Dr.

Shakuntala Misra
National Rehabilitation
University, Lucknow Faculty of law

TITLE FOR PROJECT:

Principles of National Justice in the light of administrative law

For:
COURSE ON ‘Administrative process: Nature and Scope’

Submitted by

Anjali Yadav
ROLL NO. 204150006

LLM 3rd Semester

Academic Session: 2021-22

Under the Guidance of

Mrs. Vijeta Dua Tandon

Asst. Prof. In Faculty of Law

1
 Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University.

Title: “PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE: IN THE LIGHT OF ADMINISTRATIVE

LAW”
(An Analytical and comprehensive study of Principle of natural justice especially in the field of administrative law)

ABSTRACT

Concept and doctrine of Principles of Natural Justice and its appliance in Justice delivery system
is not new. It seems to be as old as the system of dispensation of justice itself. It has by now
assumed the importance of being, so to say, "an essential inbuilt component" of the mechanism,
through which decision making process passes, in the matters touching the rights and liberty of
the people. It is no doubt, a procedural requirement but it ensures a strong safeguard against any
Judicial or administrative; order or action, adversely affecting the substantive rights of the
individuals. 'Natural Justice' is an expression of English common law. In one of the English
decisions, Viscount Haldane observed, "...those whose duty it Is to decide must act judicially.
They must deal with the question referred to them without bias and they must give to each of the
parties the opportunity of adequately presenting the case made. The decision must come to the
spirit and with the sense of responsibility of a tribunal whose duty it is to meet out justice." 1
Aristotle, before the era of Christ, spoke of such principles calling it as universal law. Justinian
in the fifth and sixth Centuries A.D. called it "'jura naturalia" i.e Natural Law.

Firstly the paper will discuss about the origin and implementation of Natural justice in context of
administrative law. The study is analytical in nature and describes the gravity of Natural Justice
in the Indian judiciary and administrative law relating to the tribunals and other fast track
courts. .The role of Tribunals’ has a responsive role in implementing principles of natural justice.
Finally potential solutions and recommendation are suggested to even empower and promote the
principles of natural justice.

1 Local Government Board v. Abridge (1915) AC 120 (138) HL,

2
 “ It is beyond doubt that there certain canons of judicial conduct to which all tribunals
and persons that have to give judicial or quasi-judicial decisions ought to approve. The
principles on which they rely upon are, we think, implicit in the rule of law. Their observance
is commanded by our notional sense of justice”.

- The Committee on Minister’s Powers

INTRODUCTION

In the ancient days of laissez-fair practice, when industrial relations were ruled and administered
by the unprincipled and harsh weighted law of hire and fire, the administration was in supreme
command and at its best with the passage of time, notions of social justice established and the
expanding horizons of socio- economic justice demanded statutory protection to the workmen.
The freedom to hire men/women is rooted in the management philosophy and thinking and the
liberty is restrained to firing them arbitrarily or at its own will.

Now it is too late to stress absolute and unconditional freedom of an employer to impose any
condition which he adores on his employee. To get rid of an unproductive, unwanted and erring
employee shall have to initiate disciplinary act against him as per the provisions of Standing
Orders or Service Rules and by following principles of natural justice in holding the domestic
investigation for proving the alleged misconduct against him.

Handling of the disciplinary matters has become the most problematic task of the management
as well as for the defense. For the management, it is an tremendously volatile matter in industrial
relations and any pitfall on this score is bound to fill a cup of sorrows for the management. He
cannot axe an employee at his individual will. On the other hand for the defense representative, it
is not only matter of defending the wrong but his ability to lead the workmen is also at check.

Natural justice needs that administrators adhere to a reasonable decision-making procedure.

Although just procedures try to result in better decisions, the concern here is not whether the
decision itself is reasonable: it is the decision-making process that must be reasonable.

3
Sometimes statutes require administrators to make a decision that could be regarded as
prejudicial—for example, to require someone to pay an overpaid allowance. For legal purposes,
however, a just decision is one that is properly made, in accordance with the statute and the
necessities of natural justice.

