UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES, PANJAB

UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

TOPIC- APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE

SUBMITTED BY- SUBMITTED TO-

FIZA CHOUDHARY DR. SHALLU

SECTION A- BA.LLB (HONS)
ROLL NO- 57
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, I am thankful to God who blessed me with patience and strength to complete the
Project Report on the topic “Application of the principle of natural justice:” with
hopefully good results. I express my sincere regards to Dr. Rajinder Kaur, Director,
University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh. I also express a deep
sense of gratitude towards Dr. Shallu of University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab
University, Chandigarh for encouraging and providing me an opportunity to prepare this
project. I am immensely grateful to my friends and batchmates for their guidance and
unfailing support in the completion of my project. I also acknowledge our indebtedness and
gratitude to my parents for being a constant source of support and inspiration to me.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE NO.

WHAT IS NATURAL JUSTICE 1-2

RULE AGAINST BIAS 2-4
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM OR THE 4-7
RULE OF FAIR HEARING (HEAR THE
OTHER SIDE)
REASONED DECISIONS OR SPEAKING 7
ORDERS
EXCLUSION TO THE APPLICATION OF 7-11
PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE
CONCLUSION 12
REFERENCES 13
 WHAT IS NATURAL JUSTICE?

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
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. Barrett1, 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 health2. 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.

Basis of the application of the principle of natural justice:

The principles of natural justice, originated from common law in England are based on two
Latin maxims, (which were drawn from jus natural).

In simple words, English law recognizes three principles of natural justice as stated below-

1. Nemo Judex in causa sua or Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa or Rule
against bias (No man shall be a judge in his own cause).

2. Audi Alteram partem or the rule of fair hearing (hear the other side).

1
(1885) 55 LJ RB 39
2
(1890) 24 QB 713

1
 3. Reasoned Decision which states that order, decision, or judgement of the court given
by the Presiding authorities with a valid and reasonable ground.

1.1 RULE AGAINST BIAS

1. Personal bias

Personal bias arises from a relation between the party and deciding authority. Which lead the
deciding authority in a doubtful situation to make an unfair activity and give judgement in
favour of his person. Such equations arise due to various forms of personal and professional
relations.

In order to challenge the administrative action successfully on the ground of personal bias, it
is necessary to give a reasonable reason for bias.

In Ramanand Prasad Singh vs. UOI3, Supreme court held that one of the members of the
panel of selection committee his brother was a candidate in the competition but due to this,
the whole procedure of selection cannot be quashed. Here, to avoid the act of biases at the
turn of his brother respective panel member connected with the candidate can be requested to
go out from the panel of the selection committee. So, a fair and reasonable decision can be
made.

2. Pecuniary bias

The judicial approach is unanimous and decisive on the point that any financial interest,
howsoever small it may be, would vitiate administrative action. The disqualification will not
be avoided by non-participation of the biased member in the proceedings if he/she was
present. The Supreme Court in a case quashed the decision of the Textbook Selection
Committee because some of its members were also authors of books which were considered
for selection when the decision was reached.

3
1996 SCC (4) 64

2
 3. Subject matter bias

When directly or indirectly the deciding authority is involved in the subject matter of a
particular case.

Muralidhar vs. Kadam Singh4 The court refused to quash the decision of Election tribunal
on the ground that the chairman’s wife was a member of Congress party whom the petitioner
defeated.

4. 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.

5. Preconceived Notion Bias

‘Bias’ arising out of preconceived notions is a very delicate problem of administrative law.
On the one hand, no judge as human being is expected to sit as a blank sheet of paper, on the
other, preconceived notions would vitiate a fair trial. The problem of bias arising from
preconceived notions may have to be disposed of as an inherent limitation of the
administrative process. It is useless to accuse a public officer of bias merely because he is
predisposed in favour of some policy in the public interest. Bias would also not disqualify an
officer from taking an action if no other person is competent to act in his place. This
limitation is grounded on the doctrine of necessity

Exception to the rule against bias or the Doctrine of Necessity.

