Principles of Natural Justice: Rule against bias; Right of fair hearing

Introduction
The word justice is incapable of defining itself completely. Different people have
different ways of perceiving justice. In general terms, justice would mean the quality
of being just and fair. The concept of natural justice though not provided in Indian
constitution but it is considered as necessary element for the administration of
justice.

Concept of Principles of Natural Justice

Principle of Natural Justice is derived from the word ‘Jus Natural’ of the Roman law
which means law of nature and it is closely related to Common law and moral
principles but is not codified. It is a law of nature which is not derived from any
statute or constitution.

In its layman language natural justice means a natural sense of what is right or
wrong. Natural justice simply means to make a sensible and reasonable decision
making procedure on a particular issue. Sometimes, it doesn’t matter what is the
reasonable decision but in the end, what matters is the procedure and who all are
engaged in taking the reasonable decision. It is not restricted within the concept of
‘fairness’ it has different colours and shades which vary from the context.

The principles of natural justice have great significance in the study of Administrative
law. It is also known as substantial justice or fundamental justice or Universal justice
or fair play in action. The principles of natural justice are not embodied rules and are
not codified.

Definition:
There is no precise and scientific definition of natural justice. However, the principles
of natural justice are being acceptable and enforced. Different judges, lawyers and
Scholars define it in various ways.

In Vionet v. Barrett,
Lord Esher M.R has defined it as the natural sense of what is right and wrong.

Lord Parker has defined it as a duty to act fairly.

,Justice Bhagwati has taken it as fair play in action. Article 14 and 21 of the Indian
Constitution has strengthened the concept of natural justice.
Origin of Principles of Natural Justice
Natural justice can be traced back to the Roman and Greek empires. Principles of
natural justice are believed to have originated from Rome, but the principles are not
new to India. The concept of procedural fairness and equality are embedded in
India’s cultural heritage. Principles of fair hearing and rule against bias were well
observed in ancient India. When there was no codified law, justice was done based
on conscience. The Indian concept of Dharma is akin to the idea of natural justice. It
has also been mentioned in Kautilya’s Arthashastra. The Indian emperor Ashoka
also laid down the rules to determine the nature of justice.

With the changing trends and developing economies, the concept of Natural Justice
has undergone great transformations. Principles of natural justice do not have a
straight-jacket formula but depend on the facts of the case, the governing statutes
etc.

Two pillars of Principle of Natural Justice

Though the principles of natural justice have not been codified, the Apex Court has
held the principle to be legally valid in various cases. The principles of natural justice
are based on the following two maxims-

● Nemo Judex In Causa Sua (rule against bias)

● Audi Alteram Partem (rule of fair hearing

Nemo Judex In Causa Sua means rule against bias. It is the first principle of natural
justice which says no man shall be judge in his own cause or a deciding authority
must be impartial and neutral while deciding any case. Thus the principle signify that
in a circumstances where a judge or deciding authority is suspected to be bias or
partial then he/she shall be disqualify for determining any case before them. It
formulate that justice should not only be done but seen to be done.

Audi Alteram Partem means hear the other side as well. This is the second most
fundamental rule of natural justice that says no one should be condemned unheard.
In a circumstances where a person against whom any action is sought to be taken
and his right or interest is being affected, shall be given an equal opportunity of being
heard.
RULE AGAINST BIAS
Nemo judex in causa sua, also known as the rule against bias, means that nobody
should be a judge in his cause. This principle has been established to ensure that
the judiciary is impartial and free from bias.

According to Clarence Thomas, ‘the duty of the judge is to figure out what the law
says, not what he wants to say.’ Human nature involves emotion, and where there
lays any interest, it is very difficult to decide on one’s interest which leads to partiality
and destroys the very idea of justice. A person can apply his mind effectively when
he follows the path of impartiality.

Types of Bias

Personal Bias
Any relationship arising between the adjudicating authority and the parties can lead
to personal bias. The Adjudicating authority might be a friend, relative or might have
any professional relations. Any personal relation might give rise to enmity against
one party and favouritism to the other party.

In Meenglas Tea Estate v. Workmen, the inquiry conducted by a manager was

considered to vitiate as he acted as a judge in his case. In this case, the manager
was accused of beating the workman, and the inquiry for the said allegation was
conducted by the Manager himself, which is against the principles of Natural Justice.

Pecuniary Bias
When the adjudicating authority has any monetary or financial interest in the dispute,
pecuniary bias arises. Any kind of pecuniary interest in the dispute will invalidate the
proceedings and disqualify the person acting as a judge.

