INTRODUCTION

‘Natural Justice’ is an expression of English Common Law having its origin in Jus natural (law
of Nature.) It involves the procedural requirement of fairness. In England, it was initially applied
to the courts but later projected from the judicial to the Administrative sphere. It is justice that is
simple and elementary, and fair play in action.
In fact, Arthasastra of Kautilya has a reference to natural justice. In  Ridge vs. Baldwin,

[(1964) A C 40], the observance of natural justice was made applicable to the entire range of
administrative action. The purpose of Natural Justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice
and hence is applicable to administrative inquiries. It was held that if there is no specific
provision or rule to follow these principles, before taking action against an individual, the Court
would read into the provision the requirement of natural Justice.
PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE 
Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the Courts as being the
minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be
adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting
those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice.

Natural Justice recognizes three principles:

1. 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.
2. Audi alterem partem – This means ‘hear alternate party ‘ i.e., ‘no one should be
condemned unheard’.
3. 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.
▪ 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.
▪ 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. In the case of A.K Kraipak vs Union of India [A.I.R. (1970) S.C.

150] (not a declaration case). 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.
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, In Nawahkhan vs. State of

Gujrat. [A.I.R. (1974) SC 1471] an order of externment was passed against the Petitioner
on September 5, 1967, under the Bombay Police Act, 1951. In contravention of the said order,
the Petitioner entered the forbidden area on September 17, Q67 and was therefore prosecuted for
the same. During the pendency of the criminal case, the order of externment was quashed by the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution on July, 16. 1968. The trial Court acquitted the
Petitioner but the High Court convicted him because according to the High Court, contravention
of the externment order took place when the Order was still operative and was not quashed by
the High Court. Reversing the decision of the High Court, the Supreme Court held that as the
externment order was held to be illegal and unconstitutional was of no effect and the Petitioner
was never guilty of flouting an order which never legally existed. Krishna Iyer.J, rightly
observed that nullity is the consequence of unconstitutionally and so without going into the
larger issue and its plural divisions, we may roundly conclude that the order of an administrative
authority charged with the duty of complying with natural justice in the exercise of power before
restricting the fundamental right of a citizen is void ab initio and of no legal efficacy. An order is
null and void if the statute clothing the administrative tribunal with power conditions it with the
obligation to hear, expressly or by implication.
In answering the question as to what relief the individual is entitled to at the hands of the court
when the failure of natural justice has occurred, it is that pragmatic considerations should prevail
rather than trying to answer the question by applying such obtuse words as “void” and
“voidable” or conceptual logic. The cases do not depict a uniform approach in the matter of
giving ultimate relief by the court when the failure of natural justice including giving of reasons
has occurred. In the matter of failure of Audi alteram partem the courts have adopted any of the
three alternatives as the justice of the situation demanded— simply quashing the order, not
quashing the order but maintaining the status quo and directing the government to give a hearing,
and finally not only quashing but prohibiting the government from reconsidering the matter.
Further, the Supreme Court has wavered in giving further relief naturally flowing from the
quashing of the order. As far as failure to give reasons is concerned, where the reasons have
neither been supplied to the party nor to the court, the task of the judiciary is somewhat easy. The
courts have more or less quashed the administrative order. In such a case, there is not the only
failure of natural justice but the non-communication of reasons may be indicative of the fact that
the authority has not applied its mind to the matter. Where, however, the reasons have been
given to the court, though not to the party, the cases do not depict a uniform approach. In a
number of cases, the court has upheld the administrative order once it is satisfied that the reasons
placed before the court justified the same. There are a few cases also to the contrary. Here
perhaps the matter may have to be decided on the basis of justice but the concept of justice is a
fluid and fleeing one.