UNIT- IV NATURAL JUSTICE

- Principles of Natural Justice

- Audi Alterem Partem-Rule against Bias-Reasoned Decision
- Consequences of Violation of the Principles of Natural Justice

MEANING OF NATURAL JUSTICE –

- Natural justice simply means to make a sensible and reasonable decision making
procedure on a particular issue. It includes procedural requirement of fairness.
- It is the administration of justice through common-sense and in a liberal way. Justice is
based substantially on natural ideals and human values.
- It is a sense of what is wrong and what is right.
- Principle of Natural Justice is derived from the word ‘Jus Natural’ of the Roman law. It
is not a codified law.
- It applies where people are affected by acts of authority.
- In Canara bank v. Debasis Das, Pasayat J. observed that, “natural justice is another
name of common-sense. Rules of natural justice are not codified canons, but they are
principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the administration of
justice through common-sense and in a liberal way. Justice is based substantially on
natural ideals and human values. The administration of justice is to be freed from the
narrow and restricted consideration which are usually associated with a formulated law
involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice
which has to determine its form.
Whenever legal justice fails to achieve this solemn purpose, natural justice is called in aid
of legal justice.

Purpose of Principle of Natural justice-

- The main purpose of the principle is to secure justice.

- To uphold a fairness in the decision making process.
- To protect the fundamental rights of the citizens.
- There should not be any miscarriage of justice.
 - To exclude any kind of bias and favoritism.
- Helps in good administration of justice.
- It leads to disciplinary proceedings.

Committee on Ministers’Power gave four essentials of principle of natural justice –

1. No one should be a judge in his own cause.

2. No man shall be condemned unheard.
3. A party has a right to know the reasons for the decision.
4. Making available the copies of report of statutory enquiry to the parties.

In India, the principle of natural justice is provided in Article 14 and Article 21.

PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE –

Principle of natural justice includes those rules, as laid down by the courts, to be followed for the
protection of the rights of the individual against arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a
judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while decision-making.

The two well accepted principles of natural justice (English law) -

1. “nemo judex in causa sua” or “nemo debet esse judex in propria causa sua” (No man
shall be a judge in his cause)
2. Audi alteram partem (hear the other side)

NO MAN SHALL BE A JUDGE IN HIS CAUSE

- This principle was laid down by Lord Coke in Earl of Derby’s case.
- No man should judge his own case. The purpose of this rule was to exclude arbitrariness
or biased decisions. There should be impartiality in decision making process.
- This rule is also known as rule against bias.
- Bias mean an act which lead to unfair activity. It implies decision without evidentiary
values. It is a kind of partiality or preference to one person for no reasons and it is
actually dependent on self-interest.
- The basic aim of this principle is that the judge must be impartial and must decide the
case objectively which should be based on valid evidences.
- He should be fair without prejudice and bias.
- It is said that a decision based on biasness and is unjust is a nullity and the trial is coram
non-judice.
- Justice should not only be done, but must be manifestly and undoubtedly seems to be
done.