There are two main rules of natural justice. The ‘hearing rule’ is that people who will be affected
by a projected decision must be given an opportunity to express their views to the judgment
maker. The ‘bias rule’ is that the judgment maker must be impartial and must have no personal
stake in the matter to be decided. This guide deals with deliberations that commonly rise when
the rules of natural justice are applied to administrative decision making.

ORIGIN OF THE CONCEPT

It is said that principles of natural justice is of very early origin and was known to Greek and
Romans. The Principles were acknowledged as early as in the days of Adam and of Kautilya’s
Arthashastra. According to the Bible, when Adam & Eve ate the fruit of knowledge, which was
forbidden by God, the latter did not pass sentence on Adam before he was called upon to defend
himself. Same thing was repeated in case of Eve.

Later on, the principle of natural justice was accepted by English Jurist to be so essential as to
over-ride all laws.

The principles of natural justice were related with a few ‘accepted rules’ which have been
fabricated up and prominent over a long period of time. The word ‘Natural Justice’ establishes
justice according to one’s own morality. It is derived from the Roman Concept ‘jus - naturale’
and ‘Lex naturale’ which intended principle of natural law, natural justice, eternal law, natural
equity or good conscience. Lord Evershed, Master of the Rolls in Vionet v Barrett remarked,
“Natural Justice is the natural sense of what is right and wrong.”2

2 1985, 55LLJ QB, 39, (Page 45)

4
In India the principle is prevalent from the early times. We find it Raised in Kautllya's
Arthashastra. In this context, In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election
Commissioner,3 may be usefully quoted:

“Indeed, natural justice is a pervasive facet of secular law where a spiritual touch enlivens
legislation, administration and adjudication, to make fairness a creed of life. It has many colours
and shades, many forms and shapes and, save where valid law excludes, it applies when people
are affected by acts of authority. It is the bone of healthy government, recognised from earliest
times and not a mystic testament of judge-made law. Indeed from the legendary days of Adam-
and of Kautllya's Arthashastra-the rule of law has had this stamp of natural justice, which makes
it social justice. We need not go into these deeps for the present except to indicate that the roots
of natural justice and its foliage are noble and not new-fangled. Today its application must be
sustained by current legislation, case law or other extant principle, not the hoary chords of legend
and history. Our jurisprudence has sanctioned its prevalence even like the Anglo-American
system."

Purpose of the principle

 To provide equal opportunity of being heard.

 Concept of Fairness

 To fulfil the gap and loopholes of the law.

 To protect the Fundamental Rights and basic features of the Constitution.

 No miscarriage of Justice.

The principles of natural justice should be free from bias and parties should be given fair
opportunity to be heard and all the reasons and decision taken by the court should be informed
by the court to the respective parties.

Supreme court said that arriving at a reasonable and justifiable judgement is the purpose of
judicial and administrative bodies. The main purpose of natural justice is to prevent the act of
miscarriage of justice.
3 AIR 1978 SC 851,( para 43 )

5
A committee i.e. “Ministers Power” gave 3 essentials procedure related to the principles of
natural justice.

1. No one should be a judge in his own matter.

2. No one can be condemned unheard.

3. The party is entitled to know each and every reason and the decision taken by the
authority.

RULES OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE

1. Nemo judex in causa sua - No one should be made a judge in his own cause or the rule
against bias. It is also called as the ‘doctrine of bias’ as the judge may have a prejudice in the
case. It has been pithily put by Sir Edward Coke, namely, Vacate, Interrogate and Judicate, i.e.,
call, question, and adjudicate. However, this concept has undergone lot of changes in recent
times, but fundamental still stands the same.

2. Audi alteram partem - Hear the other party or the rule of fair hearing or the rule that no one
should be condemned unheard. In other words, No person accused of any charge or likely to
suffer any civil consequences, must be adjudged unless and until he is aware of the proceedings
together with a notice thereon and an opportunity to present his case fully.

