CONCEPT OF NATURAL JUSTICE

 Natural justice is a concept of common law which has its

origin in ‘Jus Natural’ which means a law of nature. In its
layman language natural justice means natural sense of
what is right and wrong and in its technical sense it is
synonymous with fairness. Natural justice has a very wide
application in administrative discretion.
 It aims to prevent arbitrariness and injustice towards the
citizens with an act of administrative authorities.
 Minimum fair procedure refers to natural justice.
 These rules are not embodied rules which are not fixed in
any Code.
 They are the judge-made principle and are regarded counter
part of the American procedural due process.
 Any judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal determining the rights
of individuals must confirm to the principle of natural justice
in order to maintain “the rule of law” as in Representation of
the Committee on Minister’s Powers (1932).
 The reason is that these principles constitute the “essence of
justice” and must, therefore, be observed by any person or
body charged with the duty of deciding the rights of the parts
of the party which involves the duty to act judicially as held
in the cases of Spackman v. Plumstead Board of Works, 1885
& in another case of General Medical Council v. Spackman ,
1943.
 Though both in England and India it has been held that
there is no universal or uniform standard of natural justice
applicable to all cases coming within the purview of the
doctrine and that the contents or requirements of natural
justice vary with the varying constitution of different
quasi-judicial bodies and their functions, the subject matter
of inquiry, the relevant statutory provisions as held in the
cases of Local Govt. Board v. Arlidge and in case of Board
of Education v. Rice.
 In the other circumstances of the cases, it is that there are
certain broad principles deducible from the two Latin
maxims which form the foundation or basis of the doctrine
of natural justice and extend to all cases where the doctrine
is attracted.
 Fortesque in the case of King v. Chancellor, University
of Cambridge,1723, the first hearing in the human
history was given in the Garden of Eden.
 The concept of natural justice though not provided in
Indian Constitution but it is considered as necessary
element for the administration of justice.
 The concept of natural justice was confined to the Judicial
proceeding only but with the advent of welfare state the
powers of administrative authorities have considerably
increased as a result it becomes impossible for law to
determine the fair procedure to be followed by each
authority while adjudicating any disputes or any quasi-
judicial proceedings.
 So, courts have made a remedy by establishing a norm to be
follow by administrative authorities while exercising theirs
powers and performing their functions.
 Court in order to prevent abuse of power and to check on
their limits has evolved the principles of natural justice as
important safeguards against injustice. The object of natural
justice is to secure justice to the citizens and prevent
contempt of justice. Decisions which violate the natural
justice shall stand null and void.
 The earlier view as in case of Franklin v. Ministry of Town
& Country Planning, that the principles of natural justice
were applicable to the judicial and quasi-judicial orders
only and not to the administrative orders has been changed
now. Both in English Law and in India the courts have
made it clear that the principle of natural justice in
applicable in administrative proceedings as in case of A.K.
Kraipak v. Union of India.
 No decision is valid if it was influenced by any financial
consideration or other interest or bias of the decision maker. These
principles apply to decisions of all governmental agencies and
tribunals, and judgments of all courts, which may be declared to
be ultra vires if found in contravention of natural justice.
 Principles of natural justice are founded on reason, and
enlightened public policy.
 These principles are adapted to the circumstances of all the cases.
The maxim of audi alteram partem which implies the right to be
heard and nemo judex in causa sua which means no person may
judge their own case are the most prominent principles of natural
justice.
 Natural justice principles protects against arbitrary exercise of
power by ensuring fair play and are applicable to decisions of all
governmental agencies and tribunals, and judgments of all courts,
which may be declared to be ultra vires if found in contravention
of natural justice.
 Madan J. In Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel said that
“Over the years by the process of judicial interpretation
two rules have been evolved ass representing the
principles of natural justice in judicial process including
quasi-judicial and administrative process.”
 Every administrative decision having civil consequences
against the citizen of State the authority making such
decision is under obligation to record reasons because
fairness or fair play should be treated as fundamental
principles of good administration to check the abuse or
misuse of power vested in the modern state.
 The aim of rules of natural justice is to prevent the
miscarriage of justice.
 Tucker L.J. in case of Russell v. Duke of Norfolk has
observed that “there are, in my view, no words which are
of universal application to every kind of inquiry and very
kind of domestic tribunal. The requirements of natural
justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the
nature of inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is
acting, the subject matter i.e. being dealt with and so
forth”.
 The Supreme Courts has observed in case of Union of
India v. P.K. Roy that the extent and application of the
doctrine of natural justice depends upon the nature of the
jurisdiction conferred on the administrative authority, upon
the character of the rights of the persons affected, the
scheme and policy of the statute and other relevant
circumstances disclosed in the particular case.
 Definition

