AJEENKYA DY PATIL UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF LAW
PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Prof. Nagesh Sawant Sunanda Jain
Assistant Professor B.A. LL.B (5th Year)
School of Law 2018-B-17061999C
Concept and doctrine of Principles of Natural Justice and its appliance in Justice delivery
system is not new. It seems to be as aged as the system of dispensation of justice itself. It has by
now assumed the importance of being, so to say, "an essential inbuilt component" of the
mechanism, through which decision making process passes, in the matters touching the rights
and liberty of the people. It is no doubt, a procedural requirement but it ensures a strong
safeguard against any Judicial or administrative; order or action, adversely affecting the
substantive rights of the individuals. 'Natural Justice' is an expression of English common law.
Aristotle, before the era of Christ, spoke of such principles calling it as universal law. Justinian
in the fifth and sixth Centuries A.D. called it "'jura naturalia" i.e Natural Law.

It is said that principles of natural justice is of very early origin and was known to Greek and
Romans. The Principles were acknowledged as early as in the days of Adam and of Kautilya’s
Arthashastra. According to the Bible, when Adam & Eve ate the fruit of knowledge, which was
forbidden by God, the latter did not pass sentence on Adam before he was called upon to defend
himself. Same thing was repeated in case of Eve. Later on, the principle of natural justice was
accepted by English Jurist to be so essential as to over-ride all laws. In India, this concept was
introduced at an early time. In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election
Commissioner, the court held that the concept of fairness should be in every action whether it is
judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative and or quasi-administrative work.

The principles of natural justice were related with a few ‘accepted rules’ which have been
fabricated up and prominent over a long period of time. The word ‘Natural Justice’ establishes
justice according to one’s own morality. Natural justice simply means to make a sensible and
reasonable decision making procedure on a particular issue. Sometimes, it doesn’t matter what
is the reasonable decision but in the end, what matters is the procedure and who all are engaged
in taking the reasonable decision. It is not restricted within the concept of ‘fairness’ it has
different colours and shades which vary from the context.

Natural justice consists of three rules:

1. Nemo judex in causa sua - No one should be made a judge in his own cause or the rule
against bias. It is also called as the ‘doctrine of bias’ as the judge may have a prejudice
in the case. It has been pithily put by Sir Edward Coke, namely, Vacate, Interrogate and
 Judicate, i.e., call, question, and adjudicate. However, this concept has undergone lot of
changes in recent times, but fundamental still stands the same.
2. Audi alteram partem - Hear the other party or the rule of fair hearing or the rule that no
one should be condemned unheard. In other words, No person accused of any charge or
likely to suffer any civil consequences, must be adjudged unless and until he is aware of
the proceedings together with a notice thereon and an opportunity to present his case
fully.
3. Reasoned Decisions- Speaking Orders It is an order speaking for itself and giving
reasons. Lord Denning says, the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good
administration.

NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA

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 be himself has some Interest, may be pecuniary or
otherwise. Pecuniary interest affords the strongest proof against impartiality. The
emphasis is on the objectivity in dealing with and deciding a matter.

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.

I. RULE AGAINST BIAS (NEMO JUDEX CAUSA SUA)

Bias means an operative prejudice, whether conscious or unconscious in relation

to a party or issue. The rule against bias flows from following two principles: -

➔ No one should be a judge in his own cause

➔ Justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly
be seen to be done.

Thus a judge should not only be impartial but should be in a position to apply his
mind objectively to the dispute before him. The rule against bias thus has two
 main aspects: -

1. The administrator exercising adjudicatory powers must not have any

personal or proprietary interest in the outcome of the proceedings.
2. There must be real likelihood of bias. Real likelihood of bias is a
subjective term, which means either actual bias or a reasonable suspicion
of bias. 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 factor was likely to have been biased.

