Principles of Natural justice

• Common law doctrine

• Provides important procedural rights in administrative decision
making
• Wide application ,virtually apply in exercise of all statutory power.
• Natural justice can be excluded by legislation that is expressed in
sufficiently clear terms
• Synonym of fairness in the concept of justice and stands as most
accepted methodology of a governmental Action.
• Rules of natural justice has many facets and cant be put in
straightjacket formula(Flexible)
• Natural justice is synonymous to fairness
• The question to be asked in every case to determine whether the
rules of natural justice have been violated is: Have the authorities
acted fairly(Dev Dutt V Union of India(2008)8 SCC 725)
• The purpose of following principles of natural justice is to prevent
miscarriage of justice (Bharat Ratna Indira Gnadhi College of
Engineering V State of Maharastra AIR 2011 SC 1912)
•Administrative adjudication or
administrative decision making –
•By product of intensive form of government
•Traditional judicial system cannot give to
people that quantity and quality of justice
which is required in a welfare state because
of its highly procedural technicalities.
Need of administrative Adjudication
• Informal,cheap,rapid unlike the traditional courts.
• Growing emphasis on preventive justice rather then
punitive .It is only possible by administrative agencies
exercising adjudicatory powers.
• Functional approach to law.
• Justice lies not in disposal of cases according to law
but in fair disposition .In cases like licensing
,Nationalisation etc the decision is to be reached not
according to law as such but on ground of policy
considerations.
Problems of administrative Adjudication
• 1) Number and complexity-large number of adjudicative bodies
,every statutory scheme contains its own machinery for decision
making. A large number of parallel bodies adjudicating on the same
kind of disputes give diverse decisions and adopts variety of
procedures .Because principles of natural justice are not rigid and do
not apply uniformly in all situations the consequent uncertainty
results at times in arbitrary actions.
• 2)Unsystematic system of appeal-No uniform system of appeal is
there .Sometimes decisions are made appealable before an
independent tribunal as in tax cases. Some Acts do not provide for
any appeal.
• 3)Invisibilty and anonymity of decisions-Not all the
administrative agencies exercising judicial power publish
their decisions; their decisions thus go beyond the pale of
public criticism.
• 4)Unpredictabilty of decisions-Administrative agencies do
not follow the doctrine of precedent hence they are not
bound to follow their own decisions
• 5)Combination of functions-functions of a prosecutor and
the judge are either combined in one person or in the same
department,in such bias is inevitable
• 6)No evidence rule-Do not apply to administrative
adjuducations.
Rules of Natural Justice
• The principle's 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 to any
domestic enquiry.
• Natural justice is great humanizing principle intended to invest law
with fairness and to secure justice and over the years it has grown
into widely pervasive rule affecting large areas of administrative
action(Maneka Gandhi V UOI).
• The courts have always insisted that the administrative agencies
must follow a minimum of a fair procedure i.e. principles of natural
justice .Natural justice is a concept of common law and represents
higher procedural principles developed by judges. It enjoys no express
constitutional status(i.e not embodied)
• In India the principles of natural justice are firmly grounded in
Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution. With the introduction of
concept of substantive and procedural due process in Art 21 all that
fairness which is included in Art 21 can be read into Art 21 .The
violation of natural justice is violation of equality clause of Art 14.
• Natural justice goes to “the very kernel of the problem of
administrative justice. "However principles of natural justice are not
precise rules of unchanging content; their scope will vary according to
the context. Even when the rules of natural justice are prima facie
applicable ,they may be partly or wholly excluded by clear statutory
language or necessary implication.
• Therfore natural justice has acquired a kaleidoscopic unpredictability.
Nevertheless it provides the foundations on which the whole super
structure of judicial control of administrative action is based
Natural Justice recognizes three principles
• Nemo debet essc judex in propria causa. – This means that no one
should be a judge in his own cause i.e., there should be no Bias.
• Audi alterem partem – This means ‘hear alternate party ‘ i.e., ‘no one
should be condemned unheard’.
• Speaking orders or reasoned decisions.
• This aspect of natural justice requires speaking orders or reasoned
decisions. It is now universally recognized that giving reasons for a
certain decision is one of the fundamentals of good administration
and a safeguard against arbitrariness. The refusal to give reasons may
excite the suspicion that there are probably no good reasons to
support the decision. Hence reasons are useful as they may reveal an
error of law
•The first two have come to us from
the Roman Law and the third one is
a recent Innovation due to the rapid
development of the constitutional
as well as administrative
AUDI ALTERM PARTEM
• The first limb of natural justice is based on the Latin maxim
‘Audi alterm partem’. “Hear the other side” is the essence of
the principle.
• The authority must not hear one side, in the absence of the
other or make a decision without a hearing. Being one of
the principles of natural justice, it was made applicable even
to administrative authority adjudicating matter having civil
consequences.
• This means any authority or body empowered to decide the
question of legal rights, of persons, should follow this rule.
Otherwise, the decision would be quashed as violative of
Audi alteram partem.
• This rule got into prominence with Dr. Bentley’s case
reported in [(1723) 92 ER 818], Dr. Bentley was a professor
of great eminence. A process was sent to him by the Vice-
chancellor of Cambridge University. He ignored it &
remarked that the Vice Chancellor had acted like a fool. The
University deprived him of his degrees. The case was
nullified by the Court on the ground that Dr. Bentley was not
heard. The judge Fortescue said, “Even God himself did not
pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to
make a defense”. Hence, the opportunity of being heard is
the first rule of civilized jurisprudence as developed by Men
& God, and “Right of hearing” is a sine qua non.
Rule of fair hearing
• 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.
Aspects of fair hearing