Lord Widgery- “the principles of natural justice were those

fundamental rules, the breach of which will prevent
justice from being seen to done.”
Lord Cranworthy in Drew v. Drew defined it as universal
justice.
Privy Council in James Dumber Smith v. Her majesty, the
Queen used the phrase requirement of substantial justice.
Ridge v. Baldwin equated natural justice with “fair play in
action” which was used by Justice Bhagwati in Maneka
Gandhi case.
 Conceptual Dimensions
 It is ethico-legal concept based on human feelings.
 It meant many things to writers, lawyers and system of

laws. It is called as jus gentium or common law of

nations, natural law, divine law, universal justice or fair
play in action.
 Justice Reid in Ridge v. Baldwin-

“ Because something cannot be cut and dried or nicely

weighted or measured therefore, it does not exist.”
 It is pervasive fact.
 Functional Dimensions
 It is well settled that the principles of natural justice
applied to judicial and quasi-judicial functions but now it
is also applied to the administrative functions.
 In Franklin v. Minister of Town and Country Planning,
1948, Lord Tankerton 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.
 Chagla, C.J. In the case of Bapurao v. State, AIR 1955,
said that “It is erroneous to import into the consideration
of an administrative order the principles of natural
justice.”
 Wanchoo in the case of Kishan Chand v. Commissioner of
Police, AIR 1961, “the compulsion of hearing before
passing the order implied in maxim audi alteram partem
applies only to judicial and quasi-judicial functions.”
 But case of Ridge v. Baldwin changed whole of scenario.

 Wade said that principles of natural justice applied to

almost whole range of administrative powers.

 Lord Denning in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering

Union, 1971 said that-

“It is now well settled that a statutory body , which is
entrusted by statute, must act fairly. It does not matter
whether its functions are described as judicial or quasi-
judicial at one hand or administrative on other hand”
 When Natural can be claimed?
 Acting Judicially.
 Judicial.
 Quasi-Judicial
 Effect of Function- Consequential Theory-
 Administrative Action.
 Civil Consequences.
 Effect on Expectations.
 Disciplinary Proceedings.
 Natural justice can be claimed where the proceedings is
judicial or quasi-judicial like panchayat and tribunals etc.
It envisaged the concept of fairness, just and basic moral
principles. In a present welfare state with complex socio
economics problems the functions of the government has
been increase and in the same manner administrative
authorities has acquired vast powers which might affect
private rights without any adequate safeguards or some
protection. Due to this factor procedural fairness is
regarded as an integral part of administrative authorities.
 Reasoned Decisions
 A reasoned decision means a decision which must contain
reasons in support of it.
 Natural Justice required that the party has a right to know
not only the decision but also the reasons. This is not a
universally established law although it might provide in
statute.
 Where the duty is required by the statute then the authority
is bound to give reasoned decisions in all cases to which
the provision applies. But in absence of statutory
requirement, the courts advise the judicial or quasi-judicial
bodies to assign reasons, so that it justify the order. It is
called as speaking orders.
Basically, it has three grounds on which it relies-
 The aggrieved party has the chance to demonstrate

before the appellate and revisional court that what was

the reason which makes the authority to reject it.
 It is a satisfactory part of the party against whom the