In Jeejeebhoy v Collector, the bench was reconstituted when it was found that one
of the members of the bench had a pecuniary interest where he was a member of
the Cooperative society, for which the land was being acquired.

Subject matter Bias

Subject matter simply means the issue in question. This type of situation arises
where the adjudicating authority directly or indirectly has any interest in the subject
matter of the dispute.

In Gullampally Nageswara Rao v. A.P.S.R.T.C., the Apex Court held the decision of
upholding the scheme of nationalisation of motor transport by the Government
Secretary to be invalid, due to his interest in the subject matter, as he was the one
who had initiated the process of nationalization.
Critical analysis

Bias being the underlying rule of the said principle is hard to establish. Being a
mental condition, it becomes difficult to prove whether the decision taken was biased
or not. It may arise unconsciously. Bias may be defined as a preconceived notion
concerning a party or issue. No judge’s mind is a piece of blank paper. Every person
has some preoccupied notions and reasoning. While considering the rule of bias, it
has to be observed that nothing has to be done which creates even a slight
suspicion that there has been an inappropriate interference with the course of
justice.

The object of this principle is not merely that the scales are held evenly, it is also
necessary that they may not appear to be inclined. In Mahabharata, if Dhritrashtra
would have been impartial and would have corrected his sons instead of saving
them, while they kept on making mistakes, Pandavas would have not called for war,
to ensure justice.

THE RULE OF FAIR HEARING

All the parties shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case properly.
The legal maxim “audi alter partem” translates to “no one shall be condemned
unheard”. A person against whom the case is being decided should be given a fair
chance to defend himself and to be heard. This forms the fundamental of the entire
principle and a violation of this principle leads to a gross injustice.

There are five components under this principle.

Notice: A notice should be issued to the parties with respect to the charges. It
should expressly mention the charge that forms the basis of a particular proceeding.
It should also be ensured that the person is tried and punished only for the charges
that are mentioned in the mentioned in the notice. Also, the time, place, nature of
hearing along with the legal authority in front of which the case will be heard, should
be enclosed in the notice. In Car Sales Co-operative Society v Andhra Pradesh,
the court held that there has been a violation of principles of natural justice because
a notice was not served timely.

Adequate Opportunity of being heard and Right to present the case and
evidence: The parties should be provided with an adequate opportunity of being
heard. Provision of this opportunity should not be a mere formality but rather, it
should be fair and reasonable.

Right to Cross Examination: The ambit of fair hearing also extends to the right of
cross examination. The definition of cross examination is given under section 137 of
the Indian Evidence Act. It is seen a violation of principles of natural justice if the
right to cross examination is denied by the tribunals. However, this right is not
available in each and every case.

Right to Legal Representative: In legal proceedings, each party has a right to be

represented by a lawyer. Not everybody is privileged enough to afford a lawyer for
representation. The state has to ensure that they are provided with a legal
representative, otherwise this will simply lead to denial of these principles. The
National Legal Services Authority and the State Legal Services Authorities play a
major role to provide legal aid to the underprivileged. The Supreme Court, in M.H
Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra held that the right to free legal aid comes under the
ambit of just, fair and reasonable procedure. It can be implied under article 21.

Disclosure of all evidence and materials: It is pertinent to disclose all the evidence
and material so as to provide an opportunity to the other party to present his case in
its entirety by contradicting anything prejudicial against it.

Critical analysis

The principle of natural justice acts as a torch- bearer for all the legal or
administrative proceedings. It is guardian of justice. It forms rather an indispensable
part of our judiciary system. This principle however is not free from certain
drawbacks. It is more of a subjective concept because the notion of justice is
different for everyone. For example, the idea of a fair chance of hearing differs for
each individual. Thus, it fails to bring out the objectivity in decisions which it originally
strives for. Thus, it can be construed as more of an abstract concept. Another
criticism of these principles is that it sometimes impedes the process and therefore
denying justice in the form of delays. It is also held responsible for complicating the
procedures at time. Moreover, its application is not practical in every case. Most
notably, in R. Radhakrishnan v. Osmania University, due to administrative
impracticability, the principles of natural justice were denied.

CONCLUSION- To conclude, we can say that Principles of Natural Justice have

occupied a crucial role in the study of Administrative law. They constitute the
essence of Justice. The Doctrine stands as a synonym of fairness in the concept of
justice. The rule against bias and the hearing rule constitute the two pillars of natural
justice. The principles of natural justice not only secure justice but more importantly
prevents miscarriage of Justice.