When bias is provided, it disqualified the adjudicator and an impartial adjudicator should

4
AIR1954 MP III

3
 replace him. However, there are certain extreme cases in which substitution/replacement of
impartial adjudicator is not possible. In such situations, the principle of natural justice, under
necessity must give way.

The doctrine of necessity is the basis on which extraordinary actions by administrative

authority, which are designed to restore order or uphold fundamental constitutional
principles, are considered to be lawful even if such an action contravenes established
constitution, laws, norms, or conventions. The doctrine of necessity may also refer to the
necessity of a judge with a reasonable apprehension of bias continuing to decide a
matter if there is no alternative to that judge.

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 in 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 employer.

1.2 AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM OR THE RULE OF FAIR HEARING (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 be disclosed 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-

1. Notice
2. Hearing

4
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 Federation5 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)6. 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 Committee7-
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.

• Object of Notice: the object of notice is to provide an opportunity to the person so that
he can equip himself to defend his case. Any order passed without giving a notice is
against the principles of natural justice and is void ab initio. In Board of High School
v. Kumari Chitra8, 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.

5
AIR 1960 SC 16
6
(1723) 1 Str. 757
7
1945 ALL ER
8
AIR 1970 SC 1039

5
 • 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 India9. It 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 held that the order of the government violative of the principles of
natural justice and laid down the following propositions:

1. The adjudicating authority must not be partial and without any interest or bias

2. The adjudicating authority, whether judicial or quasi-judicial cannot delegate or sub

delegate its power (the power to decide the case should not be delegated)

3. The adjudicating authority must disclose all the material placed before it and must
give reasonable opportunity to the affected interest to submit their case

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:

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

9
AIR 1978 SC 597

6
 1.3 REASONED DECISIONS OR SPEAKING ORDERS

The third principle of Natural Justice 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
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 of passing such order. It has a right to know the reasons. The orders
against which appeals are provided must be speaking orders. Otherwise, the aggrieved party
will not be able to demonstrate before the appellate authority as to in which manner, the order
passed by the initial authorities is bad or suffers from illegality. To a very great extent, in such
matters bald orders render the remedy of appeal nugatory.

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, howsoever
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. The Supreme Court has many times taken the view
that non-speaking order amounts to depriving a party of a right of appeal.

EXCLUSION TO THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE

Application of the Principles of Natural Justice can be excluded either expressly or by

necessary implication subject to the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Therefore, if the Statute, expressly or by necessary implication, precludes the rules of natural
justice it will not suffer invalidation on the ground of arbitrariness.

1. Exclusion in Emergency

In exceptional cases of emergency where prompt preventive or remedial action, is needed, the
requirement of notice and hearing may be obviated. Such as, in situations where a dangerous
building is to be demolished, or a company must be wound up to save depositors. However,

7
the administrative determination of an emergency calling for the exclusion of rules of natural
justice is not final. The courts may review the determination of such a situation. Natural
Justice is pragmatically flexible and is amenable to capsulation under compulsive pressure of
circumstances.

It is in this context that the Supreme Court observed: “Natural Justice must be confined
within their proper limits and must not be allowed to run wild. The concept of Natural Justice
is a magnificent thoroughbred on which this Nation gallops forward towards its proclaimed
and destined goal of justice social, economic, and political.

2. Exclusion in Cases of Confidentiality

In a case the Supreme Court held that the maintenance of surveillance register by the police is
a confidential document. Neither the person whose name is entered in the register nor any
other member of the public can have access to it. Furthermore, the court observed that the
observance of the principles of natural justice in such situation may defeat the very purpose
of surveillance and Techniques of Law there is every possibility of the ends of justice being
defeated instead of being served.

Same principle was followed in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India10 where the Supreme Court
held that no opportunity of being heard can be given to an Additional Judge of a High Court
before his name is dropped from being confirmed. It may be pointed out that in a country like
India surveillance may provide a very serious constraint on the liberty of the people,
therefore, the maintenance of the surveillance register cannot be so utterly administrative and
non-judicial that it is difficult to conceive the application of the rules of natural justice.

