NATURAL JUSTICE

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

- The Committee on Minister’s Powers

INTRODUCTION

In the olden days of laissez-fair practice, when industrial relations were

governed and administered by the unscrupulous and harsh weighted law of
hire and fire, the management was in supreme command and at its best
with the passage of time, notions of social justice developed and the
expanding horizons of socio- economic justice necessitated statutory
protection to the workmen. The freedom to hire men/women is embedded
in the management philosophy and thinking and the liberty is restrained to
firing them arbitrarily or at its own will.1
It is too late in the day now to stress absolute and unconditional freedom
of an employer to impose any condition which he likes on his employee.
For the management, to get rid of an unproductive, undesirable and erring
employee, shall have to initiate disciplinary action against him as per the
provisions of Standing Orders or Service Rules and by following principles

1
http://aipnbsf.org/files/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Natural%20Justice, last visit at 8pm, 15.4.2015
of natural justice in holding the domestic enquiry for proving the alleged
misconduct against him.

The handling of the disciplinary matters has become the most difficult task
of the management as well as for the defense. For the management, it is an
extremely volatile matter in industrial relations and any pitfall on this score
is bound to fill a cup of miseries for the management. He cannot axe an
employee at his own will.

Natural justice is an important concept in administrative law. The

underlying objective of rules of natural justice is to ensure the fundamental
rights and liberties of the subject.
The Scholars today are not very precise in describing the concept of natural
justice as it is an eager involving concept but there is one thing on which
they have a general consensus that it is not a judge-made law but has
always existed as the part of natural law.

In Abbott v. Sullivan,2 English Court observed that these principles are

better known than described and easier proclaimed than defined.
In John v. Rees,3 Megarry,J. opined that when justice is not complex,
sophasticated and technical but simple and elementary, it is natural justice.

2
(1952) 1 KB 189 (195).
3
(1969) 2 ALL ER 274.
ORIGIN OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

It is said that principles of natural justice is of very ancient origin and was
known to Greek and Romans. The Principles were accepted 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.
Something was repeated in case of Eve.
Later on, the principle of natural justice was adopted by English Jurist to be
so fundamental as to over-ride all laws.

The principles of natural justice were associated with a few ‘accepted

rules’ which have been built up and pronounced over a long period of time.
The word ‘Natural Justice’ manifests justice according to one’s own conscience.
It is derived from the Roman Concept‘jus - naturale’ and ‘Lexnaturale’ which
meant principle of natural law, natural justice, eternal law, natural equity or
good conscience. Lord. Evershed, Master of the Rolls in Vionet v Barrett4
remarked, “Natural Justice is the natural sense of what is right and wrong.”

Krishna Iyer, J. was of the view that 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 newfangled. Today its application must be sustained by current
legislation, case-law of other extant principle, not the hoary chords of legend
and history.

4
(1985), 55 LLJ QB, 39, 45.
Also, according to Fortescue, J. the first hearing in human history was given in
the Garden of Eden. His Lordship observed in king v. Chancellor, University of
Cambridge.5
“Ven God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam, before he was called
upon to make his defence, “Adam” says God “where art thou? Hast thou not
eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou should not eat?”
The rules of natural justice were placed so high that it was declared
that ‘no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this’, and that a Court of
law could disregard an Act of Parliament if it is contrary to natural law. The
origin and development of equity in England owed much to natural law.
The concept of natural law and natural rights influenced the drafting of the
Constitution of the USA. It also provided a basis for International Law and
International conventions, covenants and declarations.
Thus, the rules requiring impartial adjudicators and fair hearings can
be traced back to medieval precedents, and, indeed, they were not unknown
in the ancient world. In their medieval guise they were regarded as part of the
immutable order of things, so that in theory even the power of the legislature
could not alter them. This theory lingered into the 17th and faintly even into
the 18th century.
It reached its high-water mark in Dr Bonham’s case,6 where Chief Justice Coke
went so far as to say that the Court could declare an Act of Parliament void if it
made a man judge in his own cause, or was otherwise ‘against common right
and reason’. This was one of his grounds for disallowing the claim of the
College of Physicians to fine and imprison Dr Bonham, a doctor of Physics of
Cambridge University, for practising in the City of London without the license
of the College of Physicians. The Statute under which the College acted
5
(1723) 1 Stra, 557,567.
6
Dr. Bonham, Re, (1610) 8 Co Rep 114.
provided that fines should go half to the King and half to the College, so that
the College had a financial interest in its own judgment and was judge in its
own cause.7
Recently, in ManoharManikraoAnchal v. State of Maharashtra and
others,8 the Supreme Court observed that principle of natural justice has to
also apply in the administrative matters. The Court further observed: the
adjudicatory process essentially has to be in consonance with the principle of
natural justice, including the doctrine of audialterampartem, and hearing of
the parties, and recording of reasoned decision are the basic elements of
natural justice.
It is evident from the 19th century cases on the right to a hearing that the
principle was invoked in a number of areas which could properly be called
administrative. However after the second world war, natural justice suffered a
setback and the whole subject threatened to become unsettled in a manner
which is all too characteristic of case-law. This was closely connected with a
parallel confusion over the remedy of certiorari.
A turning-point came in 1963 with the decision of the House of Lords in
Ridge v. Baldwin.9 This marked an important change of judicial policy,
indicating that natural justice was restored to favour and would be applied on
a wide basis.
In Indian administrative law, the rules of natural justice are regarded as
foundational and fundamental concept and the law is now well settled that the
principles of natural justice are part of legal and judicial procedures and also
applicable to the administrative bodies in its decision-making process having
civil consequences.