Types of bias –

1. Pecuniary bias
- When the judge looks for financial benefit, it is called pecuniary bias. Even if the interest
is minute, then also it is inadequate.
- In J. Mahopatra & Co. v. State of Orissa, An Assessment committee was constituted
for providing recommendation and to select books of authors and publishers for schools.
Few persons were also member of the assessment committee whose books were in the list
for selection. Eventually, the books of the members were approved. This was challenged.
The SC quashed the decision and held that this is a clear case of pecuniary bias.
- Dr. Bonham’s case – Here, a Doctor of Cambridge university was fined by the faculty of
physicians for the practicing in the city of London without the license from faculty. As
per the statute of the faculty, the fines should be divided between the king and to the
college in 50-50 ratio. This was challenged in the court, Coke J. disallowed the case and
held that faculty had financial benefit in the case, also they were the judge in their own
cause.
2. Personal bias
- Personal bias arises where the judge shares a relationship with any of the party to the
case. A judge can be relative, friend, associate or anything else to the party concerned.
Not only positive relations, he might have some personal enmity with such party. In both
the cases, there arises a fear of personal bias.
- Personal bias can be judged when there is a direct benefit to the judge from the outcome
of the proceedings. Also, when there is real likelihood of bias, i.e. actual bias. Actual test
 is whether a reasonable intelligent man fully apprised of all circumstances would feel
serious apprehension of bias.
- In Manak Lal v. Premchand, Dr. Premchand filed a complaint against an Advocate of
HC on professional misconduct. For this, the HC constituted a tribunal and appointed,
senior advocate General of Rajasthan as chairman of the tribunal. The decision was held
in favour of Premchand. This was challenged on personal bias, on the ground that
chairman had represented Dr. Premchand before as well in earlier case. SC refused to
quash the decision, and held that there was no personal connection between the client and
advocate. This is just a professional relationship. Therefore, there is no personal bias.
3. Bias as to subject matter –
- When the judge himself is involved in the subject matter of the case. Mere involvement
in the subject matter will not create bias but there has to be some likelihood of bias. It can
occur when the judge act under dictation, it happens when the judge is working under
some other person’s authority or a superior authority and not exercising his own
judgment making power.
- In Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. APSRTC, the order of the govt. on nationalizing the
road transport was challenged. The ground for challenge was subject- matter bias, as the
Secretary of the Transport department, who had initiated the scheme, also heard the
objections. On this ground, SC quashed the order.
4. Departmental bias
- When the judge himself is a member of the department which is the party to the case.
There might arise a likelihood of being biased on part of the judge.
5. Policy bias
- Policy bias implies when the judge is interested in the projecting and pursuing the politics
of the department. Policy bias is also a kind of departmental bias.
6. Judicial obstinacy
- This is a new kind of bias observed over time. This happens when the judge, on account
of their ego or any other reason, compete with each other in judgment making procedure.
- In State of W.B. v. Shivananda Pathak, A writ was filed by a petitioner against the
govt. to promote him. A single judge allowed the petition and ordered the promotion of
the petitioner. But this order was set aside b the division bench. Later, after 2 years, a
 new petition was filed for payment of salary, etc. on the basis of the order passed in the
judgment of single bench. This was dismissed by the single judge. This order was
challenged in appeal which was heard by a division bench in which one of the judge was
one who allowed the petition before. He allowed the appeal. To this, SC took action and
called in as judicial obstinacy.

EXCEPTION TO RULE AGAINST BIAS

1. Doctrine of necessity
- It means that when the person who is deciding upon the case in the only competent
authority to take action in such matter. In such case, the rule of bias will take a set back
as no other option is available.
- In Charan lal Sahu v. Union of India, Bhopal gas disaster act, 1985 was challenged on
the ground that the Act authorized the Central govt. to represent all the victims in matter
of compensation award. Petitioner challenged that as the central govt owned 22% share in
the Union Carbide Company (Opposite party). There is a conflict of interest of the govt.
in this case. SC held that, doctrine of necessity will occur in this case, as govt. is the only
sovereign body which could represent the whole class of gas victim, therefore the
contention, even if true, can’t be entertained.
2. Waiver – This is a case where the parties at the first instance get to know that there
might be a prejudiced in their mind that bias might occur but still they continue and
let their case proceed with the same judge or bench and later came to protest that
proceedings were not valid. In such case, there are not allowed to take such plea as it
is said that they have waived their right of objection and can’t challenge the judgment
now.

(Case of Ranjan Gogoi J., Of sexual harassment , he was on the bench in his own case
along with J. Sanjeev Khanna and J. Arun Mishra, but in his defense , he said , he has
not signed the order, two other judges have signed the order. Though the CJI
was heading the bench, he left it to Justice Mishra to take a call on passing
a judicial order.

AUDI- ALTERAM PARTEM (hear the other side)

