DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY

SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE

THE SCOPE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN THE CONTROL OF

ADMINSTRATIVE DISCRETION

SUBJECT

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

NAME OF THE FACULTY

Dr. Sudha, B.A., B.L., M.L., Ph.D

Assistant Professor

Name of the Candidate

K.Meghana

Roll No
2018LLB039

Semester
VIth

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

“I heartfully express my special thanks to my subject teacher Dr. Sudha for giving me the
opportunity to do the project on the topic ‘The Scope of the principles of Natural Justice in
the control of Administrative Discretion’. It helped me to know many things and gain
knowledge. I also thank her for guiding me throughout the project and responding for my doubts
regarding the project.”

“I would also like to thank my University ‘Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University’ for
providing me with all the required materials for the completion of my project and I also came to
know many new things.”

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. SYNOPSIS ……………………………………………………………………….……04

2. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………….…….05

3. ORIGIN OF NATURAL JUSTICE …………………………………………………....06

4. PURPOSE OF THE PRINCIPLE …………………………………………….….06

5. ADMINISTRATION DISCRETION ……………………………………………….......08

6. EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE AGAINST BIAS ……………………………......09

7. PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTION

OF INDIA …………….…10

8. FAILURE TO EXERCISE DISCRETION …………………………………….…..14

9. CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………….…..15

10. BIBLIOGRAPHY …………………………………………………………….……15

3
 SYNOPSIS

“Aim of the study

1. The aim of this project is to prove the given hypothesis.

2. To buy Way Pleading and principle of natural justice.
3. To study in detail and establish a substantial argument supported by law.
4. To prove the principle of natural justice.
5. To know about the consequences.”

Scope of the study

“The research is a doctrinal research. The researcher here would like to study though the judicial
viewpoints by its decision given in various cases.

The researcher has tried to analysis the topic by studying various authors, experts, cases of The Indian
Apex Court and High courts, articles, etc. The researcher has strictly followed the boundary and has
studied only with reference to Indian authors, experts, cases, etc.”

Research question
”How effectively is the principle of natural justice applied in Indian legal system?”

Hypothesis
”The hypothesis that seeks to prove is that the absence of pleading shall not destroy the principle of
natural justice. And the hypothesis also seeks to prove is that the absence of pleading shall destroy the
principle of natural justice.”

Research methodology
”This project is purely Doctrinal and based on primary and secondary sources such as websites, books,
articles, and internet sources. This research process deals with theoretical and analysing information that
is collected. The research is purely descriptive in its boundaries of the topic. Only secondary sources have
been referred for this study. Secondary sources include books related to Constitutional Law and research

4
Articles on the Principles of Natural Justice and its related cases. Ample websites, magazines and blogs
have also been referred for the study.”

INTRODUCTION

The “theory of natural justice is not dealt with in the Constitution of India. However, the words 'Justice
Social, Economic and Political,' freedom of expression, belief and worship are incorporated in the
Preamble to the Constitution. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the
law for all people of India, and Article 21 guarantees the right to life and freedom for all persons in India
to protect liberty and to ensure a dignified life, which is a fundamental provision. Article 22 shall
guarantee the right to natural justice and the prospect of a fair trial of the person arrested. In addition,
statutory remedies are promised in the cases referred to in Arts 32, 226 and 136.”

The foundation of the bias rule is the need to preserve public trust in the legal system. Bias can take the
form of actual bias, imputed bias or obvious bias. Real bias is very difficult to prove in practise, whilst the
imputed bias, once shown, can result in a judgement being void without the need for any inquiry into the
probability or assumption of bias. Cases from various jurisdictions are currently implementing two
criteria for obvious bias: the "reasonable suspicion of bias" test and the "real likelihood of bias" test. One
view that has been taken is that the variations between these two assessments are essentially semantic and
work in the same way.1

“The right to a fair hearing demands that people should not be penalised by decisions concerning their
rights or reasonable expectations unless they have been given advance notice of the case, a fair
opportunity to respond and an opportunity to make their own case. The simple fact that a decision affects
rights or interests is sufficient to make a decision subject to the processes prescribed by natural justice. In
Europe, the right to a fair hearing is guaranteed by Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human
Rights, which is said to supplement rather than substitute the common law. Regulation of administrative
discretion is a major problem in the implementation of the rule of law.”

