Principles of Natural Justice

Prof(Dr) G.B.Reddy
Dept.of Law
Osmania University,Hyderabad
[email protected]
 Principles of Natural Justice
 'Natural Justice' - an expression of English common law.
 In the English decision, Local Government Board v. Arlidge, (1915) AC 120 (138) HL
Viscount Haldane observed,
"...those whose duty it is to decide must act Judicially. They must deal with the
question referred to them without bias and they must give to each of the parties the
opportunity of adequately presenting the case made. The decision must come to the spirit
and with the sense of responsibility of a tribunal whose duty it is to meet out justice."
 Rules not generally embodied & not fixed by any code
 Developed to secure justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice
 Based on the maxim - Justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be
done
 Encompass Rule against bias & Rule of fair hearing
 Applicable to administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings
 “NaturalLaw does not mean the law of the nature or
jungle where lion eats the lamb and tiger eats the
antelope but a law in which the lion and lamb lie
down together and the tiger frisks the antelope.”
 Constitutional Foundations of
Principles of Natural Justice
 Rule against Bias: Rt.to Equality & Rule against Arbitrariness
(Art.14)
 Right to Legal representation (Art.22)
 Rule of Fair Hearing:
-Rule againt Arbitrariness u/A 14
-Procedure established by Law u/A 21
 Concept of Due Process of Law - now implicit under Art.21
 Rule of Fair Trial etc
 In India "unfair procedure" amounts to "arbitrary" and "unreasonable"
exercise of power. Such act would attract Articles 14, 19 and even 21 of
the Constitution as interpreted in State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar , S.G.
Jaisinghani v. Union of India, E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India and several other cases
 Rule of Fair Hearing
 Based on the maxim – Audi alteram partem (no man shall be
condemned unheard) – hear the other side
 Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms, states :
In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any
criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public
hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial
tribunal established by law. ...
 A base on which fair administrative procedures are built up
 Ingredients – prior notice of hearing, Opportunity to be heard,
right to disclosure of evidence, right to legal representation,
right to produce evidence, opportunity to rebut and cross
examine, one who decides must hear & reasoned decision, Post
decisional hearing
Exclusion of Rule of Fair Hearing
 May be express or implied
 By statutory provisions – eg: Urgent land acquisition
 By constitutional provisions – eg: Second proviso to
Art.311(2)
 In case of legislative acts
 Exclusion in public interest
 In case urgency/necessity
 In case of impracticability
 In case of confidentiality
 In case of academic adjudication etc
 Rule against Bias
 Originates from maxim- Nemo debet esse judex in
propria sua causa (no man can be a judge in his own cause)
 The rule disqualifies a person from deciding a dispute in which
he has- pecuniary bias; personal bias; or bias relating to subject
matter
 Includes Pre-conceived notion bias (Subjective Bias)
 Instances: personal bias -A.K.Kraipak v. UoI AIR 1970 SC 150;
pecuniary bias- Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal & Co [1852,H. of
Lords]- the decision of LC in favour of the Canal company-
quashed by H.of Lords since he was a shareholder in the co.
 See Jeejeebhoy v.Asst.Collector of Thana AIR 1965 SC 1096- Js
Gajendragadkar reconstituted the Bench for hearing a case on
the ground that he was a member of the cooperative society for
which the land in dispute was acquired.
 Rule against Bias
 the second pillar of natural justice
 requires that a decision-maker must approach a matter with an open
mind that is free of prejudgment and prejudice
 applies to a vast range of decision-makers including
tribunals, statutory authorities, court officials, juries, government
ministers, local councils, prison officials, government officials, and
even private arbitrators.
 the courts have adopted a single test to determine applications for bias -
-that of the fair minded and informed observer
 bias should be “evaluated through the eyes of the reasonable, informed,
practical and realistic person who considers the matter in some detail ...
The person postulated is not a ‘very sensitive or scrupulous' person, but
rather a right-minded person familiar with the circumstances of the
case.”