- It implies no man should be the judge in his own cause or both the sides must be heard
before passing any order.
- The party must be given an opportunity to defend themselves, that is to say, before any
judgment is passed against any person, he should be provided with an opportunity to fight
for himself.
- This maxim includes two elements – Right to notice and Right to be heard.
- Components of Fair Hearing are as follows-
i. Right to Notice
ii. Right to know the evidence against
iii. Right to present case and evidence
iv. Disclosure of all evidences
v. Right to rebut adverse evidence
vi. Right to enquire report
vii. Right to hearing
- Talking about RIGHT TO NOTICE:
 A notice should be issued to the affected party regarding the case against him.
Only after serving the notice, hearing can start. The notice should mention time,
place and nature of offence, date of hearing, charges framed against the person,
ground of action, etc.
 Any order passed without giving notice will be void-ab-initio. A person has a
right to know facts of the suit or case happens at the start of any hearing.
 The notice issued must be adequate and proper.
 Right of notice implies right of being known.
 In Annamalai Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Chairman T.N. Electricity Board, 1996,
the mill was notified against the case of theft of electricity against them in the
notice but the notice didn’t contain anything else, such as no hearing date, no
meter reading, or name of the authority taking action, etc. Court held that it was
an inadequate notice.
 In Ambika Devi v. State of Bihar, 1988, the petitioner was a tenant and her
account for payment of rent for land was cancelled and was declared to be an
encroacher on public land. At the hearing, she contended that the notice served to
 her was inadequate as it only contained the date of hearing. The Court quashed
the action against her.
 Right to notice also includes the right to know the charges against the affected
person. It implies the concerned person should have full disclosure of all the
evidential facts and documents put forward against him. It is important so that the
concerned person is prepared with the explanation in his defense.
 In Punjab National Bank v. All India Bank Employees Federation, the notice
contained certain charges but the penalty was imposed on the charges other
than those mentioned in the notice. Thus, the charges on which the penalty was
imposed were not contained in the notice served on the person concerned. Court
held that, the notice was not proper and therefore, imposition of penalty was
invalid.
 Right to notice includes Right to present case and evidence and Right to have
disclosure of all evidences. No evidential material will be used against any
person until the opportunity is given to the party against whom it is sought to be
utilized.
 Right to notice also includes Right to rebut evidence. It includes right to cross
examination and right to have legal representative of his own choice.
 Cross-Examination- Cross-examination is one of the most essential features of
right to fair hearing. A person must be given an opportunity to cross the other
person in order to elicit truth.
 In Hiranath Mishra v. Principle Rajendra Medical College, 1973, few male
students (Appellant) entered naked in the girl’s hostel late night. For this, 36 girls
filed a confidential complaint with the Principle of the college. Thereby, an
Enquiry committee was appointed to check into the matter. All the girls’
statements were recorded. The photographs of the alleged boys were placed in
front of the girls mixing them with other boys’ picture and girls identified the
alleged boys. The alleged boys denied the allegations and said they didn’t leave
the hostel. The committee held the appellant boys guilty and expelled them from
college. This was challenged on ground of violation of principle of natural justice
 as the statement of the girls were recorded at the back of the appellants and no
opportunity to cross-examination was provided.
Supreme Court held that, the girls would not be confident enough to make their
statement in front of the boys and if they do, there is fear of those girls facing
retaliation and harassment thereafter. The college authorities are in no position to
protect the girl students outside the college premises. Thus, there is no violation
of natural justice.
 Right to Legal representation – In administrative proceedings, the right to legal
representation is not an essential part of right to fair hearing. But in certain cases, the
right to legal representation, if not granted, leads to violation of natural justice.
Specifically in the cases where there is question of law involved. As in case of J.J. Mody
v. State of Bombay and Krishna Chandra v. UOI, it was held that the denial of legal
representation will amount to violation of natural justice because in such conditions the
party may not be able to understand the question of law effectively, and therefore, he
should be given an opportunity of being heard fairly.
 In J.K. Aggarwal v. Haryana Seeds Develepment Corporation Ltd., Disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against the appellant by the Corporation, charges were such
that if proved, it will result in dismissal of the appellant. The appellant was denied
permission to engage a lawyer for himself by the Enquiry Authority.
Supreme Court held that, as per the Civil Services Rules, 1952, In Rule 7(5), it is
provided that where the punishing authority appoints an Enquiry Officer for holding an
enquiry against a person in service, it may appoint a Govt. Servant or legal Practioner to
present his case. If the charges are likely to result in dismissal of a person from his
services, such person with the sanction of the Enquiry Officer, be represented by the
lawyer.
Keeping in mind this rule, When the rule is silent then the party has no absolute right to
be legally represented. It is the matter for the discretion of the authorities or Tribunal. If
they in the proper exercise of their discretion, decline to allow legal representation, the
court will not interfere but the Tribunal must not fetter its discretion by rigid rules. But as
in present situation, a clear is rule is laid done, the corporation must follow it, and the
appellant must be provided legal representation.
 In Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union,
1991, Court held that the basic principle is that an employee has no right to representation
in the departmental proceedings by another person or a lawyer unless the service rules
specifically provides for the same. The right to representation is available only to the
extend specifically provided in the rules.
 Right to Notice also includes Right to Enquiry Report – Enquiry report is the one
which is prepared by a committee which is established for that specific purpose only and
upon which the initiation of the case depends and action is taken by competent authority.
It is important to supply copy of the report to the affected party, before the final decision
is taken. Non-availability of the report will hit the principle of natural justice.
 In Managing Director, ECIL, Hydrabad v. B. Karunakar, The major issue was,
Whether the report of the Enquiry officer or committee appointed by the disciplinary
authority, to hold enquiry into the charges against any person, is required to be delivered
to the affected party.”
Decision- It was held that, denial of the report of the inquiry committee would amount to
infringement of PNJ. The key points were,
a. Where the Inquiry Officer is not the disciplinary authority, the affected party has a
right to receive a copy of the Inquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority arrive at
any decision.
b. The denial of copy of enquiry report will lead to denial of the opportunity to represent
his case and denial of reasonable opportunity of being heard. This rule will apply to
all the employees of govt., semi-govt., public or private.
c. Though, when the case is other than dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, the
procedure in the Service Rules of the organization or corporation will be followed.
d. Only the Court or tribunal has power to set aside the order of punishment in case of
non-furnishing of the copy of report.
 Right of hearing includes right of pre-decisional hearing and post-decisional hearing.
 A pre-decisional hearing is a matter of right and rule to be followed for a fair proceeding.
Here the party is given an opportunity to be heard before the decision is made.
  A post-decisional hearing is one that is provided as a remedy to the non-availability to
pre-decisional hearing. Here, the person is heard after the decision has been made or the
pre-decisional hearing was not possible before.
 Reasoned decision or standing order or speaking order – A reasoned decision is one
which is based on valid grounds and reasoning. An order which speaks for itself. It stands
for itself. It is an comprehensive order which includes all the relevant points put forward
by the judge while deciding upon a case. This concept is based on the theory that every
party has a right to know reasons behind the judgment made against him. It is a
requirement of just and fair proceedings. Another essential importance of a reasoned
decision is that it gives a person reasonable ground for him to challenge the case against
him in appeal. In case the legislature is silent, reasoned decision is a constitutional
requirement.

EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF PNJ –

 Emergency – When the situation is that immediate action or step is to be taken and such
emergency has occurred that action can’t be delayed. Here, the principle of NJ can be
excluded. It can be said that in case of extreme urgency, where the interest of the public
would be jeopardizes by the delay or publicity involved in a heaing.
 Express Statutory exclusion – PNJ can be ignored where by an act made by the
parliament, it has been expressed declared that exclusion of PNJ is mandatory. Parliament
may dispense with the requirement of fair procedure where they would otherwise be
required. For Example, Right to information Act, 2005 provides express provisions to
protect certain information from disclosure such as, Information which has been barred
by the court, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect their sovereignty
and integrity of India, the security, scientific or economic interest of the State, etc.
 Confidentiality – Where the matter is of secretive nature and utmost confidentiality is to
be maintained, in such cases, PNJ can be denied.
 Impracticability – Where it is not practical or feasible to conduct the practice of natural
justice. In such case, PNJ can be ignored. Such as where the number of persons affected
by a particular order, act or decision is so great as to make it manifestly impracticable for
them all to be given an opportunity of being heard by the competent authority
 beforehand. In R hRadhakrishanan v. Osmania University, where the entire MBA
entrance examination was cancelled by the University because of mass copying, the
Court held that notice and hearing to all the candidates not possible in such a situation,
which had assumed national proportions. Thus the court sanctified the exclusion of the
rules of natural justice on ground of administrative impracticability.
 Administrative matter or Academic Evaluation – Where the nature of authority is
purely administrative, no right of hearing can be claimed. For say, where a student of the
university was removed from the rolls for unsatisfactory academic performances without
being given any pre-decisional hearing. Where the teacher is doing continuous evaluation
of a student over a period of time and such person is removed or not selected for his
academic performance and was not given a chance to pre-decisional hearing won’t be an
infringement of PNJ. In Karnataka Public service Commission v. B.M. Vijay
Shanker, In this the commission cancelled the examination of the candidate because he
violated the rules and wrote his roll number on every page of the answer-sheet, which
was not allowed. SC held that rule of NJ can be excluded in case of disciplinary matters
or where the academic body performs non-academic functions granting sanction of
prosecution is purely administrative function.
 No infringements of Right – Where no right has been conferred on the person by any
statute nor any such arises from the common law the PNJ are not applicable. This is
based on principle of Ebi jus ebi remedium, which means, Where there is right there is
remedy.
 Doctrine of necessity