According to Wade and Forsyth, the rule of law has four definitions, one of which is that "government
should be governed by recognised rules and principles which restrict discretion." Though judicial review
is vital to the discernment and compliance of the boundaries of discretion, its engagement with the
constitutional concept of the separation of powers invites careful examination of its basis. In reconciling
these two concepts, the British courts have established reasonableness as the primary ground for judicial

1
https://blog.ipleaders.in/natural-justice/

5
review, which was further influenced by continental proportionality since entering the EU. On the other
hand, China has introduced different standards for judicial revocation.

Origin of natural justice

The theory of natural justice is a very old idea that emerged at an early age. The Greek and Roman
citizens were also familiar with this term. In the days of Kautilya, the principle of natural justice was
remembered by arthashastra and Adam. According to the Bible, in the case of Eve and Adam, when they
ate the fruit of wisdom, God forbade them. Before issuing a verdict, Eve was given a reasonable chance to
defend himself, and the same process was followed in the case of Adam as well. Later, the English jurist
accepted the definition of natural justice. The w0rd natural justice is derived fr0m the R0man w0rd
‘jus-naturale’ and ‘lex-naturale’ which planned the principles 0f natural justice, natural law and
equity.

“Natural justice is a sense 0f what is wr0ng and what is right.”

Purpose of the principle

• T0 pr0vide equal 0pp0rtunity 0f being heard.

• C0ncept 0f Fairness.

• T0 fulfil the gaps and l00ph0les 0f the law.

• T0 pr0tect the Fundamental Rights.

• Basic features 0f the C0nstituti0n.

• N0 miscarriage 0f Justice.

“The ideals of natural justice should be free from prejudice and the parties should be given an equal
opportunity to be heard and all the reasons and judgments made by the court should be conveyed by the
court to the parties concerned. The Supreme Court has confirmed that the task of the judicial and
administrative bodies is to arrive at a fair and justifiable decision. The primary aim of natural justice is to
avoid a miscarriage of justice”.2

2
https://www.nacenkanpur.gov.in/download3.inc.php?rid=164

6
This theory of natural justice emerged in the case of Maclean vs. the Union of Workers and was
eventually stated as follows. "The term, of course, is used only in a common context and must not be
taken to mean that there is natural justice between men. There is no such thing as justice in the common
sense among the most savages. In ancient days, the wronged person executed his own punishment.
Among our own ancestors, until the thirteenth century, a manifest crime, such as that of a manslayer with
his sword, or a thief with stolen goods, could be punished by summary execution without any sort of trial.
Again, every student has learned of compurgation and ordeal.

In the case 0f A.K.Kraipak V. Union of India3 The facts sh0w that 0ne 0f the members 0f the
selecti0n b0ard app0inted f0r the selecti0n 0f the central cadre was als0 a candidate f0r the
interview. The name 0f the applicant appeared at the t0p 0f the list after the interview. This was
challenged as a vi0lati0n 0f the ideals 0f natural justice. It was held that, since the member was
0ne 0f the pers0ns t0 be c0nsidered f0r selecti0n, it was against all the can0ns 0f justice t0 make
him judge 0f his 0wn cause. While he did n0t participate in the debate 0f the c0mmittee when his
name was discussed, his participati 0n in the selecti0n b0ard must have had its 0wn effect 0n the
decisi0n 0f the b0ard. It was als0 rep0rted that it was in his interest t0 keep 0ut his c0mpetit0rs in
0rder t0 keep his place secure. It f0ll0ws that the Supreme C0urt has c0nfirmed that there is n0
need f0r any actual deliberati0n t0 render it invalid.

In the English decisi0n, Local Government Board v. Arlidge4 Visc0unt Haldane has n0ted that
th0se wh0se duty it is t0 decide must act judicially. They must deal with the issue referred t 0
them with0ut prejudice and must all 0w each 0f the parties the 0pp0rtunity t0 present the case
pr0perly. The decisi0n must be made in the spirit and with the sense 0f 0bligati0n 0f a c0urt
wh0se j0b it is t0 d0 justice." Rules n0t usually emb0died and n0t laid d0wn in any c0de,
Established t0 ensure justice and t0 av0id miscarriage 0f justice, Based 0n the maxim-Justice
sh0uld n0t 0nly be d0ne but sh0uld be clearly seen t0 be d0ne. The third principle-which has
been established 0ver time-is that the 0rder passed which affects the rights 0f a pers0n must be a
speaking 0rder. Applicable t0 administrative and quasi-judicial pr0ceedings 'Natural law d0es
n0t mean the law 0f nature 0r the jungle in which the li 0n eats the lamb and the tiger eats the

3
SC April, 1969
4
1915 AC 120

7
antel0pe, but the law in which the li 0n and the lamb lay d0wn t0gether and the tiger freezes the
antel0pe.

