rules of natural justice: under the rubrics...

Open Access Journal available at jlsr.thelawbrigade.com

© Copyright 2017, All Rights Reserved by

Journal of Legal Studies and Research Volume 3 Issue 5

ISSN: 2455 2437 (India) Published by ‘The Law Brigade Publishers’, A Libertatem Media Group Company

RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE: UNDER THE RUBRICS OF

ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

INTRODUCTION

The concept and doctrine of Principles of Natural Justice and its application in Justice delivery

system is not new. It seems to be as old 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. In one of the English

decisions, reported In (1915) AC 120 (138) HL, Local Government Board v. Arlidge, 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." In the early part of this century, in

another case reported in (1906) AC 535 (539), Lapointe v. L'Association, the Judicial Committee

observed that the principle should apply to every tribunal having authority to adjudicate upon

matters involving civil consequences.

The principles of natural justice have been developed and followed by the judiciary to protect the

right of the public against the arbitrariness of the administrative authorities. Natural Justice implies

fairness, reasonableness, equity and equality. It is the concept of the Common Law, which stands

on the same footing as the concept of “procedural due process” of America. According to HEGDE

J., the aim of natural justice is to secure justice; to prevent miscarriage of justice and to give

protection to the public against the arbitrariness.

http://www.jlsr.thelawbrigade.com/





In a welfare state like India, the role and jurisdiction of administrative agencies is increasing at a

rapid pace. The concept of Rule of Law would loose its validity if the instrumentalities of the State

are not charged with the duty of discharging these functions in a fair and just manner.

In India, the principles of natural justice are firmly grounded in Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution.

With the introduction of concept of substantive and procedural due process in Article 21, all that

fairness which is included in the principles of natural justice can be read into Art. 21. The violation

of principles of natural justice results in arbitrariness; therefore, violation of natural justice is a

violation of Equality clause of Art. 14.

The principle of natural justice encompasses following two rules: -

1. Nemo judex in causa sua - No one should be made a judge in his own cause or the rule against

bias.

2. Audi alteram partem - Hear the other party or the rule of fair hearing or the rule that no one

should be condemned unheard.

Position in India. Article 14, 19, 21 of the Indian Constitution lay down the cornerstone of natural

justice in India. In the case of E P Royappa v. State of Tamilnadu1, the apex court held that a

properly expressed and authenticated order can be challenged on the ground that condition

precedent to the making of order has not been fulfilled or the principles of natural justice have not

been observed. In another landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India2, the apex court held

that law which allows any administrative authority to take a decision affecting the rights of the

people, without assigning the reason for such action, can not be accepted as a procedure, which is

just, fair and reasonable, hence violative of Articles 14 and 21.

1 AIR 1974 SC 555 2 AIR 1978 SC 597






CHAPTERISATION

What are the rules of natural justice and they got adopted in India.

The basis of procedural protection in the English system is the concept of Natural Justice. Natural

Justice is not, despite its name, a general natural law concept. The name is a term of art that denoted

specific procedural rights in the English system. Although the term “natural justice” now has no

connection with the concept of natural law, the modern notion of natural justice does have natural

law origins. The earliest usage of the term “natural justice” appeared during the seventeenth and

the eighteenth centuries when it was used interchangeably with “natural law”. At the time,

however, natural law was more than the general jurisprudential concept the term now denotes. It

was thought that the law of nature was a specific source of positive law to be applied by the courts

along with case law and statutory law. The courts often relied on natural law to justify decisions

when no statute or precedent was available to guide them.

The theory of Natural Law holds that there is a certain order in nature from which humans, by use

of their reason, can derive standards for human conduct. It is Aristotle who is considered to be the

Father of Natural Law. This idea became particularly important in Roman legal theory, the Romans

believed that some legal principles were "natural" or self-evident and did not require a statutory

basis. Thus Audi Alteram partem (the right to be heard) and Nemo Judex In Parte Sua (no person

may judge their own cause), The Maxim Nemo Debet Esse Judex In Proporia Causa (justice should

not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done) became three basic legal safeguards to

govern all decisions by judges or government officials when they make quasi judicial decisions.

Thus Natural Justice became an A Priori (Derived) principle to supplement legislation from being

sub versed with arbitrariness, unfairness and unreasonableness by judges and other quasi-judicial

authorities. Events like the American Revolution and the French Revolution increased the

importance of Natural Justice, in 1791 the representatives of the French people, organised in a

National Assembly, resolved to set forth the natural, inalienable and sacred rights of man.

Natural justice is not only confined to ‘fairness’ it will take many shade and colour based on the

context. Thus natural justice apart from ‘fairness’ also implies reasonableness, equity and equality.






They are neither cast in a rigid mould nor can they be put in legal straitjacket. These principles

written by nature in the heart of mankind, they are immutable, inviolable, and inalienable.

