FACULTY OF LAW

UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD
BALLB- IV Semester

NAME: AADRIKA PARASHAR

ROLL NO: 01

SECTION: A

SEMESTER: IV

SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

COURSE: BALLB-(H)

TOPIC : PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN INDIA: ITS SCOPE AND

EVOLUTION

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY
Mr. Sushant Chandra Aadrika Parashar
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I express my sincere thanks and gratitude towards Mr. Sushant Chandra for giving
me an opportunity and guidance to complete this project.

I would also like to thank my family and friends for their help and cordial support
throughout the completion of the project. This work on PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL
JUSTICE IN INDIA: ITS SCOPE AND EVOLUTION could not have been completed
without their constant support.

Though the project has been done with all due care and sincere attention, I take the
responsibility of any mistake that might be found in it.

Thank you!!
 INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION

2. NEMO DEBET ESSE JUDEX IN PROPRIA SUA CAUSA

. RULE AGAINST BIAS

i) Personal Bias
ii) Subject-matter Bias
iii) Departmental Bias
iv) Pecuniary Bias

3. AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM

4. Exception to the rule against bias : Doctrine of Necessity

5. SPEAKING ORDER

6. CONCLUSION

7. REFERENCES
 PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE: ITS SCOPE AND
EVOLUTION

INTRODUCTION

Natural justice has found its origin in the early Greek and Roman empires, being acknowledged even
in Kautilya’s Arthashastra. In more ways than others, the Indian concept of dharma is similar to the
concept of natural justice. All powers of the State including executive, legislative and judicial were
maintained by the king. Therefore it was on the king to reform and create the Code of law to
maintain peace and equality in the State. Indian emperor Ashok laid down the important rules as to
what nature of justice should be. He had great concern for fairness in the exercise of justice, caution
and tolerance in application of sentences, etc. Similarly the great Babylonian king Hammurabi
ensured the obligations of officials by ruling that “any judge who reaches an incorrect decision is to
be fined and removed from the bench permanently”.

Evidently, principles of natural justice are not a new invention however it isn’t man made either. It
has been derived from our core moral conscience and built upon by several philosophers, jurists,
kings and teachers. Aristotle being the biggest proponent of natural justice as support for a virtuous
existence that advances lives of individuals and promotes perfect community; people should employ
practical wisdom or active reason to be consistent with a virtuous existence.

However, in the case of A.K. Gopalan V. State of Madras1, the relief was not granted on the ground
of violation of principles of natural justice. It was held that the Indian Constitution followed the
“procedures established by law” and not “ due process of law”. It was in the case of Maneka
Gandhi V. Union of India2, that the Supreme Court accepted the due process of law which meant
that even the procedures established under law should qualify on the grounds of being just, fair and
reasonable.

Accordingly even though person has committed a wrongful act he must be heard before sentenced,
specially where decision affecting liberty or property is to be made fair opportunity of hearing must
be provided, for this reason whatever the meaning of natural justice may have been, and still is to
other people, the common law lawyers have used the term in a technical manner to mean that in
certain circumstances decisions affecting the rights of citizens must only be reached after a fair
hearing has been given to the individual concerned. And in this context fair hearing requires two
things, namely, NEMO DEBET ESSE JUDEX IN PROPRIA SUA CAUSA and AUDI
ALTERAM PARTEM.

1.AIR 1950 SC 27
2.AIR 1978 SC 597
 1. NEMO DEBET ESSE JUDEX IN PROPRIA SUA CAUSA (Rule against bias)