3. Reasoned Decisions: Speaking Orders It is an order speaking for itself and giving reasons.
Lord Denning says, the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.

1. NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA

The first principle is that ‘No man shall be a judge in his own cause’ 'i.e. to say, the deciding
authority must be impartial and without bias. It Implies that no man can act as a judge for a cause

6
in which be himself has some Interest, may be pecuniary or otherwise. Pecuniary interest affords
the strongest proof against impartiality. The emphasis is on the objectivity in dealing with and
deciding a matter. Justice Gajendragadkar, observed in a case reported

“it is obvious that pecuniary interest, howsoever small it may be, In a subject matter of
the proceedings, would wholly disqualify a member from acting as a judge".4

Lord Hardwick observed in one of the cases, “In a matter of so tender a nature, even the
appearance of evil is to be avoided."

Yet it has been laid down as principle of law that pecuniary interest would disqualify a Judge to
decide the matter even though it is not proved that the decision was in any way affected. This is
thus a matter of faith, which a common man must have, in the deciding authority.

RULE AGAINST BIAS (NEMO JUDEX CAUSA SUA)

Bias means an operative prejudice, whether conscious or unconscious in relation to a party or

issue. The rule against bias flows from following two principles: -

a) No one should be a judge in his own cause

b) Justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.

Thus a judge should not only be impartial but should be in a position to apply his mind
objectively to the dispute before him. The rule against bias thus has two main aspects: -

1. The administrator exercising adjudicatory powers must not have any personal or proprietary
interest in the outcome of the proceedings.

2. There must be real likelihood of bias. Real likelihood of bias is a subjective term, which
means either actual bias or a reasonable suspicion of bias. It is difficult to prove the state of mind
of a person. Therefore, what the courts see is whether there is reasonable ground for believing
that the deciding factor was likely to have been biased.

Types of Bias

4 ,M/s Builders Supply Corporation v. The Union of India and others, AIR 1965 SC 1061

7
  Personal Bias

 Pecuniary Bias

 Subject-matter bias

 Departmental bias

 Preconceived notion bias

A.K.Kraipak Vs. UOI 5

In this case, Naquishband, who was the acting Chief Conservator of Forests, was a member of
the Selection Board and was also a candidate for selection to All India cadre of the Forest
Service. Though he did not take part in the deliberations of the Board when his name was
considered and approved, the SC held that `there was a real likelihood of a bias for the mere
presence of the candidate on the Selection Board may adversely influence the judgement of
the other members'

SC also made the following observations: -

1. The dividing line between an administrative power and quasi-judicial power is quite thin and
is being gradually obliterated. Whether a power is Administrative or quasi-judicial, one has to
look into –

a) the nature of power conferred

b) the person on whom it is conferred

c) the framework of the law conferring that power

d) the manner in which that power is expected to be exercised.

2. The principles of natural justice also apply to administrative proceedings,

5 AIR 1970 SC 150) 

8
3. The concept of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and it entails –

(i) No one shall be a judge of his own cause.

(ii) No decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing.

(iii) The quasi-judicial enquiries should be held in good faith and not arbitrarily or unreasonably.

J.Mohopatra & Co. Vs, State of Orissa 6

SC quashed the decision of the Textbooks' selection committee because some of its members
were also the authors of the books, which were considered for selection. The Court concluded
that withdrawal of person at the time of consideration of his books is not sufficient as the
element of quid pro quo with other members cannot be eliminated.

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Haryana7

Issue

Whether the selection of candidate would vitiate for bias if close relative of a members of the
Public Service Commission is appearing for selection?

Held

The SC laid down the following propositions: -

1. Such member must withdraw altogether from the entire selection process otherwise all
selection would be vitiated on account of reasonable likelihood of bias affecting the process of
selection

2. This is not applicable in case of Constitutional Authority like PSC whether Central or
State. This is so because if a member was to withdraw altogether from the selection process, no
other person save a member can be substituted in his place and it may sometimes happen that no

6 1984 AIR 1572, 1985 SCR (1) 322

7 1987 AIR 454, 1985 SCR Supl. (1) 657

9
other member is available to take the place of such a member and the functioning of PSC may be
affected.

