a mixture of executive,
quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative functions. It is usually the job of the Courts of law to decide
that which action amounts to executive, which quasi-judicial and which quasi-legislative, in light
of the facts and circumstances of the different cases.

Different tests are applicable to classify administrative actions, on the basis of the purpose of
such classification. Some of such tests based on the purpose of classification are-

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3622103

Sl. No. Purpose Classification
1. Where certiorari and prohibition Judicial.
are sought on the grounds of Unless the actions are purely ministerial or
excess of jurisdiction. legislative in character, or unless they entail the
use of wide discretionary powers by a body that is
neither a court nor a tribunal, and nor is it
required to decide lis inter partes.
2. To decide on the applicability of Judicial.
the principles of natural justice. Unless it is purely ministerial or discretionary.
3. To decide the grounds of „double Courts take a restricted view of the judicial
jeopardy‟. functions of administrative bodies.

Thus, for different purposes, different standards are used by the Courts of law to classify the
administrative functions into various types. And even those tests, are not free from discretion and
ambiguity. For instance, when the purpose of such classification is to decide the applicability of
the principles of natural justice, then even though the Courts of law usually decide in the favour
of the classification of such function as judicial, so as to enable the application of natural justice,
there is still a qualification. This qualification is that the function must not be purely ministerial
or discretionary. Such a qualification again brings ambiguity to the test.

Moreover, since there isn‟t any clear cut demarcation of functions into different categories, so
until and unless a case comes to the Court and the Court decides the nature of that function, in
that particular case, the administrative authorities are free to treat that function under whatever
head they prefer. So, if an administrative body does not wish to apply the principles of natural to
a particular function, then they may treat it as an executive function, rather than as a quasi-
judicial one. Now, unless the aggrieved party approaches the Court and the Court decides in the
favour of it being a quasi-judicial function, the administrative body might very easily treat it as
executive in nature.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3622103

In the case of King v. Electricity Commissioner1, Lord Atkin described a quasi judicial function
of an administrative body as the one where a body of persons has legal authority to determine to
determine certain questions that affect the rights of the subjects and the body has a duty to act
judiciously. The Supreme Court of India has also attempted to decide that when does an
authority have the duty to act judiciously through various cases by stating that it would depend
on the express provisions of the statute read with the nature of the rights affected, the manner of
disposal provided, the objective criteria to be adopted, the effect of the decision on the person
affected and other indicia afforded by the statute.2 Even in these guidelines, various terms are
ambiguous and subjective and allow for a wide pace of discretion. These guidelines do not give a
clear idea as to the requisite classification, which then can conveniently altered from case to
case, even in a biased manner.

In the case of A.K. Kraipak v. India3, the Supreme Court of India discussed this conundrum of
classification of administrative action in detail. In this case, the Supreme Court observed that it is
often difficult to demarcate administrative inquiries from quasi judicial inquiries. It was also
pointed out that the concept of judicial power has undergone a radical change and the functions
that were previously considered as administrative, are now being perceived as quasi-judicial.
This shows that even the Supreme Court accedes to the difficulty of classification, and even the
dynamic nature of distinction.

Such a distinction is necessary to decide the extent of the applicability of the principles of natural
justice. But, because of the above described issues, the distinction, and consequently, the
applicability of principles of natural justice are jeopardized.

APPLICATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE:

The principles of natural justice are not applied strictly to administrative actions. The extent of
the applicability of principles of natural justice depends largely on the type of function and the
type of power that is being wielded. The extent of applicability of natural justice is more in
quasi-judicial functions as compared to administrative functions. But, even in quasi-judicial
functions, these rules and principles are not applied strictly.

1
(1924) 1 KB 171.
2
Radhe Shyam v. Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1959 SC 107.
3
AIR 1970 SC 150.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3622103

In A.K. Kraipak v. India4, Hegde, J. observed that “If the purpose of the rules of natural justice is
to prevent miscarriage of justice, one fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable to
administrative inquiries.” In this case, the Supreme Court also stated that whenever any actions
of an administrative authority are likely to result in any disadvantage to a person, then that
authority is bound to act judiciously and follow the rules of natural justice. Though, it was also
held that which rule of natural justice would apply in a given case would depend largely on the
fact and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the inquiry is held and
the constitution of the body that is appointed for that purpose.

In the case of Lala Shri Bhagwan v. Ram Chand5, it was held that if it appeared that an authority
or a body had the power to determine questions affecting the rights of citizens, then the nature of
such a power itself imposed a duty on the authority to act in conformity to the principles of
natural justice.

So, it is apparent from the decisions of the Supreme Court that it has been inclined towards
broadening the reach and scope of the principles of natural justice by including not only quasi-
judicial, but also, administrative functions into its ambit. But at the same time, the rules have not
been mandated, that is to say, that the strict applicability of these principles have not been made
mandatory.