decision is made.
 The responsibility to record reasons works as obstacles

against arbitrary action by the judicial power vested in

the executive authority.
 In India there is no statute laying down the minimum procedure which
administrative agencies must follow while exercising decision-making
powers.
 This minimum fair procedure refers to the principles of natural justice
Natural justice is a concept of common law and represents higher
procedural principles developed by the courts, which every judicial, quasi-
judicial and administrative agency must follow while taking any decision
adversely affecting the rights of a private individual.
 Natural justice implies fairness, equity and equality. In a welfare state like
India, the role and jurisdiction of administrative agencies is increasing at a
rapid pace.
 The concept of Rule of Law would loose its validity if the instrumentalities
of the State are not charged with the duty of discharging these functions in
a fair and just manner. In India, the principles of natural justice are firmly
grounded in Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution.
 With the introduction of concept of substantive and procedural due process
in Article 21, all that fairness which is included in the principles of natural
justice can be read into Art. 21. The violation of principles of natural justice
results in arbitrariness; therefore, violation of natural justice is a violation of
Equality clause of Art. 14.
 The dividing line between administrative power and quasi-
judicial power is quite thin and is being gradually
obliterated and the horizon of the natural justice is
gradually expanding and now the principles of natural
justice has been extended even to pure administrative
function as in cases of A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India ,
Ridge v. Baldwin & Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India .
 These principles of natural justice are treated as a part of
the Constitutional guarantee contained in Art. 14 and the
violation of these principles by the administrative
authorities is taken as violation of Art 14.
 Actually the concept of quasi-judicial, natural justice and
fairness all have been developed to control the
administrative action. The object has been to secure justice
and prevent miscarriage of justice.
 The concept of rule of law would have its importance if
the administrative authorities are not charged with the duty
of discharging their functions in fair and just manner. Art
14 & 21 have strengthened the concept of natural justice.
 Art. 14 applies not only to discriminatory class legislation
but also to discriminatory or arbitratory state action.
 Violation of the principle of natural justice results in
arbitrariness and, therefore, its results in the violation of
Art. 14.
 Art. 21 requires substantive and procedural due process
and it provides that no person shall be deprived of his life
or person liberty except according to the procedure
established by law.
 The procedure prescribed for deprivation of person liberty
must be reasonable, fair, just and a procedure to be
reasonable, fair and just must embody the principle of
natural justice. A procedure which does not embody the
principles of natural justice cannot be treated as
reasonable, just and fair as in case of Vionet v. Barrett.
 According the Lord Haldane in case of Ridge v. Baldwin,
natural justice possess the following three features
 the right to be heard by an unbiased tribunal
 the right to have notice of charge of misconduct and
 the right to be heard in answer to those charges.

From the above discussions the broad principles of

“Natural Justice” may be summarized as under
a. that every person whose right is affected, must have a
reasonable notice of the case he has to meet.
b. that he must have a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
c. that there must be a impartial tribunal.
The principle of natural justice encompasses following two rules

 Nemo judex in causa sua - No one should be made a

judge in his own cause or the rule against bias.
 Audi alteram partem - Hear the other party or the rule of
fair hearing or the rule that no one should be condemned
unheard.
 RULE AGAINST BIAS
NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA
 The rule against bias is one of the twin pillars of natural
justice.
 The first pillar that is the hearing rule requires that people
whose rights, interests and expectations may be affected by a
decision should be given sufficient prior notice and an
adequate chance to be heard before any decision is made.
 The bias rule is the second pillar of natural justice and
requires that a decision-maker must approach a matter with an
open mind that is free of prejudgment and prejudice. Although
the bias rule originated in the courts, and was for many
centuries applied only to courts and judges, it has now
become a rule of almost universal application.
 The rule against bias applies to a vast range of decision-
makers including tribunals, statutory  authorities, court
officials, juries, government ministers, local councils, prison
officials, bureaucrats and more so on.
 According to the 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon, “Any
mental condition that would prevent a judge or juror from
being fair and impartial is called bias. A particular
influential power which sways the judgment; the
inclination or propensity of the mind towards a particular
object. It may be ground for disqualification of the judge
or juror in question.”
 It is also defined as, “A predisposition or a preconceived
opinion that prevents a person from impartially evaluating
facts that have been presented for determination; a
prejudice.”
 It is the minimal requirement of the natural justice that the
authority giving decision must be composed of impartial
persons acting fairly, without prejudice and bias.
 Bias means an operative prejudice, whether conscious or
unconscious, as result of some preconceived opinion or
predisposition, in relation to a party or an issue.
 Dictionary meaning of the term “bias” suggests anything
which tends a person to decide a case other than on the
basis of evidences.
 The rule against bias strikes against those factors which
may improperly influence a judge against arriving at a
decision in a particular case.
 This rule is based on the premises that it is against the
human psychology to decide a case against his own
interest.
 The basic objective of this rule is to ensure public
confidence in the impartiality of the administrative
adjudicatory process.
 As per Lord Hewart CJ, in R.v. Sussex, “justice should not
only be done, but also manifestly and undoubtedly seen to
be done. A decision which is a result of bias is a nullity
and the trial is “Coram non judice”.
 Justice Frank of United States in re. Linahan (1943) said
that “If, however, “bias” and “partiality” be defined to
mean the total absence of preconceptions in the mind of
the Judge, then no one has ever had a fair trial, and no
one ever will. The human mind, even at infancy, is no
blank piece of paper. We are born with the predispositions
and the process of education, formal and informal, create
attitudes which precede reasoning in particular instances
and which therefore, by definition are prejudices.”
 Types of Bias
 Personal
 Pecuniary
 Subject Matter
 Departmental
 Policy
 Personal Bias
 This is a most common bias that arises out of certain
relationship between decision making authority and the parties.
Here a judge may be a friend, relative or business associate of a
party. He may have an enmity or rivalry against one of the
party. In view of these factors there is likelihood that judge may
be biased towards one party or prejudiced toward other.
 In the case of  Cottle vs Cottle, the chairman of the bench was
a friend of the wife’s family who had instituted matrimonial
proceedings against her husband. The wife had told the husband
that chairman would decide the case in her favor. The divisional
court ordered rehearing. It later turned out that the chairman
was a friend of wife’s family.
 In the case of  Mineral Development Corporation limited vs State of
Bihar, 1960,  the petitioner were granted mining lease for 99 years
in 1947. In 1953, the Secretary of revenue board issued a notice to
the petitioners to show cause within 15 days as to why the license
should not be cancelled for violation by the petitioner of section 10,
12 and 14 of Mining Act.