3. In such a case, it is desirable that the member must withdraw from participation in
interview of such a candidate and he should also not take part in the discussions.

2 . AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM ( Rule of fair hearing)

It is the basic concept of principle of natural justice. The expression audi alteram partem implies
that a person must be given opportunity to defend himself. This principle is sine qua non of
every civilized society.

This rule covers various stages through which administrative adjudication pasees starting from
notice to final determination. Right to fair hearing thus includes:-

1. Right to notice

2. Right to present case and evidence

3. Right to rebut adverse evidence

(i ) Right to cross examination

(ii) Right to legal representation

4. Disclosure of evidence to party

5. Report of enquiry to be shown to the other party

6. Reasoned decisions or speaking orders

POST DECISIONAL HEARING

10
Post decisional hearing means hearing after the decision is reached. The idea of post decisional
hearing has been developed by the SC in Maneka Gandhi Vs. UOI to maintain the balance
between administrative efficiency and fairness to the individual.

Mankea Gandhi Vs. UOI8

Facts

In this case the passport dated 01.06.1976 of the petitioner, a journalist, was impounded `in the
public interest' by an order dated 02.07.1977. The Govt. declined to furnish her the reasons for
its decision. She filed a petition before the SC under article 32 challenging the validity of the
impoundment order. She was also not given any pre-decisional notice and hearing.

Argument by the Govt.

The Govt. argued that the rule of audi alteram partem must be held to be excluded because
otherwise it would have frustrated the very purpose of impounding the passport.

Held

The SC held that though the impoundment of the passport was an administrative action yet the
rule of fair hearing is attracted by the necessary implication and it would not be fair to exclude
the application of this cardinal rule on the ground of administrative convenience. The court did
not outright quash the order and allowed the return of the passport because of the special socio-
political factors attending the case.

The technique of post decisional hearing was developed in order to balance these factors against
the requirements of law, justice and fairness. The court stressed that a fair opportunity of being
heard following immediately the order impounding the passport would satisfy the mandate of
natural justice.

8  1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

11
The same technique of validating void administrative decision by post decisional hearing was
adopted in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Vs. UOI 9. Under section 15 of IDRA, an undertaking can
be taken over after making an investigation into its affairs. But u/s 18- AA, a take over w/o an
investigation is permitted where `immediate' action is required. The court validated the order of
the govt. which had been passed in violation of the rule of audi alteram partem because the govt.
had agreed to give post-decisional hearing. The ratio of the majority decision was as follows: -

1. Pre-decisional hearing may be dispensed with in an emergent situation where immediate

action is required to prevent some imminent danger or injury or hazard to paramount public
interest.

2. Mere urgency is, however, no reason for exclusion of audi alteram partem rule. The decision
to exclude pre-decisional hearing would be justiciable.

3. Where pre-decisional hearing is dispensed with, there must be a provision for post-decisional
remedial hearing.

In K.I.Shephard Vs. UOI 10certain employees of the amalgamated banks were excluded from
employment. The Court allowing the writs held that post-decisional hearing in this case would
not do justice. The court pointed out that there is no justification to throw a person out of
employment and then give him an opportunity of representation when the requirement is that he
should be given an opportunity as a condition precedent to action.

In H.L.Trehan Vs. UOI11, a circular was issued by the Govt. on taking over the company
prejudicially altering the terms and conditions of its employees w/o affording an opportunity of
hearing to them. The SC observed that "In our opinion, the post decisional opportunity of hearing
does not subserve the rules of natural justice. The authority who embarks upon a post-decisional
hearing will normally proceed with a closed mind and there is hardly any chance of getting
proper consideration of the representation at such a post decisional hearing."