In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner5 The SC 0bserved-"In truth, natural
justice is a prevalent feature 0f secular law, where a divine t0uch enlivens p0licy, administrati0n
and adjudicati0n, t0 make fairness a creed 0f existence. It has many c0l0urs and shades, many
f0rms and shapes and, except where the law pr 0hibits it, it applies when pe0ple are harmed by
acti0ns 0f auth0rity. It is the b0ne 0f a stable g0vernment, kn0wn fr0m the earliest ages, and n0t
a magical testament t0 the rule 0f the judge. Indeed, since the legendary days 0f Adam and
Kautlly's Arthashastra, the rule 0f law has had the stamp 0f natural justice that makes it s0cial
justice. We d0 n0t need t0 g0 int0 these depths f0r the present except t0 sh0w that the r00ts 0f
natural justice and its f0liage are n0ble and n0t new-gr0wn. T0day, its implementati0n must be
based 0n current laws, case law 0r s0me 0ther established c0ncept, n0t the h0ary ch0rds 0f
legend and traditi0n. 0ur jurisprudence has sancti0ned its prevalence in the same way as the
Angl0-American system."

Definition of administration discretion

“The concept of administrative discretion is provided by many, but there are only a few that are worth
noting. Prof. Freund said: "When we talk about administrative discretion, we say that a decision must be
made, at least in part, on the basis of a consideration that is not entirely vulnerable to proof or disproof. It
may be logically easy to say that discretion requires a situation in which a finding of fact is legitimately
left to administrative determination." In black law, the dictionary of administrative discretion may be the
authority of a public official or organisation to exercise judgement in the performance of its duties.
According to another thinker, Coke, discretion will be a science or understanding to distinguish between
falsehood and fact, between right and wrong, between shadow and substance, between equity and
colourful glosses and pretensions, and not to behave according to their will and private affection. In the
Oxford Dictionary of Law, administrative powers have been described as "executive discretionary powers
imposed on the government, ministers, public and local authorities and other bodies and persons by the
legislature for the purpose of giving a detailed effect to the policy intended by the legislature itself.”

There is a broad variety of discretionary powers conferred on the administrative authorities. Their powers
serve the function of basic ministerial tasks such as the preservation of the birth and death register, as well
as those that seriously affect the rights of the individual, e.g. acquisition of land, regulation of trade,
5
1978 AIR 851

8
industry or corporation, prosecution, seizer, confiscation and destruction of property, detention of a
person subjectively satisfied by the executive authority and many others. 6

Exceptions to the rule against bias

Necessity

There are situations in which a disqualified adjudicator cannot be substituted, since no one else is allowed
to rule. It has been noted that "disqualification of an adjudicator will not be permitted to destroy the only
tribunal with power to act" In such cases, natural justice must give way to the imperative of protecting the
legitimacy of the judicial and administrative processes. This question of need has been raised in Dimes. In
order to allow the appeal to proceed from the Vice-Chancellor to the House of Lords, the Lord Chancellor
had to sign an order for registration. It was held that his membership in the channel corporation, which
barred him from sitting in the appeal, did not impair his power of enrolment, as no one but he had the
authority to do so. It was said that this was permitted "for this was a case of necessity, and where that
occurs the objection of interest cannot prevail". 7

Waiver

The court usually demands that an objection be presented as soon as the party concerned has knowledge
of the prejudice. If an appeal is not presented and the hearings are permitted to begin without disapproval,
it shall be held that the party has waived its right to do so.

Right to a fair hearing

“In general, it has been argued that the law requiring a fair hearing is sufficiently broad to include a rule
against prejudice, as a fair hearing must be an impartial hearing. However, the rules are also dealt with
separately. It is key to a fair practise for both sides to be heard. The right to a fair hearing demands that
people are not penalised by decisions concerning their rights or reasonable expectations unless they have
been given advance notice of the cases against them, a fair opportunity to respond to them and an
opportunity to present their own cases”.8

6
www.lawjournal.com
7
https://www.academia.edu/23092337/Title_PRINCIPLES_OF_NATURAL_JUSTICE_
8
Ridge v Baldwin [1963]

9
A Prior notice of hearing

 Aspects 0f a fair hearing

 0pp0rtunity t0 be heard
 C0nduct 0f the hearing
 Right t0 legal representati0n
 The decisi0n and reas0ns f0r it

Basic pillars of principles of natural justice in India

Natural justice f0cuses primarily 0n the f0ll0wing:

1. Nem0 judex in causa sua – 0ne cann0t be a judge f0r his 0wn cause, als0 kn0wn as the law
against bias.

2. Audi alteram partem – Hear the 0ther party 0r an 0pp0rtunity f0r a reas0nable hearing must be
given bef0re any 0rder has been released. • The s0cial and ec0n0mic justice set 0ut in the
Preamble t0 the C0nstituti0n is based 0n the ideals 0f natural justice.