The petitioner submitted a written reply denying the allegations.

However, two years later, Government quashed the license. The
petitioner brought an action against the minister passing this order
on the behalf of government, on the ground that, the petitioner in
1952 opposed the minister in general election. Therefore, on the
account of political rivalry, the minister passed such an order, and
hence order was suffered from personal bias. Supreme Court found
the allegation to be true and thus quashed the said order.
 Same in case of Baidyanath Mohapatra vs. State of
Orissa, 1988,according to the recommendation of the
review committee, a government servant was prematurely
retired at the age of 50 years. One of the members of
review committee who recommended premature
retirement of the appellant happened to be the chairman of
the tribunal and confirmed the order of premature
retirement.
 The Supreme Court held that the order of the Tribunal was
vitiated because the member who had administratively
taken a decision against the appellant considered the
matter judicially as Chairman of the Tribunal, thereby he
acted as a judge in his own cause.
 Pecuniary bias
Pecuniary bias arises when the adjudicator has monetary or financial interest in the
subject matter of the dispute. Least pecuniary interest in the subject matter of
litigation will disqualify any person from acting as a judge.

In Jeejeebhoy vs Assist. Collector, Thana 1965, Chief Justice reconstituted the

bench when it was found that one of the members of the bench was a member of
cooperative society for which the land had been acquired.

Dimes vs Grand Junction Canal, 1852, is regarded as a classic example of

pecuniary bias. In this case a public limited company filed a suit against a land
owner in matter largely involving the interest of the company. The Lord Chancellor
who was a shareholder in the company decided the case and gave relief to the
company. His decision was quashed by the House of Lords because there was a
pecuniary interest of the Lord Chancellor in the Company.

In Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand, 1957, it was held that that pecuniary interest
however small it may be in a subject matter of the proceedings wholly disqualify a
member from acting as a judge.
 Subject matter bias
  Subject matter simply means the “issue in question” or
“the issue in controversy” or “issue before the Judge”.
Bias as to subject matter may arise when the Judge has
general interest in the subject matter in dispute. It may
arise also when the deciding authority is directly or
otherwise involved in subject matter of the case.
 In Muralidhar vs Kadam Singh, 1964, the court refused
to quash the decision of Election Tribunal on the ground
that the wife of the chairman was a member of the
Congress party whose candidate the petitioner defeated.
 Departmental Bias
 It is inherent in administrative process.
 If it is not checked, it will negate the process of fairness in
administrative process.
 Cases-
 GullaPalli Nageshwar Rao v. A.P. State Road Transport
Corporation, 1959.
 Mahadayal v. CTO, 1961.
 Policy Bias
 Sometimes, it happens that the Minister or the official
concerned may announce beforehand the general policy
which he intends to follow.
 The question is whether such statement would disqualify
him from acting as the deciding authority on the ground
that this indicates his partiality to the issues in disputes
 Govindraj Mudaliar v. State of A.P., 1973.
 Test for bias

Cases from different jurisdiction currently apply two tests for

apparent bias -
 The reasonable suspicion of bias test and
 the real likelihood of bias test.

These two tests apply in case of personal bias. In order to

challenge administrative action successfully on the ground of
personal bias, it is necessary to prove that there is a
reasonable suspicion of bias or a real likelihood of bias. The
former test look mainly to the outward appearance that means
justice must be seen to be done. The rule for the judges of all
kinds was that they must be free from even unreasonable
suspicion of bias. The real likelihood of bias mainly focuses
on the courts own evaluation of the probabilities.
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM

(rule of fair hearing)

 Components
1. Notice-
A. Adequacy of Notice.
i. Time, Place and Nature of Hearing.
ii. Legal Authority and Jurisdiction under which hearing is to be held.
iii. Matters of Law and Facts regards charges.