7
Wade & Forsyth, Administrative Law 439.
8
AIR 2013 SC 681.
9
(1964) AC 40.
The principles of natural justice have now come to be recognised as being a
part of the constitutional guarantee contained in Article 14 of the Constitution
of India.10
Hence, the principles of natural justice were associated with a few ‘accepted
rules’ which have been built up and pronounced over a long period of time.
The word ‘Natural Justice’ manifests justice according to one’s own conscience.
It is derived from the Roman Concept ‘Jus Naturale’ and ‘LexNaturalis’ which
meant principle of natural law, natural justice, eternal law, natural equity or
good conscience.

Meaning of Natural Justice:

Natural justice is one of the most active departments of administrative law. It
constitutes a kind of code of fair administrative procedure. Natural justice in
administrative law for ensuring fair exercise of power by administrative
agencies. Fair exercise of power of administration is possible when the poweris
used according to fair procedure. It contains doctrines which are an essential
part of any system of administrative justice. It may mean simply “the natural
sense of what is right and wrong”. 11

Natural justice is a concept of Common Law. It is said to have played the

same part in British Law as does” due process of law ” in the constitution of
the United states. It has a very wide application in the area of discretionary
administration power. Since, the exercise of public power by administrative,
quasi- administrative or quasi- judicial bodies, may result in arbitrariness, the
constant endeavour of mankind has to find out a device by which arbitrariness
is curbed and the administrative action be just , fair and reasonable. This was
the device of “natural law” which has been used by the mankind from a fairly
10
Dr. U.P.D Kesari, Administrative Law, 170.
11
Upadhya, JJR, Administrative Law
early period. As there are large of administrative authorities, it is not possible
by law to determine the fair procedure to be followed by each authority at
work. Thus Courts have evolved the principles of natural justice as potent
safeguard against the abuse of administrative powers. Administrative Law is
concerned more with “How the work is done “with “what work is done”.

The purposes of natural justice are to prevent miscarriage of justice and the
aim of enquires both administrative and judicial is to arrive at a just decision.

In Wiseman v. Borneman,12 the most acceptable legal philosophy requires

that those discharging judicial functions should at all stages be guided by
principles of Natural justice.

It is not necessary that there must be express provisions under the statute and
rules framed thereunder providing for right to hearing. It is an implied principle
of the rule of law that before deciding against the ‘rights ‘ or ‘interests’ of
person, he may be given opportunity to present his case and oppose the
decision. If this is not done, natural justice is disregarded.

Natural justice has many colours and shades, many forms and shapes and
saves where valid law excludes it, applies when people are affected by acts of
authority. It is held to be the home of healthy government, recognised from
the earliest times and not a mystic treatment of judge made law. It is thus not
a bull in a china shop or a bee in one’s bonnet. The core of natural justice is
fairness on the part of decision making authority. It is only by procedural
fairness that the governmental powers are rendered tolerable or they would
grow more drastic.

12
1971 AC 381
Justice Jackson in Shanghnessey v. United States13said:

Procedural fairness and regularity are of the indispensable essence of liberty.

Severe substantive laws can be endured if they are fairly and impartially
applied.

Rules of natural justice restrict the freedom of administrative action and that
their observance counts a certain amount of time and money. It should be
regarded as a protection not only to citizens but also to officials.

A decision which is made without bias, and with proper consideration of the
views of those affected by it, they say, “will not only be more acceptable, it will
also be of better quality. “

Thus natural justice is best instrument to promote the interest of individual; it

ensures participation of the common man in administrative process, it also
seeks to further legitimate state purposes by ensuring the government against
committing elementary blunders in administration due to ignorance which may
mar its good image as a just government.

Definition:
(a) Conceptual Dimensions
Natural justice is an ethic – legal concept which is based on natural feeling of
Human Being. Natural justice has meant many things to many writers, lawyers
and systerns of law including an approximate synonym for divine law, and also
a form of jus gentium or the common law of nations. It is an ideal element in
administrative law. It is also known as “natural law” ”universal law”, “divine
justice”, “universal justice” or “fair play in action”.

13
Natural justice is a concept of varying content. However this does not lead to
the conclusion that at given time no fixed principles of natural justice can be
identified. Through various decisions of courts, principles of natural justice can
be ascertained. For Fairness itself, is a flexible, pragmatic and relative concept.
The truth is that the principles of natural justice are neither cast in rigid nor
they can be put in legal strait-jacket.