The first principle is that 'No man shall be a judge in his own cause' i.e. to say, the deciding authority
must be impartial and without bias. It Implies that no man can act as a judge for a cause in which he
himself has some Interest, may be pecuniary or otherwise. Pecuniary interest affords the strongest
proof against impartiality. The emphasis is on objectivity in dealing with and deciding a matter.
Justice Gajendragadkar, as then he was, observed in a case reported in M/s Builders Supply
Corporation v. The Union of India and ors.1, “it is obvious that pecuniary interest, however small
it may be, In a subject matter of the proceedings, would wholly disqualify a member from acting as a
judge". Lord Hardwick observed in one of the cases, “In a matter of so tender a nature, even the
appearance of evil is to be avoided." Yet it has been laid down as principle of law that pecuniary
interest would disqualify a Judge to decide the matter even though it is not proved that the decision
was in any way affected. This is thus a matter of faith, which a common man must have, in the
deciding authority. The principle is applicable in such cases also where the deciding authority has
some personal Interest in the matter other than pecuniary Interest. This may be in the shape of some
personal relationship with one of the parties or ill will against any of them. In one of the cases order
of punishment was held to be vitiated, as the officer who was in the position of a complainant, could
not act as an enquiry officer or punishing authority2. There may be a possibility, consciously or
unconsciously, to uphold as an Enquiry Officer what he alleges against the delinquent officer. In
A.K.Kraipak v. Union of India3,one of the selections, which was held for the post of Chief
Conservator of Forest, one of the members of the Board was himself a candidate for the post. The
whole process of selection was held to be vitiated as the member would be a judge in his own cause.
In this case a precaution was taken by a member of the selection Board to withdraw himself from the
selection proceedings at the time his name was considered. This precaution taken could not cure the
defect of being a judge in his own cause since he had participated in the deliberations when the
names of his rival candidates were being considered for selection on merit.

The position, however, may be different when merely official capacity is involved in taking a
decision in any matter as distinguished from having a personal Interest. There are certain statutes
which provide that named officers may resolve the controversy, if any, arising between the
organisation and the other persons, e.g., in the matters relating to nationalisation of routes,
Government officers or authorities were vested with the power to dispose of the objections. In such
matters as above, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that “proceeding will not vitiate as
it was only in official capacity that the officer was involved and it would not be correct to say that he
was a judge in his own cause being an officer of the Government. It is a kind of statutory duty which
is performed by a public officer, unless of course bias is proved in any case”4.

1. AIR 1965 SC 1061

2. State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86
3. AIR 1970 SC 150
4. Narayanappa v. State of Mysore, AIR 1960 SC 1073
 In another case reported in Manak Lal v. Prem Chand1, where a committee was constituted to
enquire into the complaint made against an Advocate, the Chairman of the Committee was one who
had once appeared earlier as counsel for the complainant. Constitution of such a committee was held
to be bad and it was observed, "in such cases the test is not whether in fact the bias has affected the
Judgment; the test always is and must be whether a litigant could reasonably apprehend that a bias
attributed to a member of the Tribunal might have operated against him in the final decision of the
Tribunal." However, such objections about the constitution of committees or Tribunals consisting of
members having bias should be taken at the earliest opportunity before start of the proceedings
otherwise, normally, it would be considered as waiver to that objection.

RULE AGAINST BIAS

‘Bias’ means an operative prejudice whether conscious or unconscious in relation to a party or issue.
Therefore, the ‘Rule Against Bias’ strikes against those factors which may improperly influence a
judge in arriving at a deci-sion in any particular case. The requirement of this principle is that the
judge must be impartial and must decide the case objectively on the basis of the evidence on record.
Therefore if a person, for whatever reason, cannot take an objective decision on the basis of evidence
on record he shall be said to be biased. A person cannot take an objective decision in a case in which
he/she has an interest for, as human psychology tells us, very rarely can people take decisions against
their own interests. This rule of disqualification is applied not only to avoid the possibility of a
partial decision but also to ensure public confidence in the impartiality of the administrative
adjudicatory process because not only must “no man be judge in his/her own cause” but also “justice
should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”. Minimal
requirement of natural justice is that the authority must be composed of impartial persons acting
fairly and without prejudice and bias. A decision which is a result of bias is a nullity and the trial is
“Coram non-judice”. Inference of bias, therefore, can be drawn only on the basis of factual matrix
and not merely on the basis of insinuations, conjectures and surmises. Bias manifests variously and
may affect the decision in a variety of ways.