 Rule against Bias
 The rule against bias was originally founded on a principle of fairness
and accuracy in decision-making, but it is now founded on the idea
that to allow a biased tribunal to make a decision would be to
undermine public confidence in the system
 Bias relating to subject matter – Gullapalli Nageswara Rao
v.APSRTC (1959,SC) – scheme for nationalization of motor
transport notified by State Govt.-quashed since the
Secretary who initiated scheme and who heard objections
was the same
 Bias – No need of actual/real likelihood [there was a real
likelihood of a bias for the mere presence of the candidate on the Selection
Board may adversely influence the judgment of the other members’-SC in
A.k.Kraipak)
 Even reasonable likelihood is a vitiating factor
 Exceptions to the rule against bias- Necessity(when there is no
alternative),Waiver(When there is no objection by party having
knowledge of bias)
 Doctrine of Necessity as an Exception to Rule against Bias
 Necessity excludes bias
An adjudicator who is subject to disqualification on account of bias may nevertheless, can validly adjudicate if:
1) No other person competent to adjudicate is available;
2) A quorum can not be formed without him; or
3) No other competent tribunal can be constituted.
 In Ashok Kumar Yadav v State of Haryana [AIR 1987 SC 454] Supreme Court showed that
Doctrine of Necessity acts as an exception to official bias. During the selection process in Haryana
State Public Service Commission, relative of the member of the Selection Board was interviewed
and later personal relationship was alleged as a ground to strike down the decision of the Selection
Board. ….But the situation here is different as the selection of candidates to Haryana Civil Service
(Executive) and allied services, is not done by a selection committee made for the purpose but is
provided for by Article 316 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the same principle as in case of
personal relationship cannot be applied in this case. If a member of Public Service Commission
were to withdraw altogether from the selection making process on the ground that a close relative
of his appearing for selection, no other person save a member can be substituted in his place. And it
may also happen sometimes that no other member is available at all and hence functioning of Public
Service Commission may be affected. In this case hence, Supreme Court Invoked the Doctrine Of
Necessity expressly and held that the decision by the Committee valid and untarnished by any sort
of bias.
 Chinappa Reddy, J took the same stand in deciding another such similar case Javid Rasool Bhat v
State Of Jammu and Kashmir.
Old view regarding the duty to act
judicially
 In Nakkuda Ali v. Jayaratne [1951 AC 66 : 66 TLR 214] , the Controller of
Textiles cancelled a licence of a textile dealer on the ground that the
holder was unfit to continue as a dealer. Before passing the impugned
order, no hearing was afforded by the Controller. In an action against the
Controller, the Privy Council held that the action by the Controller of
cancellation of a licence was an executive action of withdrawal of
privilege and the dealer had no right to hold the licence and the
Controller was not under a duty to act judicially.
 Similarly, in R. v. Metropolitan Police Commr., ex p Parker (1953) 1 WLR
1150 : (1953) 2 All ER 717 ] a cab-driver's licence was revoked on the
ground of alleged misconduct without giving opportunity to him to
rebut the allegations. The Court upheld the order on the ground that the
licence was merely a permission which could be revoked at any time by
the grantor and in doing so, he was not required to act judicially.
From duty to act judicially to duty to act
Fairly
 But as Schwartz says, for an individual to lose his licence is to
suffer an "economic death sentence" and is wholly contrary to the
spirit of Anglo-American administrative law and this is an
unwarranted restriction upon the application of the rules of
natural justice.[Administrative Law, p. 115]
 de Smith also says:
"Demolition of a property-owner's uninhabitable house might be
for him a supportable misfortune; deprivation of a licence to trade
might mean a calamitous loss of livelihood; but the judicial flavour
detected in the former function was held to be absent from the
latter. The decision, whilst not unique, was inconsistent with the general
attitude of the English courts towards the licensing and regulation of
trades and occupations and in general towards the right to earn one's
living.“[Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 1980, p. 172.]
 Effect of Breach of Natural Justice
 The action in violation of breach of natural justice– void
 In exceptional cases – post decisional hearing can be given
 the principles – initially 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.
 "acting fairly" is an additional weapon in the armoury of the court. It is
not intended to be substituted for another much more powerful
weapon "acting judicially". Where, however, the former ("acting
judicially") cannot be wielded, the court will try to reach injustice by
taking resort to the latter—less powerful weapon ("acting fairly").

 Administrators- bound to follow the Principles of Natural Justice while taking a