Administrative Law
Administrative Law
Assignment
Session 2020-21
Class – B.com LLB
Semester – 6
Subject – ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Topic – NATURAL JUSTICE
Roll no. – 70
Submitted to - Submitted by –
Mr. GULAB RAI VISHAL SINGH
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher
Mr. GULAB RAI who gave me the golden opportunity to do this
wonderful project on the topic “NATURAL JUSTICE which
also helped in doing a lot of research and I came to know about so
many new things and I am really thankful to them.
---VISHAL SINGH
NATURAL JUSTICE
INTRODUCTION:-
Natural justice is an expression of English common law, and involves a
procedural requirement of fairness. The principles of natural justice have great
significance in the study of Administrative law. It is also known has substantial
justice or fundamental justice or Universal justice or fair play in action. The
principles of natural justice are not embodied rules and are not codified. They
are judge made rules and are regarded has counterpart of the American
procedural due process.
Definition:
There is no precise and scientific definition of natural justice. However, the
principles of natural justice are being acceptable and enforced. Different
judges, lawyers and Scholars define it in various ways. In Vionet v. Barrett [1],
Lord Esher M.R has defined it as the natural sense of what is right and wrong.
Later, he had chosen to define natural justice as fundamental justice in a
subsequent case (Hopkins v. Smethwick Local Board Of health) [2]. Lord Parker
has defined it as duty act fairly. Mr. Justice Bhagwati has taken it as fair play in
action. Article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution has strengthened the
concept of natural justice.
Rule against bias or bias of interest- the term bias means anything which tends
to or may be regarded as tending to cause such a person to decide a case
otherwise than on evidence must be held to be biased. In simple words, bias
means deciding a case otherwise than on the principles of evidence.
The above rules make it clear that judiciary must be free from bias and should
deliver pure and impartial justice. Judges must act judicially and decide the
case without considering anything other than the principles of evidence.
A company filed a suit against a landowner. Lord Chancellor (judge), who was a
shareholder of the plaintiff company heard the case and decided in favour of
the company. On appeal, the House of Lords quashed this decision on the
ground that no man shall be judge of his own cause. R. v. Hendon Rural District
Council, Ex parte charley [5].
In this case, one of the members of the planning commission was an estate
agent and he was acting for the applicant to whom permission was granted by
the planning commission. The decision of the planning commission granting
the permission was quashed on the ground of pecuniary bias.
Jeejeebhoy v. Asst. Collector [6]. In this case, 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.
2. Personal Bias:
Personal bias arises from near and dear i.e. from friendship, relationship,
business or professional association. Such relationship disqualifies a person
from acting as a judge. Relevant cases on this point is A.k. kripak v. Union of
India [8]. The Supreme Court quashed the selections made by the selection
board on the ground that one of the candidates appeared before selection
committee was also a member of the selection board.
Meenglass Tea Estate v. Their Workmen [9]. In this case, the manager of the
factory conducted inquiry against the workmen who were alleged to have
assaulted him. The court disqualified the manager on the ground of personal
bias.
The Supreme Court held the government secretary's action invalid. K. Chelliah
v. Chairman, Industrial Finance Corporation [14]. In this case, the disciplinary
action against an employee was taken by the chairman of the corporation.
There was statutory provision for the appeal from the chairman to the board
of directors. The chairman was also a member of the board of directors.
The chairman participated in the meeting of the board in which the appeal was
considered. The order of the board was quashed on the ground of bias. The
presence of the chairman in the meeting of the board in which the appeal was
considered created a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the party that
there was real likelihood of bias. Lavanya v. Osmania University (1999) A.P
[15].
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. Relevant case on this point is Punjab National Bank v. All
India Bank Employees Federation [16].
In this case, notice did not contain the charges against which fine was imposed.
The Supreme Court held that the notice defective and quashed the fine.
Similarly in R. v. University of Cambridge (Dr. Bentley's case)[17]. In this case,
the University authorities without giving any notice cancelled the degree of Dr.
Bentley on the ground of misconduct. The University's action was held violative
of the principle of natural justice. R. v. Newmarket Assessment Committee
[18].
Brief facts: The municipality issued a notice to the house owner stating that
it was going to tax the house at the rate of 2, 5001 pounds per year and also
stated that if the owner consented to it, he need not attend before
Assessment Committee. The house owner did not attend. Later the municipal
committee enhanced the tax to @ 4,500 pounds without giving any notice.
Judgment- the House of Lords quashed the municipal assessment order in the
writ of certiorari.
In this case, the petitioner appeared for the examination. But the board,
without giving a notice cancelled the examination on the ground of the
shortage of attendance. The petitioner was not given an opportunity of being
heard. The board contended that giving show cause notice would not serve the
purpose since the evidence (shortage of attendance) is borne on the record.
The Supreme Court rejected the contention of the board and held the action
violative of principle 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.
Ingredients of fair hearing: a hearing will be treated as fair
hearing if the following conditions are satisfied:
Adjudicating authority receives all the relevant material produced by the
individual
The adjudicating authority discloses the individual concerned evidence or
material which it wishes to use against him
The adjudicating authority providing the person concerned an opportunity to
rebut the evidence or material which they said authority wants to use against
him
So at all the stages of the procedure if any authority is given off the
judicial function is not purely accepted but the main motive of the
principal is to prevent the miscarriage of justice. It is supreme to note
that any decision or order which violates the natural justice will be
declared as null and void in nature, hence one must carry in mind that
the principles of natural justice are essential for any administrative
settlement to be held valid.