•1)Notice
•2)Right to fair cross examination
•3)Right to legal Represenation
Notice
• Notice is the first limb of a proper hearing. A notice should be
definite. It should specify the authority issuing the notice. It should
be a hollow and barren manifestation of natural justice to say that as
of right someone may be heard in defence of himself but only against
an unknown charge. Hence, the charge of grounds of the proposed
action must be specified in the notice. The Courts insist that
sufficient time should be given to the person against whom an
action is proposed to be taken to prepare his defence. The Court has
struck down a notice which stated that an inquiry would be held in
the next morning Notice of place, time and the proposition must be
given. It must be sufficiently clear, specific, unambiguous and
understandable by the concerned person
Fair hearing
• A fair hearing must be given to the person concerned.
• The object of fair hearing is to ensure that justice is done that
there is no failure of justice and that every person whose rights
are going to be affected by the proposed action gets a fair
hearing.
• Adequate opportunity must be provided for an oral hearing,
Documentary and oral evidence are to be considered, cross-
examination must be allowed,
• Evidence is to be collected in the presence of both parties, He
who hears must decide is a rule though not essential, there
should be no malafide or vindictive tendency on the part of the
Presiding Officer, speaking orders should be made giving out
reasons for the findings decision.
• Maneka Gandhi vs. Union [(1978) SCR (2)
621], The passport of the petitioner had been
impounded by the Govt. of India “in public
interest”. No opportunity had been given to her
before impounding the passport. Held, this was
violative of the right of hearing & held Ultra
Vires. Her Fundamental right to go abroad under
Art. 21 had been affected, without hearing
RULE AGAINST BIASNESS
• It is a fundamental principle that no man shall be a judge of
his own cause (Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa).
This principle is more popularly knowns as Doctrine OF Bias.
The principle is that a judge is disqualified from determining
any case in which he may, or may fairly be suspected to have
an interest in the subject matter. The underlying principle is
that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly
and undoubtedly be seen to be done. In other words,
administrative tribunals must deal with the questions
referred to it without bias
• Bias means an operative prejudice whether conscious or
unconscious in relation to a party or issue.
• The requirement of this rule is that judge must be impartial,
a person cannot take an objective decision in a case in
which he has an interest.
• Rule against bias has two main aspects-
• Firstly that an administrator exercising adjudicatory powers
must not have any personal or proprietary interest in the
outcome of the proceedings.
• Secondly there must be “Real likelihood “ of bias.
• The first rule is very strict but the second is
uncertain and vague. The courts have
formulated two tests of disqualifications for
likelihood of bias
• A)Real Likelihood of bias means ‘actual bias’
• B)Real likelihood of bias means ‘a reasonable
suspicion of bias’
• While former test looks like mainly to outward appearance the latter
focuses on the courts own evaluation of the possibilities.
• In recent times however the supreme court has drawn a distinction
between “reasonable suspicion” and “real likelihood of bias”
• It has been held that the allegation of bias could not be sustained merely
on suspicion ,even if reasonable .There must be reasonable likelihood of
bias.
• In the area of bias the real question is not whether a person was biased. 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
deciding officer was likely to have been biased.
• In deciding the questions of bias, Judges have to take into consideration
the human possibilities and the ordinary course of human conduct.
•In Ratanlal Sharma v Managing
Committee(AIR 1993 SC 2155),the
court said: The test of bias is
whether a reasonable intelligent
man,fully apprised of all
circumstances ,would feel serious
apprehension of Bias.
A.K Kraipak vs Union of India [A.I.R. (1970) S.C. 150]