3. Exclusion in case of routine matters

A student of the university was removed from the rolls for unsatisfactory academic
performance without giving any pre-decisional hearing. The Supreme Court held that the
very nature of academic adjudication appears to negative any right of an opportunity to be
heard. Therefore, if the competent academic authorities examine and assess the work of a
student over a period and declare his work unsatisfactory, the rules of natural justice may be

10
AIR 1982 SC 149

8
excluded. In the same manner when the Commission cancelled the examination of the
candidate because, in violation of rules, the candidate wrote his roll number on every page of
the answer, the Supreme Court held that the principles of natural justice are not attracted.
Court observed that the rule of hearing is strictly construed in academic discipline as if this is
ignored it will not only be against public interest but would also erode social sense of
fairness. However, this exclusion shall not apply in case of disciplinary matters or where the
academic body permits non-academic circumstances.

4. Exclusion Based on Impracticability

Rules of Natural Justice may be excluded on the grounds of administrative impracticability.

For example, in a case where the entire M.B.A. entrance examination was cancelled by the
university because of mass copying, the court held that notice and hearing to all the
candidates is not possible in this situation, which has assumed national proportions. Thus, the
court sanctified the exclusion of the rules of natural justice on the ground of administrative
impracticability.

5. Exclusion in Cases of Interim Preventive Action

If the action of the administrative authority is a suspension order in a preventive action and
not a final order, the application of the principles of natural justice may be excluded. In a case
where the institution passed an order debarring the student from entering the premises of the
institution and from attending classes till the pendency of a criminal case against him for
stabbing a co-student. The Delhi High Court held that such an order could be compared with
an order of suspension pending enquiry which is preventive in nature in order to maintain
campus peace and hence the principles of natural justice shall not apply. Therefore, natural
justice may be excluded if its effect would be to stultify the action sought to be taken or
would defeat and paralyse the administration of the law.

The Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India11 observed: “Where an obligation
to give notice and opportunity to be heard would obstruct the taking of prompt action,

11
AIR 1978 SC 597

9
especially action of a preventive or remedial nature, right of prior notice and opportunity to
be heard may be excluded by implication.”

6. Exclusion in Cases of Legislative Actions

Legislative action, may be plenary or subordinate, is not subjected to the rules of natural
justice because these rules lay down a policy without reference to a particular individual. On
the same logic principles of natural justice can also be excluded by a provision of the
Constitution also. Constitution of India excludes the principles of natural justice in Articles
22, 31(A), (B), (C) and 311(2) as a matter of policy. Nevertheless, if the legislative action is
arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair, courts may quash such a provision under Articles 14 and
21 of the Constitution. In a case the Supreme Court held that no principles of natural justice
have been violated when the government issued notification fixing the prices of certain drugs.
The Court reasoned that since notification flowed from a legislative act and not an
administrative one so the principles of natural justice do not apply.

7. Where No Right of the Person is Infringed

Where no right has been conferred on a person by any statute nor any such right arises from
common law, the principles of natural justice are not applicable. This can be illustrated by
referring a decision of the Supreme Court the Delhi Rent Control Act makes provision for the
creation of limited tenancies. Sections 21 and 37 of the Act provide for the termination of
limited tenancies. Combined effect of these sections is that after the expiry of the term a
limited tenancy can be terminated.

The Supreme Court held that after the expiry of the prescribed period of any limited tenancy,
a person has no right to stay in possession and hence no right of his is prejudicially affected
which may warrant the application of the principles of natural justice.

8. Exclusion in Case of Statutory Exception or Necessity

Techniques of Law Disqualification on the ground of bias against a person will not be
applicable if he is the only person competent or authorized to decide that matter or take that
action. If this exception is not allowed there would be no other means for deciding that matter

10
and the whole administration would come to a grinding halt. But the necessity must be
genuine and real. Therefore, the doctrine of necessity cannot be invoked where the members
of the Text Book Selection Committee were themselves the authors because the constitution
of the selection committee could have been changed very easily by the government.