B. Reasonable Opportunity.

2. Hearing-
A. Oral Hearing.
B. Fair Hearing.
i. Reception of Evidence produced by person.
ii. Disclosure of Materials.
iii. Rebuttal of adverse evidence.
a. Cross- Examination.
b. Legal Representation.
c. Right to Know Evidence.
d. Opportunity of Being heard.
 Opportunity must be given.
 Opportunity must be reasonable.
 It means “hear the other side” or “let the other side heard 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 and defend himself.
 It gives right the party to respond to the evidence against them and
to choose legal representative of their own choice.
 Any adjudicating authorities while deciding a dispute between
parties the principles of natural justice forms a fundamental fair
procedure among the parties.
 It is the duty of every person or body exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial functions to act in good faith and to listen fairly both the
sides before passing any order.
 No party will made to suffer in person without giving not only fair
opportunity of being heard but to correct any relevant statement
made, which is prejudicial to any of them.
 While deciding any case fairly it is not mandatory for any
decision making authority to follow the same procedure as
that followed by a Court.
 In case if the Legislature specifically authorizes an
administrative authority to proceed without giving an
opportunity of heard, then except in case of recognised
exceptions, the law would be violative of the principles of
fair hearing which is now read into Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution.
 The sole purpose of rule of fair hearing as to the Apex Court
was to avoid the failure of justice. Thus, the essence of this
principle is “the right of fair hearing” or “the right to be
heard”.
 Any decisions which violate the principle of audi alteram
partem such can be quashed by court as against the
principles of natural justice.
 In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the passport of the
petitioner was impounded by the Government of India in
public interest. No opportunity was afforded to the
petitioner before taking the impugned action. The
Supreme Court held that the order was violative of
principles of Natural justice.
 Notice

 The term notice is derived from the Latin word “notifia” which
means “being known”.
 It means knowledge of circumstances or to make something
known, of what a man was or might be ignorant of before. In order
to constitute a legal proceeding against any person the first
requirement of fair hearing is to serve notice to the affected person
to show cause against the proposed action and seek his explanation.
Hearing starts with the issuance of notice to the affected person.

 Any order passed without giving notice to the person is against the
principles of natural justice and is void ab initio.
 Even if the Statue does not provide any provision about giving of
notice, and if such order adversely affects the rights of an
individual, in such cases also the notice is required to be given.
Notice-
A. Adequacy of Notice-
i. Time, Place and Nature of Hearing.
ii. Legal Authority and Jurisdiction under which hearing is
to be held.
iii. Matters of Law and Facts regards charges.

B. Reasonable Opportunity.
 A. Adequacy of Notice.
 A notice must be adequate and contain-

 the time, place and nature of hearing

 a statement of specific charges or grounds and proposed
action which the person has to meet
 must be clear and unambiguous
 must afford the party sufficient time, to prepare his case
 not only provide the sufficient information relating to
the case, but he must also be informed of the penalty
proposed to be imposed in case of his failure to meet the
case against him
 legal authority under which hearing is to be held
 The manner in which the notice is to be served is prescribed under
statute. E.g Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 requires that if a cheque is
dishonored proper notice must be given by post or courier. Personal
information held not proper.

In K.A Abdul Khader vs Dy. Director, the Statutory Rule prescribed the
following mode to serve notice-

 By delivering to him.
 Sending it to him by registered post (it may returned undelivered).

 If the above two modes does not fulfill then by affixing it on the outer
door of the residence.
 The mode of giving notice is a procedural matter. If the notice is to be
given to a large class of persons, who are educated, it may be given in
newspaper. Individual notice is this case is not insisted.
 In a case of Punjab National Bank vs All India Bank Employees
Federation, the notice contained certain charges but the penalty
was imposed on the charges which were not mentioned in the
notice. Therefore the Court held notice was improper, and
eventually the imposition of penalty was held invalid.

A vague or imprecise notice does not afford the party the desired
reasonable opportunity. A notice would be vague if it is based on
no material or if it is vitiated by non-application of mind.