9 1981 AIR 818, 1981 SCR (2) 533

10 1988 AIR 686, 1988( 1 )SCR 188, 1987( 4 )SCC 431, 1987( 2 )SCALE599 , 1987( 3 )JT 600

11  1989 AIR 568, 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 925

12
Thus in every case where pre-decisional hearing is warranted, post-decisional hearing will not
validate the action except in very exceptional circumstances.

3. REASONED DECISION

Three Grounds on Which it Stands

(i) The party aggrieved has the opportunity to demonstrate before the appellate or revisional
court that the reasons which persuaded the authority to reject his case were erroneous;

(ii) The obligation to record reasons operates as a deterrent against possible arbitrary action by
the executive authority invested with judicial power; and

(iii) It gives satisfaction to the party against whom the order is made.

The power to refuse to disclose reasons in support of the order is of an exceptional nature and it
ought to be exercised fairly, sparingly and only when fully satisfied by the exigencies of
uncommon situations.

1. Siemens Engineering v Union of India 12

2. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India. 13

The principles of natural justice have for some time past, come into common use in our country.
But it is difficult to ascertain from the law reports or other source as to how these principles
came to be applied in the field of Industrial Law. There is no legal provision found anywhere
which prescribes them.

The Patna High Court in Raj Kishore Prasad Jaiswal v Subak Narain14, has aptly observed:

12 AIR 1976 SC 1785

13 AIR 1978 SC 597
14 AIR 1959 Pat 89

13
 “It is well-established rule of law that rule of natural justice is applied only where the law
itself is silent and is not inconsistent with what it provides, but where any provision as to
the rule of natural justice is expressly or by necessary implication negatived by law that
cannot be a ground for holding that the enactment giving that law is ultra vires or
unconstitutional”.

The Principles of natural justice are enforceable on all courts of law, general or special, all
tribunals statutory or otherwise, and all persons or bodies exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial
function by statute or by agreement between the parties. This applies equally to any domestic
enquiry.

In the Province of Bombay v Madhukar15, Vyas J concluded.

“It is clear that all that is meant by compliance with the rules of natural justice by a
domestic tribunal is that the tribunal must act honestly and in good faith, and must give
the delinquent a chance of explanation and defence. If its rules postulate an enquiry, the
delinquent must have a reasonable opportunity of being heard and of correcting and
contradicting relevant statement prejudicial to his view.”

Model Standing orders in its sub-clause (4) of clause 14 provides that no order or dismissal shall
be made unless the workman concerned is charge-sheeted and given adequate opportunity to
explain his alleged misconduct. Standing orders, applicable to an industrial establishment
generally prescribe a procedure for initiating disciplinary action against workmen. While taking
so, it is always necessary to follow a set of approved and well accepted procedures.

Sri S. Chakravarthi, in his book “Natural Justice”, has very aptly summarised the constituents of
the rules of natural justice. They are:

• Substantial requirement of justice shall not be violated.

15 AIR 1952 Bom. 37

14
• The tribunal must give both the parties an opportunity of being heard and stating their case and
view.

• Notice to be given to the parties about when the judge will proceed with the matter.

• The tribunal should act honestly and impartially.

• Must not be at the dictation of others to whom no authority has been given by law.

• There must not be malversation of any kind.

• A person cannot be a judge in his own cause.

• The least bias or prejudice on the part of the person deciding the cause will vitiate the order.

Exceptions To The Principles Of Natural Justice

Now it is well established preposition of Law that the Principles of Natural Justice supplements
the enacted statute with necessary implications, accordingly administrative authorities
performing public functions are generally required to adopt “fair procedure” and in relation to a
variety of different circumstances, we considered the content of the requirements of procedural
fairness. A person may also have legitimate expectation of fair hearing or procedural
fairness/treatment but as Natural Justice Principles is to be invoked in doing justice, where their
observance leads to injustice they may be disregarded. There are several well established
limitations on Principles of Natural Justice. Existence of certain circumstances deprives the
individual from availing the benefit of principles of natural justices, authors in this research work
undertakes to cover the circumstances in which judiciary admitted the exceptions to the
observance of Principles of Natural Justice.