• The facts show that one of the members of a selection board

constituted to make the selection to a Central cadre, was also a
candidate for the interview. After the interview, the name of the
candidate appeared at the top of the list. This was challenged as
infringing the principles of natural justice. It was held that as the
member was one of the persons to be considered for selection it
was against all canons of justice to make him judge of his own
cause. Though he did not participate in the deliberation of the
committee when his name was considered, his presence in the
selection board must have had its own impact on the decision of the
board. It was also held that it was his interest to keep out his rivals in
order to keep his position safe. It follows that the Supreme Court has
declared that there need not be any actual deliberation to make it
invalid.
• Anything which tends or may be regarded as tending to cause a person to
decide a case otherwise than on evidence must be held to be biased.
• The first requirement is that the judge should be impartial and natural and
must be free from bias.
• One cannot act as judge of a cause in which he himself has some interest
either pecuniary or otherwise as it affords the strongest proof against
neutrality.
• One must be in a position to act judicially and to decide the matter
objectively.
• If the judge is subject to bias in favor of or against either party to the
dispute or is in a position that a bias can be assumed, he is disqualified to
act as a judge and the proceedings will be vitiated.
• Justice can never be seen if a man acts as a judge in his own cause or is
himself interested in its outcome.
• This principle applied not only to judicial proceedings but also to quasi-
judicial and administrative proceedings.
Bias can be categorized into four categories
• Personal Bias– Personal bias arises from a certain relationship
between the adjudicating authority and of the parties.
• Pecuniary Bias– where the judge is shown to have a pecuniary
interest in the results of the proceedings.
• Subject-matter Bias– A person shall also be disqualified from acting
as a judge if he himself is a party or has some direct connection with
the litigation, so as to constitute a legal interest.
• Department Bias– When the function of judge and prosecutor are
combined in one department than such department shall be deemed
to have a departmental bias.
Cases on personal bias
• Manak Lal V Prem Chand(AIR 1957 SC 125)
• J Mohapatra and CO.V State of Orissa(AIR 1984 SC 1572)
• A.K Kraipak V Union of India(AIR 1970 SC 150)
• Tata Cellular V Union of India(1994) 6 SCC 651
Case on Departmental Bias
• Gullapali Nageswar Rao v APSRTC(AIR 1959 SC 308)
• Hari V Dy Commr of Police(AIR 1956 SC 559)
Reasoned Decision speaking orders
• Decision given must be reasoned one therefore the decision must be
evidenced by a speaking order which enumerates the reasons for coming
to a particular conclusion.
• The S.C has unequivocally accepted that speaking order is the third
important principle of natural justice.
• Thus a party ought to know the result of the inquiry and the reasons for
the decisions.
• An administrative authority is not bound to give reasons for its decisions
unless the statute requires so.
• Reasoned decisions enables the aggrieved party to question whether the
authority or tribunal had properly applied the law to the facts even though
it wouldn’t have enabled him to question whether the tribunal has drawn
proper inference from the evidence.
• The speaking order facilitate judicial review
Court have justified the requirement of speaking order on
three grounds
• Party aggrieved has the opportunity to demonstrate before
the appellate or revisonal court that the reasons which
persuaded the authority to reject his case were erroneous.
• The obligation to record reasons operates as a deterrent
against possible arbitrary action by executive authority
invested with judicial power and
• 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 justified by the
exigencies of an uncommon situation
Post decisional hearing
• Post decisional hearing means after the decision is reached .
• Where an action is required to be taken immediately without
giving and advance notice and opportunity to be heard,Can a
post decisional hearing mitigate the injustice caused by the
lack of a pre decisional hearing?
• The idea of post decisional hearing has been developed to
maintain a balance between administrative efficiency and
fairness to the individual. This harmonizing tool was
developed by the supreme court in Maneka Gandhi V Union
of India(AIR 1987 SC 597
• Post decisional hearing at least affords an opportunity
to the aggrieved person and is better than no hearing
at all.
Exceptions to rules of natural justice
• Exclusion in emergency
• Exclusion in cases confidentiality
• Exclusion in cases of Routine matters
• Exclusion based on impractibilty
• Exclusion in cases of interim preventive action
• Exclusion in cases of legislative action
• Exclusion in cases of statutory exceptions or necessity
EFFECT OF BREACH OF THE RULES OF NATURAL
JUSTICE: action void or voidable
• The terms “void” and “voidable” are the terms which
basically find a place in the law of contract. A
voidable order is an order which is legal and valid
unless it is set aside by a competent court at the
instance of an aggrieved party. On the other hand, a
void order is not an order in the eye of law It can be
ignored, disregarded. disobeyed or impeached in any
proceeding before any Court or tribunal. It is a still-
born order, a nullity, and void ab initio.
•In Ridge vs. Baldwin, [(1964) A C 40], It was
pointed out that the violation of the rule of
natural justice by an administrative
authority makes the decision void and not
voidable Since the decision of Ridge’s case a
controversy has arisen as to the nature of an
order in violation of the principles of natural
justice.
• In India, the Courts have taken the view that
whenever there is a violation of any rule of natural
justice, the order is null and void in Board of High
school vs. Gyan Shyam [A.I.R. (1962) SC 1110], A
student who was charged with malpractice in an
examination, was not given a reasonable and fair
opportunity to be heard in defense. The order
debarring him was quashed stating as violative of the
principles of natural justice,