9. Exclusion in Case of Contractual Arrangement

In a case the Supreme Court held the principles of natural justice are not attracted in case of
termination of an arrangement in any contractual field. Termination of an
arrangement/agreement is neither a quasi-judicial or an administrative act so that the duty to
act judicially is not attracted.

11
 CONCLUSION

Natural Justice represents higher procedural principles developed by judges which every
administrative agency must follow in taking any decision adversely affecting the rights of a
private individual. The principles of natural justice are firmly grounded under various
Articles of the Constitution.

There are mainly three principles of Natural Justice: -

1. ‘Rule against Bias’ which signifies that the judge must be impartial and must decide
the case objectively based on the evidence on record. There are various factors which
may influence the judgement. These include personal bias, pecuniary bias, subject
matter bias, departmental bias and preconceived notion bias.
2. ‘Rule of Fair Hearing’ which means that a person must be given an opportunity to
defend himself. The important components of this rule are right to notice, right to
present case and evidence, the right to rebut adverse evidence, cross- examination,
legal representation, report of the enquiry to be shown to the other party and post
decisional hearing.
3. ‘Reasoned Decision’ which states that order, decision, or judgement of the court given
by the Presiding authorities with a valid and reasonable ground.

There are several Exceptions to the Principles of Natural Justice. These are exclusion in
emergency, confidentiality, routine matters, exclusion based on impracticability, interim
preventive action, legislative action, where no right of the person is infringed, statutory
exception or necessity, contractual arrangement.

Every kind of preference is not sufficient to vitiate an administrative action. If the preference
is rational and unaccompanied by consideration of rational interest, pecuniary or otherwise it
would not vitiate the decision. Similarly, there must be a real likelihood and not a mere
suspicion of bias, before the proceedings can be quashed on the ground of bias. This
apprehension must be judged from a healthy, reasonable and average point of view and not a
mere apprehension and vague suspicion of whimsical capricious and unreasonable people. As
the justice rooted in the minds of the people and it is destroyed when the right-minded people
go away thinking that the judge is biased.

12
 REFERENCES

BOOKS:

1. Dr. kailash Rai, Administrative Law (Allahabad Law Agency, Law Publisher,
Faridabad (Haryana)-121002,7th edn.,2011)
2. Dr. I.P Massey, Administrative law (Eastern Book Company, Lucknow,8th edn., 2012)
3. Durga Das Basu, “Case Book on Indain Constitutional Law”, 2nd Ed, Kamal Law
House, Kolkata, 2007.
4. Jain, M.P. and Jain, S.N. Principles of Administrative Law, 5th Ed. 2007 Wadhwa and
Co. Delhi
5. Kesari, U.P.D, Lectures on Administrative Law, 15th Ed, 2005, Central Law Agency,
Allahabad
6. Massey, I.P., Administrative Law, 5th Ed. 2003, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow
7. P.M.Bakshi, “The Constitution of India”, 11th Ed, Universal Law Publishing Co.,
New Delhi, 2011.

ARTICLES:

1. Dr.Lakshmi T and Rajeshkumar S “In Vitro Evaluation of Anticariogenic Activity of

Acacia Catechu against Selected Microbes”, International Research Journal of
Multidisciplinary Science & Technology, Volume No. 3 , Issue No. 3, P.No 20-25,
March 2018.
2. Trishala A , Lakshmi T and Rajeshkumar S,“ Physicochemical profile of Acacia
catechu bark extract –An In vitro study”, International Research Journal of
Multidisciplinary Science & Technology, Volume No. 3 , Issue No. 4, P.No 26-30,
April 2018.

WEBSITES:

1. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/administrative-law-643-1.html 18.
2. http://www.lawnotes.in/Principles_of_Natural_Justice 19.
3. http://www.lawvedic.com/article/principles-of-natural-justice-in-indian-constitution-
177 20.
4. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/principles-of-natural-justice-in-
indianconstitution-1519-1.html

13