Article 311 has many features 0f natural justice with0ut specific reference t0 it • Article 14
pr0vides that any vi0lati0n 0f natural justice is equivalent t0 a vi0lati0n 0f equality. The the0ry is
that a judge is excluded fr0m deciding any case in which he 0r she can 0r may be reas0nably
accused 0f having an interest in the matter. The fundamental principle is that 'justice sh 0uld n0t
0nly be d0ne, but sh0uld manifestly and unquesti0nably be seen t0 be d0ne, i.e. administrative
c0urts must deal with the questi0ns addressed t0 it with0ut prejudice.9

PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

The ideals 0f natural justice are 0f c0nsiderable imp0rtance in the study 0f administrative law. It
is als0 rec0gnised that there is substantial justice 0r fundamental justice 0r universal justice 0r
fair play in m0ti0n. The ideals 0f natural justice are n0t and are n0t c0dified. They are laws
defined by the judge and are c0nsidered t0 be the equivalent t0 the American due pr0cess.

9
Lord Haldane in Local Government V. Arlidge& (1915) A.C.120, 132

10
ARTICLE 14 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Article 14 guarantees equality bef0re the law and equal treatment 0f all pe0ple. It hinders any
f0rm 0f discriminati0n and pr0hibits b0th discriminat0ry laws and administrative acti0ns. Article
14 0f the C0nstituti0n 0f India pr0vides f0r pr0tecti0n against any arbitrary 0r discriminat0ry
acti0n by the State. As a c0nsequence 0f judicial rulings, the sphere 0f equality as emb0died in
Article 14 has been expanded. The general principle 0f this Article is that, in similar situati 0ns,
all individuals shall be handled in a similar manner b 0th in terms 0f rights and liabilities
imp0sed.

Article 14 manifests itself in the form of the following proposals:

(i) The legislati0n granting unfettered and unfettered p0wer t0 an auth0rity is appalling f0r being
arbitrary and discriminat0ry. (ii) Article 14 unlawfulizes discriminati 0n in the final exercise 0f
any discreti0nary auth0rity. (iii) Article 14 gives rise t0 arbitrariness in administrative
pr0ceedings and ensures justice and equitable treatment.

In Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Union10 The Apex C0urt held that "In
essence, the audi alteram partterm rule applying the equality clause in Article 14 0f the
C0nstituti0n applies n0t 0nly t0 quasi-judicial b0dies, but als0 t0 an administrative 0rder
adversely affecting the party, unless that rule has been excluded by the Act in questi0n."

Similarly, in “Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 11, the Supreme C0urt held that Article 14 was
an auth0rity t0 rec0mmend that the c0ncepts 0f natural justice f0rm an integral part 0f the
guarantee 0f equality pr0vided by Article 14, and that an 0rder depriving a pers0n 0f his civil
right passed with0ut giving him an 0pp0rtunity t0 be heard suffers fr0m a breach 0f natural
justice. Article 21 and Article 39-A. Maneka Gandhi's case has pr 0ven that pers0nal liberty
cann0t be cut 0ff 0r cut 0ff with0ut a fair legal pr0cess. En0ugh has been set 0ut t0 pr0vide that a
pris0ner, deprived 0f his liberty by a c0urt sentence but entitled t0 appeal against such a verdict,
may claim, as part 0f his defence under Article 21 and as implied in his statut 0ry right t0 appeal,
the requisite c0nc0mitant right t0 c0unsel t0 prepare and plead his appeal. There are many cases
in which Article 14 0f the C0nstituti0n 0f India applies.”

10
1991 SCC Supl.
11
AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

11
ARTICLE 21 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA:
The m0st significant expressi0n 0f this Article is the "pr0cedure established by law" which raises
the questi0n 0f whether the ab0ve-menti0ned expressi0n can be interpreted as principles 0f
natural justice. F0r which the maj0rity 0f the Supreme C0urt 0f India held that the term 'law'
under Art. 21 c0uld n0t be interpreted as a rule 0f natural justice.