It is true that the concept of natural justice is not very clear and, therefore, it is not possible to

define it; yet the principles of natural justice are accepted and enforced. In Ridge V. Baldwin3

Court observed that “in modern times have sometimes been expressed to the effect that natural

justice is as vague as to be practically meaningless. But I would regard these as tainted by the

perennial fallacy that because something cannot be cut and dried or nicely weighed or measured

therefore it does not exist”. The term natural justice signifies fundamental rules of judicial

procedure and fair play in action. According to Lord Widgery “the principles of natural justice

were those fundamental rules; the breach will prevent justice from being seen to be done”. Earliest

expression of ‘natural justice’ could be found in philosophical expression of Roman Jurist (jus

natural) and signified rules and principles for the conduct of man which where independent of

enacted law or customs and could be discovered by the rational intelligence of man and would

grow out of and conform to his nature.

Audi Alteram Partem: Hear the other side or both the sides must be heard or one should not 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.

(i) Notice

(ii) Hearing - Ridge v Baldwin, State of Kerala v K.J. Shaduli4, Hiranath Mishra v Principal

Rajendra Med.College5. The right of representation by a lawyer is not considered to be a part of

natural justice and it cannot be claimed as of right, unless the said right is conferred by statute.

Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the appearance of advocate is allowed with the permission

of the tribunals concerned.

3 [1964] AC 40 4 AIR 1977 SC 1627 5 AIR 1973 SC 1260






The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank and others vs. Sri Debasis Das and others6, while

considering the scope and ambit of the Canara Bank Officers Employees (conduct) Regulations

1976 had analyzed in depth “Natural Justice” and “Audi Alteram Partem”. The observation in the

said Judgment could be summarized as follows:

Natural Justice is another name of commonsense Justice.

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 in a commonsense liberal way.

Justice is based substantially on natural Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human

values.

The administration of Justice is to be freed from the narrow and restricted considerations 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.

The expressions “Natural Justice” and “Legal Justice” do not present a water tight classification.

It is the substance of Justice which is to be secured by both and when ever legal Justice fails to

achieve this solemn purpose, natural Justice is called in aid of legal Justice.

Natural Justice relieves legal Justice from unnecessary technicality, grammatical pedantry or

logical prevarication.

It supplies the omissions of a formulated law.

6 AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2041






As Lord Buckmaster said, no form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the

presentation of a litigants’ defence.

The adherence to principles of Natural Justice as recognized by all civilized States is of Supreme

importance when a quasi – judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or

any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue.

Notice it is the first limb of the principle of Audi Alteram Partem.

Notice should apprise the party the case he has to meet.

Adequate time should be given to make his representation7

In the famous Meneka Gandhi vs. Union of India8, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the

increasing importance of Natural Justice and observed that Natural Justice is a great humanizing

principle intended to invest law with fairness and to secure Justice and over the years it has grown

in to a widely pervasive rule.

Nemo Judex Causa Sua9: No one should be made a judge in his own cause or the rule against

bias. 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: -

a) No one should be a judge in his own cause

b) 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

7 http://www.hcmadras.tn.nic.in/jacademy/articles/Principles%20of%20Natural%20Justice%20T.S.%20Sivagnanam%20.pdf 8 AIR 1978 Supreme Court 597 9 http://www.hreat.org/impletter/PRINCIPLESOFNATURALJUSTICE.pdf


http://www.hcmadras.tn.nic.in/jacademy/articles/Principles%20of%20Natural%20Justice%20T.S.%20Sivagnanam%20.pdf

http://www.hcmadras.tn.nic.in/jacademy/articles/Principles%20of%20Natural%20Justice%20T.S.%20Sivagnanam%20.pdf

http://www.hreat.org/impletter/PRINCIPLESOFNATURALJUSTICE.pdf





exercising adjudicatory powers must not have any personal or proprietary interest in the outcome

of the proceedings.

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

In the case of AK Kraipak vs Union of India10, 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

10 AIR1970 SC150






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 -

(i) No one shall be a judge of his own cause.

(ii) No decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing.

(iii) The quasi-judicial enquiries should be held in good faith and not arbitrarily or unreasonably.

In J. Mohopatra & Co. Vs State of Orissa11, 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.

2.The rules of natural justice vis-a-vis Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

In The Constitution of India, nowhere the expression Natural Justice is used. However, golden

thread of natural justice wisely passed through the body of Indian Constitution. Preamble of the

constitution includes the words, ‘Justice Social, Economic and political’ liberty of thought, belief,

worship... And equality of status and of opportunity, which not only ensures fairness in social and

11 1985 SCR (1) 322






economical activities of the people but also acts as shield to individuals liberty against the arbitrary

action which is the base for principles of Natural Justice.