● PERSONAL BIAS

Personal Bias arises from a certain relationship equation between the deciding authority and the
parties which incline him/her unfavourably or other-wise on the side of one of the parties before
him/her. Such equations may develop out of varied forms of personal or professional hostility or
friendship. However, no exhaustive list is possible.

However, in order to challenge administrative action successfully on the ground of ‘personal bias’, it
is essential to prove that there is a “reasonable suspicion of bias” or a “real likelihood of bias”.
“Reasonable suspicion” test looks mainly at outward appearance, and the “real likelihood” test
focuses on the court’s own evaluation of possibilities; but in practice the tests have much. in
common with one another and in the vast majority of cases they will lead to the same result. In this
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 the deciding officer was likely to have been biased. In deciding the question of bias judges have

1.AIR 1957 SC 425

to take into consideration the human possibilities and the ordinary course of human conduct. But
there must be real likelihood of bias and not mere suspicion of bias before the proceedings can be
quashed on the ground that the person conducting the proceedings is disqualified by bias. The
apprehension must be Techniques of Law judged from a healthy, reasonable and average point of
view.

● SUBJECT-MATTER BIAS

Any interest or prejudice will disqualify a judge from hearing the case. When the adjudicator or the
judge has general interest in the subject matter in dispute on account of his association with the
administration or private body, he will be disqualified on the ground of bias if he has intimately
identified himself with the issues in dispute. To disqualify on the ground there must be intimate and
direct connection between the adjudicator and the issues in dispute. Now the question is, whether
this principle can be extended to administrative adjudication also. In the case of G. Nageswara Rao
v. A.P.SRTC 1, the Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Andhra Pradesh Government,
nationalizing road transport on the ground that the Secretary of the Transport Department who gave
hearing was interested in the subject-matter.

● DEPARTMENTAL BIAS

The problem of ‘departmental bias’ is something which is inherent in the administrative process, and
if it is not effectively checked, it may negate the very concept of fairness in the administrative
proceeding. The problem of ‘departmental bias’ also arises in a different context, when the functions
of judge and prosecutor are combined in the same department. It is not uncommon to find that the
same department which initiates a matter also decides it, therefore, at times departmental fraternity
and loyalty militates against the concept of fair hearing.

● PECUNIARY BIAS

Pecuniary bias arises, when the adjudicator/ judge has monetary/ economic interest in the subject
matter of the dispute/ case. The judge, while deciding a case should not have any pecuniary or
economic interest. In other words, pecuniary interest in the subject matter of litigation disqualifies a
person from acting as a judge.

In Jeejeebhoy v. Asst. Collector 2., it was found that one of the members of the bench of the court
was also a member of the co-operative society for which the disputed land had been acquired. The
bench was, hence, reconstituted.

1.AIR 1959 SC 308

2.AIR 1965 SC 1096
2. AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM (Hear the other side)

The second fundamental principle of natural justice is audi alteram partem or the rule of fair hearing.
It means no one shall be condemned unheard i.e. there must be fairness on the part of the deciding
authority.

According to this principle, reasonable opportunity must be given to a person before taking any
action against him. This rule insists that the affected person must be given an opportunity to produce
evidence in support of his case. He should disclose the evidence to be utilized against him and
should be given an opportunity to rebut the evidence produced by the other party.

Essentials of fair hearing

To constitute fair hearing, the following ingredients are to be satisfied-

● Notice
● Hearing

1. Notice: There is a duty on the part of the deciding authority to give notice to a person before
taking any action against him. The notice must be reasonable and must contain the time, place,
nature of hearing and other particulars. If the notice is defective or vague, all subsequent proceedings
would be vitiated.

In the case of Punjab National Bank v. All India Bank Employees Federation1, notice did not
contain the charges against which a fine was imposed. The Supreme Court held that the notice was
defective and quashed the fine.

The principle of natural justice must be observed irrespective of the reason, whether the purpose
would be served or not. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India2 is a leading case in personal liberty
under Article 21 of Indian Constitution. The petitioner, Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded
without giving any opportunity (by the government of India) in public interest. The Supreme Court,
thus, held the order of the government to impound the passport to be violative of the principles of
natural justice.