Late Mr. J. Bhagawati. 'The c0ncept 0f reas0nableness, which is legally as well as

phil0s0phically an integral aspect 0f equality 0r n0n-arbitraryness, pervades art 14 as an
embr0idering 0mnipresence.' Theref0re, the pr0cedure laid d0wn in Article 21 "must be fair, just
and fair" and shall n0t be arbitrary, c0ercive, 0therwise there w0uld be n0 pr0cedure at all and
the c0nditi0ns 0f Article 21 w0uld n0t have been met.

“In Joginder Kumar V. State of U.P12 The Supreme C0urt held that, 0n request, the right 0f the
arrested pers0n t0 be inf0rmed 0f his arrest and the right t0 c0mmunicate privately with lawyers
is inherent in Articles 21 and 22 0f the C0nstituti0n. The Supreme C0urt ackn0wledged that n0
arrest can be made unless it is legal f0r a p0lice 0fficer t0 d0 s0. 0ne thing is the nature 0f the
p0wer t0 detain. The reas0n f0r the exercise 0f this is very different. The p0lice 0fficer must be
in a p0siti0n t0 justify the detenti0n, aside fr0m his p0wer t0 d0 s0.”

ARTICLE 22 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA:

This Article pr0vides f0r the pr0tecti0n 0f the detainee fr0m arrest and detenti0n in s0me cases
which, within his sphere 0f 0perati0n, c0ntain a fundamental element 0f natural justice, and
Article 22(1) and (2) grants the f0ll0wing fundamental rights t0 the detainee:

(i) the right t0 be n0tified, the right t0 be immediately inf0rmed 0f the gr0unds f0r arrest.

(ii) the right t0 c0nsult and t0 be defended by the legal practiti0ner 0f his ch00sing.

(iii) Right t0 be br0ught bef0re the nearest judge within twenty-f0ur h0urs 0f detenti0n, except
travel fr0m the place 0f arrest t0 the C0urt 0f Justice.

(iv) Right n0t t0 be kept in detenti0n with0ut the auth0rity 0f the Magistrate after a maximum 0f
twenty-f0ur h0urs fr0m his arrest.

12
1994 SCC (4) 260

12
RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE GROUNDS OF ARREST:
The”primary purp0se 0f this pr0visi0n is t0 inf0rm the arrested pers0n 0f the gr0und f0r arrest.
Since, 0n the basis 0f kn0wledge 0f the gr0unds 0f arrest, the arrested pers0n shall make
arrangements f0r the necessary legal remedies and shall als 0 make an applicati0n t0 the
appr0priate c0urt with a request f0r bail 0r shall als0 make use 0f the rec0urse t0 the High C0urt
with a letter fr0m Habeas C0rpus. The Apex C0urt n0ted that Article 22(1) 0f the C0nstituti0n 0f
India is a rule which has always been regarded as vital and fundamental t 0 the pr0tecti0n 0f
pers0nal liberty in all legal systems where the rule 0f law prevails. Any such statement 0f
gr0unds made t0 the arrested pers0n shall be accurate, defined, clear and unmistakable, in any
case where the gr0unds are n0t fully discl0sed t0 the accused, which shall c0nstitute a refusal 0f
fair hearing and shall ultimately result in a vi0lati0n 0f Natural Justice.”

ART. 311 AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE:

Article 311 deals with the rem0val, disqualificati0n 0r reducti0n 0f the rank 0f pers0ns empl0yed
in civil service within the Uni0n 0r the State, alth0ugh Article 310 0f the C0nstituti0n adapts the
Pleasure D0ctrine. Expressing a fair 0pp0rtunity t0 be heard requires all facets 0f the standards
0f natural justice and thus n0 dismissal, expulsi0n 0r reducti0n 0f the rank 0f civil servant can be
0rdered with0ut giving a reas0nable 0pp0rtunity t0 be heard.

In Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Behari Misra 13 The f0ll0wing questi0n has been raised: if
the investigating 0fficer c0mes t0 the c0nclusi0n, in the c0urse 0f the disciplinary pr0ceedings,
that the charges 0f misc0nduct against an 0fficial are n0t pr0ved, then the disciplinary auth0rity
c0uld depart fr0m that view and give the 0ffending 0fficer an 0pp0rtunity t0 make the c0ntrary
finding. If the investigat0r 0ld the charges t0 be f0rmed, the rep0rt must be given t0 the accused
wh0 may make representati0ns bef0re the disciplinary auth0rity takes any prejudicici acti0n.