Bias can take many forms: -

● Personal Bias
● Pecuniary Bias
● Subject-matter bias
● Departmental bias
● Pre-conceived notion bias

Following cases have been seen under the light of the principle of ‘Nemo Judex in causa
sua’:

A.K.Kraipak Vs. UOI

In this case, Naquishband, who was the acting Chief Conservator of Forests, was a
member of the Selection Board and was also a candidate for selection to All India cadre
of the Forest Service. Though he did not take part in the deliberations of the Board when
his name was considered and approved, the SC held that `there was a real likelihood of a
bias for the mere presence of the candidate on the Selection Board may adversely
influence the judgement of the other members'

SC also made the following observations: -

1. The dividing line between an administrative power and quasi-judicial power is

quite thin and is being gradually obliterated. Whether a power is Administrative
or quasi-judicial, one has to look into –
 a. the nature of power conferred
b. the person on whom it is conferred
c. the framework of the law conferring that power
d. the manner in which that power is expected to be exercised.
2. The principles of natural justice also apply to administrative proceedings,
3. The concept of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and it entails –
a. No one shall be a judge of his own cause.
b. No decision shall be given against a party without affording him a
reasonable hearing.
c. The quasi-judicial enquiries should be held in good faith and not
arbitrarily or unreasonably.

J.Mohopatra & Co. Vs, State of Orissa

SC quashed the decision of the Textbooks' selection committee because some of its
members were also the authors of the books, which were considered for selection. The
Court concluded that withdrawal of person at the time of consideration of his books is
not sufficient as the element of quid pro quo with other members cannot be eliminated.

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Haryana

Issue

Whether the selection of candidate would vitiate for bias if close relative of a members
of the Public Service Commission is appearing for selection?

Held

The SC laid down the following propositions: -

1. Such member must withdraw altogether from the entire selection process
otherwise all selection would be vitiated on account of reasonable likelihood of
bias affecting the process of selection
2. This is not applicable in case of Constitutional Authority like PSC whether
Central or State. This is so because if a member was to withdraw altogether from
 the selection process, no other person save a member can be substituted in his
place and it may sometimes happen that no other member is available to take the
place of such a member and the functioning of PSC may be affected.
3. In such a case, it is desirable that the member must withdraw from participation
in interview of such a candidate and he should also not take part in the
discussions.

AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM

It is the basic concept of principle of natural justice. The expression audi alteram partem
implies that a person must be given opportunity to defend himself. This principle is sine
qua non of every civilized society.

This rule covers various stages through which administrative adjudication pasees
starting from notice to final determination. Right to fair hearing thus includes:-

1. Right to notice
2. Right to present case and evidence
3. Right to rebut adverse evidence
a. Right to cross examination
b. Right to legal representation
4. Disclosure of evidence to party
5. Report of enquiry to be shown to the other party
6. Reasoned decisions or speaking orders

MANEKA GANDHI Vs. UOI

Facts

In this case the passport dated 01.06.1976 of the petitioner, a journalist, was impounded
`in the public interest' by an order dated 02.07.1977. The Govt. declined to furnish her
the reasons for its decision. She filed a petition before the SC under article 32
challenging the validity of the impoundment order. She was also not given any
pre-decisional notice and hearing.
Argument by the Govt.

The Govt. argued that the rule of audi alteram partem must be held to be excluded
because otherwise it would have frustrated the very purpose of impounding the passport.

Held

The SC held that though the impoundment of the passport was an administrative action
yet the rule of fair hearing is attracted by the necessary implication and it would not be
fair to exclude the application of this cardinal rule on the ground of administrative
convenience. The court did not outright quash the order and allowed the return of the
passport because of the special socio-political factors attending the case.

The technique of post decisional hearing was developed in order to balance these factors
against the requirements of law, justice and fairness. The court stressed that a fair
opportunity of being heard following immediately the order impounding the passport
would satisfy the mandate of natural justice.

The same technique of validating void administrative decision by post decisional

hearing was adopted in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Vs. UOI . Under section 15 of IDRA, an
undertaking can be taken over after making an investigation into its affairs. But u/s 18-
AA, a take over w/o an investigation is permitted where `immediate' action is required.
The court validated the order of the govt. which had been passed in violation of the rule
of audi alteram partem because the govt. had agreed to give post-decisional hearing. The
ratio of the majority decision was as follows: -

1. Pre-decisional hearing may be dispensed with in an emergent situation where

immediate action is required to prevent some imminent danger or injury or
hazard to paramount public interest.
2. Mere urgency is, however, no reason for exclusion of audi alteram partem rule.
The decision to exclude pre-decisional hearing would be justiciable.
3. Where pre-decisional hearing is dispensed with, there must be a provision for
post-decisional remedial hearing.