SPEED OR JUSTICE:

Administrative authorities are known for providing speedy justice. The reason behind not
applying the principles of natural justice to such administrative bodies is to ensure such speedy
disposal of cases. To be able to dispose the cases swiftly, the principles of natural justice are
dispensed with in administrative proceedings. So, here, the question that needs to be heard and
deliberated upon is whether speedy disposal is more important or providing justice is more
important.

Just for the sake of speedy disposal, many principles of natural justice, such as the rule against
bias, or the principle of audi alteram partem are dispensed with. When cases are disposed in

4
AIR 1970 SC 150.
5
AIR 1965 SC 1767.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3622103

such hasty manner, there are chances of justice not being served. Just disposing cases swiftly,
without serving true justice amounts to no justice.

It said that “not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done”6. When a judge who
has a probability of being biased sits on a bench and decides the case, then justice is not seem to
be served, even if it actually is served. Or, if a party is not given an opportunity to be heard, then
he feels wronged, and it seems to him as if his right was stripped away from him.

Thus, the priority of the administrative authority and the whole justice system needs to be
questioned as to whether it desires just speed or true justice.

DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY:

This doctrine is used in situations where the person who has exclusive or statutory authority to
decide is likely to be biased. Here the only two available options are either a biased judge or no
judge, then in such a case, according to this doctrine, a biased judge should be allowed to take
the decision. This is done to promote decision making process, and to ensure that the offender
has to face justice and is not allowed to go scot-free. Moreover, bias is only a presumption and it
is not necessary that the judge will actually be biased, even though there is a likelihood of bias.

So, by following this doctrine, one of the basic principles of natural justice is dispensed with. In
such a situation, it is possible that the judge is actually biased and will give a biased decision,
thus affecting the rights of the parties in an adverse manner. But even if the judge was not biased
and only appeared to be so, it sends out a wrong message. When biased judges are allowed to
take decisions, then the citizens fear all forms of authority and assume that they will have to
suffer the same biased attitude. For instance, following this doctrine of necessity, the disciplinary
proceedings in universities comprise of the faculty members of the university itself, where there
is a high probability of bias. Now, every student who faces such a committee feels that injustice
has been served to him by the biased judge.

So, the consideration must be regarding the message that the justice system seeks to send out to
the public.

6
R. v. Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy, (1924) 1 KB 256.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3622103

CONCEPT OF FAIRNESS:

The concept of fairness necessitates that even if principles of natural justice are not followed
strictly, still the proceedings should be fair and no prejudice must have been caused to the
parties. It postulates that the touchstone to determine whether the principles of natural justice
have been sufficiently applied or not, is to check whether the procedures were fair and that any
prejudice was not caused to the parties. If sufficient fairness was practiced then the strict
appliance of the principles of natural justice can be dispensed with according to this concept.

In the case of M/S Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar7, the importance of fairness was
discussed by the Supreme Court. In this case, it was said that fairness of procedure is an
important element for the elimination of arbitrariness, and it is also essential for good
administration.

In administrative functions, the rules of natural justice are not applicable in the strict sense and
the rules of procedure are also not followed strictly. It is essential, however, that the procedure is
fair and no prejudice is caused to the parties. Fairness in itself is ambiguous and subjective in
nature. So, this touchstone of justice is not clear in itself.

Also, in the case of S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan8, the Court held that non-observance of natural
justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of
natural justice is unnecessary. In this case, the importance of natural justice was appreciated. It
was held that non application of the principles of natural justice is in itself prejudice and unfair,
and hence the whole concept of the touchstone of fairness is futile in nature.

Thus, non application of the principles of natural justice in itself results in prejudice against the
parties, and hence it is a problem in itself.

7
1990 SCR (1) 290.
8
1981 AIR 136.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3622103

 CONCLUSION

When principles of natural justice are not applied, it leads to various misgivings, especially for
the subjects. Whole proceedings can be vitiated just because of non-observance of the principles
of natural justice, which displays the importance of applying the rules of natural justice to every
proceeding. The subjects of such a proceeding where the rules of natural justice are not applied
feel prejudiced, and expect unjust orders to be passed against them. This creates a sense of fear
and subjugation in the minds of the subjects, which could further lead to a perception of tyranny
of the authorities. This could lead to a bitter tussle between the authorities and the subjects.
Moreover, the principles of natural justice, being natural must be abided by and afforded to
every party in every type of proceeding. The strict and rigid rules or procedure and evidence and
other technicalities can be dispensed with, but the basic principles of natural justice must be
applied in all proceedings, whether judicial, quasi-judicial, or even administrative. Any biased
judge cannot give a just and fair decision as, being a human, he will be influenced by his bias,
even if he tries not to. Every party must be given a reasonable and just opportunity to be heard,
so that the concerned authority can give an informed order, and can justly decide on the merits of
the case. Lastly, any order of any authority must be backed by reasons, as any arbitrariness
cannot be condoned. Hence, for a fair and just system, the application of the principles of natural
justice is a must.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3622103