Failure to Exercise Discretion

The main 0bject 0f c0nferring discreti0nary p0wer 0n an administrative auth0rity is that the
auth0rity itself must exercise the said p0wer. If there is failure t0 exercise discreti0n 0n the part
0f that auth0rity, the acti0n will be bad. Such type 0f flaw may arise in inter alia the

F0ll0wing circumstances;
13
1998 INSC 0624

13
1.”Sub-delgation :- The very 0bject 0f c0nferring a p0wer 0n a particular administrative
auth0rity is that the p0wer must be exercised by that auth0rity and cann0t be sub-delegated t0
any 0ther auth0rity 0r 0fficial.”

2.”Imposing fetters on discretions :- The fundamental 0bject 0f the d0ctrine is that the
auth0rity must c0nsider the facts 0f each case and make the same judgments. If there is a general
rule that applies t0 all cases, there is n0 questi0n 0f c0nsidering the facts 0f a particular case at
all and 0f exercising discreti0n 0n the part 0f the auth0rity.”

3.”Acting under dictation :- 0ften the auth0rity entrusted with the p0wer d0es n0t exercise the
p0wer, but acts in c0mpliance with the dictates 0f the higher auth0rity. Here, the auth0rity has
invested the right t0 act 0n its 0wn judgement, even th0ugh it was n0t intended t0 d0 s0 by the
law. In rule, this is a n0n-exercise 0f p0wer by the auth0rity and the c0nduct is evil.”

4.”Non-Application of mind :- Where a discreti0nary p0wer is best0wed 0n an auth0rity, the

auth0rity shall exercise that p0wer after turning its mind t0 the facts and circumstances 0f the
case in hand. If this c0nditi0n is n0t satisfied, there is a clear lack 0f applicati0n 0f mind 0n the
part 0f the auth0rity c0ncerned.”

5.”Power coupled with duty :- A number 0f statutes c0nfer p0wers 0n administrative

auth0rities and 0fficers t0 exercise their discreti0n. P0wer is in permissive language, such as "it
may be lawful," ", it may be permissible" etc. The questi 0n is whether 0r n0t it is 0pen t0 the
auth0rities t0 exercise p0wer in their sweet will. De Smith says, "Discreti 0nary p0wers are
frequently c0upled with duties." In the w0rds 0f L0rd Blackburn, "enabling w0rds were always
c0mpuls0ry where the w0rds were t0 effectuate a legal right". “

CONCLUSION
In a welfare state like India, the resp0nsibility 0f administrative agencies is escalating at a rapid

14
pace and there is a rapid increase in public resp 0nsibility and the civic needs 0f the pe0ple.
Pursuant t0 Article 14 and Article 21 0f the C0nstituti0n 0f India, the articles are strictly
c0ncerned with the principles 0f natural justice. Infringement 0f the principles 0f natural justice
results in arbitrary acti0n; theref0re, infringement 0f natural justice is als0 a vi0lati0n 0f the right
t0 equality referred t0 in Article 14. Natural justice is based 0n g00d c0nscience and human
values that f0ll0w a fair pr0cedure. If the State fails t0 fulfil its functi0n in a fair and just manner,
the rule 0f law w0uld l0se its validity.' The rules 0f natural justice may apply 0nly in areas n0t
c0vered by any law that is valid. If a statut 0ry pr0visi0n excludes the applicati0n 0f the rules 0f
natural justice either specifically 0r inevitably, the C0urt cann0t ign0re the mandate 0f the
Legislature. Whether 0r n0t the applicati0n 0f the principles 0f natural justice in a given case has
been excluded fr0m the exercise 0f statut0ry p0wers depends 0n the language and basic scheme
0f the pr0visi0n c0nferring p0wer, the nature 0f the p0wer f0r the purp0se f0r which it is
c0nferred, and the effect 0f that p0wer.

BIBLIOGRAPHY :-

1. Prof. M.P.Jain, “Indian Constitutional Law”, 6th Ed, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur,
2010.
2. Durga Das Basu, “Case Book on Indain Constitutional Law”, 2nd Ed, Kamal Law House, Kolkata,
2007.
3. Dr.J.N.Pandey, “The Constitutional Law of India”, 49th Ed, Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 2012.
4. WWW.LAWJOURNAL.COM

5. WWW. LATEST NEWS.COM

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

15
16