H.L.TREHAN Vs. UOI,

 A circular was issued by the Govt. on taking over the company prejudicially altering the
terms and conditions of its employees w/o affording an opportunity of hearing to them.
The SC observed that "In our opinion, the post decisional opportunity of hearing does
not subserve the rules of natural justice. The authority who embarks upon a
post-decisional hearing will normally proceed with a closed mind and there is hardly
any chance of getting proper consideration of the representation at such a post
decisional hearing." Thus it was observed that in every case where pre-decisional
hearing is warranted, post-decisional hearing will not validate the action except in very
exceptional circumstances.

REASONED DECISION

Three Grounds on which a reasoned decision stands are:

1. The party aggrieved has the opportunity to demonstrate before the appellate or
revisional court that the reasons which persuaded the authority to reject his case
were erroneous;
2. The obligation to record reasons operates as a deterrent against possible arbitrary
action by the executive authority invested with judicial power; and
3. It gives satisfaction to the party against whom the order is made.

The power to refuse to disclose reasons in support of the order is of an exceptional

nature and it ought to be exercised fairly, sparingly and only when fully satisfied by the
exigencies of uncommon situations. The principles of natural justice have for some time
past, come into common use in our country. But it is difficult to ascertain from the law
reports or other source as to how these principles came to be applied in the field of
Industrial Law. There is no legal provision found anywhere which prescribes them.

The Patna High Court in Raj Kishore Prasad Jaiswal v Subak Narain, had aptly
observed:

“It is well-established rule of law that rule of natural justice is applied only where the
law itself is silent and is not inconsistent with what it provides, but where any provision
as to the rule of natural justice is expressly or by necessary implication negatived by law
 that cannot be a ground for holding that the enactment giving that law is ultra vires or
unconstitutional”. The Principles of natural justice are enforceable on all courts of law,
general or special, all tribunals statutory or otherwise, and all persons or bodies
exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function by statute or by agreement between the
parties. This applies equally to any domestic enquiry.

Sri S. Chakravarthi, in his book “Natural Justice”, has very aptly summarised the constituents
of the rules of natural justice. They are:

● Substantial requirement of justice shall not be violated.

● The tribunal must give both the parties an opportunity of being heard and stating their
case and view.
● Notice to be given to the parties about when the judge will proceed with the matter.
● The tribunal should act honestly and impartially.
● Must not be at the dictation of others to whom no authority has been given by law.
● There must not be malversation of any kind.
● A person cannot be a judge in his own cause.
● The least bias or prejudice on the part of the person deciding the cause will vitiate the
order.

The requirements of natural justice come from general administrative law, not the particular
statute being administered. Many statutes do, however, spell out procedures that must be
followed when making decisions; for example, the statute might stipulate who is entitled to
notice, when notice should be given and in what form, what kind of hearing is to be given, and
how much time is allowed for a person to respond.

Natural justice imposes similar requirements, independently of the statute. If the statutory
procedures are equivalent or superior to what natural justice would require, compliance with the
statutory procedures will also satisfy the requirements of natural justice. On the other hand, if
the statutory procedures fall short of what natural justice would require, the question of whether
the statute establishes a complete procedural code arises.

A statute that deals exhaustively with decision-making procedures might be read as implicitly
excluding natural justice, but the law leans against that interpretation. If natural justice is not
excluded its requirements operate alongside the statutory procedures and supplement them. This
means it might not be sufficient to comply only with the statutory procedures if natural justice
requires more. For example, if the legislation allows a person to make a submission at a
particular time and further relevant material is later received that is adverse to the person who
made the submission, natural justice allows them to read and comment on the new material

before a decision is made. Natural justice requires this additional procedure, even if the
statutory procedures do not mention it.