 In Suresh Chandra Verma (Dr.) vs Chancellor Nagpur

University, the employment notice issued by the University,
invited applications for the posts of Professor, Readers and
Lecturers without indicating the particular posts reserved subject
wise. The notice was held to be bad in law since it only
mentioned total number of reserved posts without mentioning the
particular posts reserved subject wise.
 B. Reasonable Opportunity
 Notice must be given reasonable opportunity to
comply with the requirements mentioned in it.
 Exceptions to Notice
 When the affected person suo motto makes the
representation without receiving the notice.
 Where the knowledge of the matter in dispute
is imputable to the concerned person.
 Where no prejudice caused to the party
 2. Hearing
 The second most essential element of audi alteram partem is
fair hearing. If the order passed by the authority without
hearing the party or without giving him an opportunity of
being heard then it will be considered as an invalid. 
 In the case of  Harbans Lal v Commissioner, National Co-
operative Bank v. Ajay Kumar and Fateh Singh v State of
Rajasthan, it was held that if a person gets a reasonable
opportunity of being heard or fair hearing it is an essential
ingredient of the principal of audi alteram partem. This
condition is accompanied by the authority providing written
or oral hearing which is discretion of the authority, unless
the statute under which action is taken by the authority
provides otherwise. It is the duty of authority to ensure that
affected parties should get a chance of oral or personal
hearing or not.
 Components of Hearing
A. Oral Hearing.
B. Fair Hearing.
i. Reception of Evidence produced by person.
ii. Disclosure of Materials.
iii. Rebuttal of adverse evidence.
a. Cross- Examination.
b. Legal Representation.
c. Right to Know Evidence.
d. Opportunity of Being heard.
 Opportunity must be given.
 Opportunity must be reasonable.
 A. Oral Hearing
 Generally hearing means oral hearing where the parties
have right to legal representation to produce witnesses
who may be cross-examined.
 But it is not sine qua non of natural justice.
 In Union of India v. J.P. Mitter, 1971, it was held by the
Supreme Court that as the petitioner judge had been
afforded an opportunity to submit his case in writing
denial of opportunity of personal hearing does not
violate principles of natural justice.
 B. Fair Hearing
 Natural justice is primarily identified by fair hearing.
 While fair opportunity to be heard should be given to
the parties, the principle does not imply unless
expressly provided by the statute a right to a personal
hearing.
 When it is to be said the hearing is fair-
i. Reception of Evidence produced by person.
ii. Disclosure of Materials.
iii. Rebuttal of adverse evidence.
 i. Reception of Evidence produced by person.
 Evidence
 Evidence is considered as a most important part which is
brought before the court when both the parties are present
there and the judicial or quasi judicial authority will act upon
the evidence which is produced before the court.
 In Stafford v Minister of Health, it was held that no evidence
should be received in the absence of the other party and if
any such evidence is recorded then it is the duty of authority
to make it available to the other party.
 In  Hira Nath v Principal, it was held that this principle is not
restricted to the mainly formal evidence but any information
regarding previous conviction on which court may rely
without giving a chance to the affected party to deny it.
 ii. Disclosure of Materials.

 The adjudicating must disclose all the materials placed

before it in the course of proceedings.
 Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v. CIT, 1955.
 iii. Rebuttal of adverse evidence.
A. Cross examination 
 The court should not require to reveal the person concerned or

material to be taken against him, but an opportunity is

provided them to deny the evidence. The question arises that
will witness will be cross examined
 In Kanungo & Co. v Collector of Customs, the business

property of a person was investigated and some watches were

seized by the police who was in power under the Sea Customs
Act. A person who gave the information was not allowed for
cross examination. The principle of natural justice was not
violated and the court held that principle of natural justice does
not allow the concerned person to cross examine against the
witness in the matter where goods are seized under the Sea
Custom Act.
B. Legal Representation 
 Genuinely, the representation through a legal advisor in

the authoritative arbitration isn’t considered as an

imperative piece of the reasonable hearing. Be that as it
may, in specific circumstances in the event that the
privilege to legal representation is not rejected and at that
point it adds up to infringement of natural justice.
 In J.J Mody v State of Bombay and Krishna Chandra v

Union of India, it was held that refusal of legal

representation amounts to the violation of natural justice
because the party was not able to understand the rules of
law effectively and they should get a chance of being
heard once again.
 C. Right to Know Evidence.
 In S.P. Paul v. Calcutta University, 1970, the
Calcutta High Court held that there was the
violation of Natural Justice so far as evidence of the
witnesses had been heard behind the candidate’s
back which was not known to him.
 D. Opportunity of Being heard.

 Opportunity must be given.

 Opportunity must be reasonable.