Principles of Natural Justice are ultimately weighed in the balance of fairness and hence the
Courts have been circumspect in extending principles of natural justice to situations where it
would cause more injustice rather than justice so, where a right to be fairly heard has been
denied, it is more probably a case of bad decision than of true exception, then principles of
natural justice can be discarded. Application of the principles of natural justice can be excluded
either expressly or by necessary implication, subject to the provisions of Article 14 and 21 of the
constitution. However, along with constitutional limitations in India Common Law exception are
also preferred.

Common Law Exceptions to the Principles of Natural Justice:

15
The requirements of procedural fairness are on first appearance applicable to Judicial, Quasi-
Judicial and Administrative Proceedings, however, the decision maker may be exempt from all
or some of the procedural safeguards that would otherwise be required. Several factors may be
identified as capable of excluding the normal procedural fairness requirements in Common Law
Courts are:

(i) Exclusion in case of emergency,

(ii) Express statutory exclusion,
(iii) Where discloser would be prejudicial to public interests
(iv) Where prompt action is needed,
(v) Where it is impracticable to hold hearing or appeal,
(vi) Exclusion in case of purely administrative matters.
(vii) Where no right of person is infringed,
(viii) The procedural defect would have made no difference to the outcome.
(ix) Exclusion on the ground of ‘no fault’ decision maker. We shall examine them in turn.

Admiministrative law : statutary process and relation with Natural

justice
The requirements of natural justice come from general administrative law, not the particular
statute being administered. Many statutes do, however, spell out procedures that must be
followed when making decisions; for example, the statute might stipulate who is entitled to
notice, when notice should be given and in what form, what kind of hearing is to be given, and
how much time is allowed for a person to respond.
Natural justice imposes similar requirements, independently of the statute. If the statutory
procedures are equivalent or superior to what natural justice would require, compliance with the
statutory procedures will also satisfy the requirements of natural justice. On the other hand, if
the statutory procedures fall short of what natural justice would require, the question of whether
the statute establishes a complete procedural code arises.
A statute that deals exhaustively with decision-making procedures might be read as implicitly
excluding natural justice, but the law leans against that interpretation. If natural justice is not
excluded its requirements operate alongside the statutory procedures and supplement them. This
means it might not be sufficient to comply only with the statutory procedures if natural justice
requires more. For example, if the legislation allows a person to make a submission at a
particular time and further relevant material is later received that is adverse to the person who
made the submission, natural justice allows them to read and comment on the new material

16
before a decision is made. Natural justice requires this additional procedure, even if the statutory
procedures do not mention it.

CONCLUSION

The principles of natural justice could therefore, be summarized as follows:

1. That every person whose rights are affected must have a reasonable notice of the matter he has
to meet.

2. That he must have reasonable opportunity of being heard in his defence.

3. That the hearing must be by an impartial person, i.e. a person who is neither directly nor
indirectly a party to the case. One who has an interest in litigation is already biased against the
party concerned.

4. That the authority hearing the case must act in good faith and not arbitrarily but reasonably.

The principles of natural justice have been adopted and followed by the judiciary to protect
public rights against the arbitrary decision by the administrative authority. One can easily see
that the rule of natural justice include the concept of fairness: they stay alive and support to
safeguard the fair dealing.

So at all the stages of the procedure if any authority is given off the judicial function is not
purely accepted but the main motive of the principal is to prevent the miscarriage of justice. It is
supreme to note that any decision or order which violates the natural justice will be declared as

17
null and void in nature, hence one must carry in mind that the principles of natural justice are
essential for any administrative settlement to be held valid.

The principle of natural justice is not confined to restricted walls the applicability of the principle
but depends upon the characteristics of jurisdiction, grant to the administrative authority and
upon the nature of rights affected of the individual.

18