Though highly attractive and potential, natural justice is a vague and

ambiguous concept and therefore, it is not possible to define it. In reply to this
view,

Lord Reid in the historic decision of Ridge v. Baldwin 14 observed:

“In modern times opinions have sometimes been expressed to the effect that
natural justice is as vague as to be practically meaningless. But I would regard
these are fainted by the perennial fallacy that because something cannot be
cut and dried or nicely weighed or measured therefore it does not exist”.

(b) Functional Dimensions:

It is settled law and there is no dispute that the principles of
natural justice are applicable to judicial and quasi-judicial functions.

In Franklin v. Minister of Town and Country Planning, Lord Tankerton15

observed, that as the duty imposed on the minister was merely administrative
and not judicial or quasi-judicial, the only question was whether the Minister
has complied with the direction or not. Similarly In Kishan Chand v.
Commissioner of Police16 speaking for the Supreme Court, Wanchoo , J.

14
Supra note9
15

16
observed: “ The compulsion of hearing before passing the order implied in
maxim audi alterm partem applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial
proceedings.”

But as observed by Lord Denning at one time it was said that that the
principles of natural justice applied only to judicial proceedings, but” that
hereby was Scotched” in Ridge V. Baldwin, Wade stated that the principles of
natural justice are applicable to “almost the whole range of administrative
powers”.

Similarly in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,17 Kailasam J. observed,

“The Frontier between judicial or quasi-judicial determination on the one hand

and an executive on the other has blurred. The rigid view that principles of
natural justice applied only to judicial or quasi-judicial acts and not to
administrative acts no longer hold the field.

(c) Right to hearing

Natural justice is conterminous with right to hearing. The reason for this
is that right to hearing is a Code of Procedure, and hence covers every stage
through which an administrative adjudication passes. Right to hearing is an
important safeguard against abuse of administrative power. Natural justice is a
counter part of American “due process”.

In India also, importance is given to the principles of natural justice under the
constitution. Article 311 embodies ‘right to hearing’ a basic principle of natural
justice. Under Article 19(2) to (6) reasonable restrictions can be imposed on
right to carry on trade and business which include procedural restrictions also.

17
AIR 1978 SC 597
In determining the validity of reasonable restrictions, Courts have referred to
the principles of natural justice. Procedural reasonable restriction is held to be
almost similar to the American due process of law.

Principles of natural justice are embodied under Article 14

and 21 of the constitution. With the introduction of ‘due process’ in Article 21
of the Constitution all that “fairness” which is enriched in the principles of
natural justice can be seen into Article 21 when a person is deprived of his life
and personal liberty. As regards other area, Article 14 incorporates the
principles of natural justice.

The position is that Article 14 applies not only to discriminatory class legislation
but also to state action which is arbitrary or discriminatory. The reason is that
violation of natural justice results in arbitrariness and as such violation of
natural justice is violation of the postulate of equality incorporated in Article
14. Thus the principles of natural justice are grounded in the Constitution.

In the end, it can be said that the horizons of right to hearing,

whether as part of natural justice, or fairness are constantly expanding.
Procedural fairness embodying natural justice is to be implied whenever action
is taken affecting the rights of parties.

In Saji Panchayat v. State of Gujarat18,

Where the government had transferred panchayat area as notifiea area

the Court held that though the law did not provide for before transfer of land
yet denial of such opportunity is not in consonance with the scheme of law
governing our society.

18
THREE IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

1. Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa: No man must sit in judgment in his

own cause, or the deciding authority must be impartial and without 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 adjudicates. However,
this concept has undergone lot of changes in recent times, but fundamental
still stands the same.

Types of Bias: There are three types of Bias -

(i) Pecuniary Bias:

1. Dimes vs. Grant Junction Canal. (1852,3 HLC 579).
2. Jeejee bhoy vs. Asst. Collector of Thana. (AIR 1965 SC 1096)

(ii) Personal Bias:

1. Personal friendship - A.K. Kraipak’s Case.

2. Personal Hostility - Mineral Development Ltd. v State of Bihar, (AIR 1960

SC 468 - also AIR 1976 SC 2428)
3. Family relationship.
4. Professional relationship.
5. Employer & Employee.

(iii)Bias as to Subject Matter:

1. Partiality - State of U.P. v Mohammed Noor

(AIR 1959 SC 86 also AIR 1967 SC 4080)

2. Departmental Bias – Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v APSRTC.

(AIR 1959 SC 308)
3. Prior Utterances and Pre-judgment of issues - K.S. Rao v State of
Hyderabad. (AIR 1957 AP 614)

2. Audi Alteram Partem: Hear the other side or both the sides must be
heard or one should not 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.

(i)Notice
(ii) Hearing - Ridge v Baldwin,
State of Kerala v K.J. Shaduli, (AIR 1977 SC 1627)

Hiranath Mishra v Principal,Rajendra Med.College,(AIR 1973 SC 1260).

The right of representation by a lawyer is not considered to be a part
of natural justice and it cannot be claimed as of right, unless the said right is
conferred by statute. Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the appearance
of advocate is allowed with the permission of the tribunals concerned.

3. Reasoned Decisions or 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.

Thus we can say that 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.
The principles of natural justice could 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.