2. Hearing: Fair hearing in its full sense means that a person against whom an order to his prejudice
is passed should be informed of the charges against him, be given an opportunity to submit his
explanation thereto, have a right to know the evidence both oral and documentary, by which the
matter is proposed to be decided and to have the witnesses examined in his presence and have the
right to cross examine them and to lead his own evidence both oral and documentary in his defence.
It is a code of procedure, which has no definite content, but varies with the facts and circumstances
of the case.

1.AIR 1960 SC 16
2.AIR 1978 SC 597
Ingredients of fair hearing: a hearing will be treated as fair hearing if the following conditions are
satisfied:

1. Adjudicating authority receives all the relevant material produced by the individual
2. The adjudicating authority discloses the individual concerned evidence or material which it
wishes to use against him
3. The adjudicating authority providing the person concerned an opportunity to rebut the
evidence or material which they said authority wants to use against him

Exception to the rule against bias : Doctrine of Necessity

When bias is provided, it disqualifies the adjudicator and an impartial adjudicator should replace
him. However, there are certain extreme cases in which substitution/replacement of impartial
adjudicators is not possible. In such situations, the principle of natural justice, under necessity, has to
give way.

Otherwise the administration of justice breaks down and there is no other means to decide. Though
Indian courts have not expressly adopted it, this (doctrine of necessity) has been impliedly applied on
several occasions. In contempt of court, the rule that no one shall be a judge in his own cause is not
followed strictly. Similarly, in departmental enquiry in service matters the employee appoints
enquiry officer and there is every possibility that the enquiry officer acts in favour of the employer.

3.SPEAKING ORDER

The third principle which has developed in course of time is that the order which is passed affecting
the rights of an individual must be a speaking order. This is necessary with a view to exclude the
possibility of arbitrariness in the action. A bald order requiring no reason to support it may be passed
in an arbitrary and irresponsible manner. It is the title reason for passing an order, which checks the
arbitrariness. It is a step in furtherance of achieving the end where society is governed by Rule of
law. The other aspect of the matter is that the party, against whom an order is passed, in fair play,
must know the reasons for passing the order.

However, it is true that administrative authorities or tribunals are not supposed to pass detailed orders
as passed by the courts of law. They may not be very detailed and lengthy orders but they must at
least show that the mind was applied and for the reasons, however briefly they may be stated, the
order by which a party aggrieved is passed. There cannot be any prescribed form in which the order
may be passed but the minimum requirement as indicated above has to be complied with. Our
Supreme Court has many times taken the view that non-speaking order amounts to depriving a party
of a right of appeal. It has also been held in some of the decisions that the appellate authority, while
reversing the order, must assign reasons for reversal of the findings.

CONCLUSION

It is true that the principles of natural justice are flexible in application but its compliance cannot be
jumped over on the ground that even if hearing had been provided, it would not have served any
useful purpose. The opportunity of hearing will serve the purpose or not at a later stage.
To sum up, one finds that Initially the principles of natural justice used to be applied to courts of law
alone but later on from judicial sphere it extended, to the tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions
and then to the statutory authorities and the administrative authorities, who have upon them, the
responsibility of determining civil rights or obligations of the people. In normal conditions, an action
or a decision, judicial or administrative, affecting rights of an individual and resulting in civil
consequence is unthinkable. In the present day, without affording hearing by an unbiased and
impartial authority who must act objectively and must also give out his mind, as to what weighed in
the decision making process, by incorporating reasons to support the decision or, to say so, by giving
a speaking order. This is necessary for a society, which is governed by Rule of law. How substantive
laws are applied and rights are determined is a question not less important, to say it again, the
principles of -natural justice are great humanising principles intended to invest law with fairness to
secure justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice.

REFERENCES

1. https:// lexforti.com
2. https:// acadpubl.eu
3. https:// nios.ac.in
4. Massey, I.P., (9th edn.), ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, Lucknow(2017)