Apart from preamble Art 14 ensures equality before law and equal protection of law to the citizen

of India. Art 14 which strike at the root of arbitrariness and Art 21 guarantees right to life and

liberty which is the fundamental provision to protect liberty and ensure life with dignity. Art 22

guarantees natural justice and provision of fair hearing to the arrested person. Directive principles

of state Policy specially Art 39-A takes care of social, economic, and politically backward sections

of people and to accomplish this object i.e. this part ensure free legal aid to indigent or disabled

persons, and Art 311 of the constitution ensures constitutional protection to civil servants.

Furthermore Art 32, 226, and 136 provides constitutional remedies in cases violation of any of the

fundamental rights including principles of natural justice. With this brief introduction author

undertakes to analyze some of the important provision containing some elements of Principle of

Natural Justice.

This Article guarantees equality before law and equal protection of law. It bars discrimination and

prohibits both discriminatory laws and administrative action. Art 14 is now proving to be safeguard

against any arbitrary or discriminatory state action. The horizons of equality as embodied in Art

14 have been expanding as a result of the judicial pronouncements and Art 14 has now come to

have a highly activist magnitude. It laid down general preposition that all persons in similar

circumstance shall be treated alike both in privileges and liabilities imposed.

Article 14 manifests in the form of following propositions12:

(i) A law conferring unguided and unrestricted power on an authority is bad for being arbitrary

and discriminatory.

(ii) Art. 14 illegalize discrimination in the actual exercise of any discretionary power.

12 http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/principles-of-natural-justice-in-indian-constitution-1519-1.html


http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/principles-of-natural-justice-in-indian-constitution-1519-1.html






(iii) Art. 14 strikes at arbitrariness in administrative action and ensures fairness and equality of

treatment.

Art. 14 guarantee a right of hearing to the person adversely affected by an administrative order. In

Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Union13, SC held that “the audi alteram partem rule,

in essence, enforce the equality clause in Art. 14 and it is applicable not only to quasi-judicial

bodies but also to administrative order adversely affecting the party in question unless the rule has

been excluded by the Act in question.”

Similarly in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India14, SC opined that Art. 14 is an authority for the

proposition that the principles of natural justice are an integral part of the guarantee of equality

assured by Art. 14 an order depriving a person of his civil right passed without affording him an

opportunity of being heard suffers from the vice of violation of natural justice.

There are several instances where Art 14 of the Constitution is invoked to protect individual from

the violation of natural justice principles, in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd v.

Brojo Nath15 in this case a government company made a service rule authorizing it to terminate

the service of permanent employee by merely giving him a three months’ notice or salary in lieu

of notice. The rule was declared to be invalid as being violative of Art. 14 on the ground that it

was unconstitutional. The rule in question constituted a part of the employment contract between

the corporation and its employees. The Court ruled that it would not enforce, and would strike

down, an unfair and unreasonable clause in a contract entered into between parties who were not

equal in bargaining power. This was in conformity with the mandate of the “great equality clause

in Art. 14.”

The Court emphasized that the judicial concept of Art. 14 have progressed “from a prohibition

against discriminatory class legislation to an invalidating actor for any discriminatory or arbitrary

13 1991 AIR 101, 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 142 14 1978 AIR 597 15 1986 AIR 1571






state action.” The Court also emphasized that the rule was “both arbitrary and unreasonable” and

“as it also wholly ignored and set aside the Audi alterum partum rule” violated Art. 14. This is of

the view that “the principle of natural justice has now come to be recognized as being a part of the

constitutional guarantee contained in Art. 14.” The rule in question was “both arbitrary and

unreasonable,” and it also wholly ignored and set aside the Audi alterm partum rule and, thus, it

violated Art 1416.

FINDINGS

Different jurists have described the principle in different ways. Some called it as the unwritten law

(jus non scriptum) or the law of reason. It has, however not been found to be capable of being

defined, but some jurists have described the principle as a great humanising principle intended to

invest law with fairness to secure justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice. With the passage

of time, some principles have evolved and crystallised which are well recognized principles of

natural justice.

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. Justice Gajendragadkar, as then he was, observed in a case reported in AIR 1965

SC 1061, M/s Builders Supply Corporation v. The Union of India and others, “it is obvious that

pecuniary interest, howsoever small it may be, In a subject matter of the proceedings, would wholly

disqualify a member from acting as a judge". Lord Hardwick observed in one of the cases, “In a

matter of so tender a nature, even the appearance of evil is to be avoided." Yet it has been laid

down as principle of law that pecuniary interest would disqualify a Judge to decide the matter even

16 http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/principles-of-natural-justice-in-indian-constitution-1519-1.html








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.

The principles of natural justice are easy to proclaim, but their precise extent is far less easy to

define. The rule against bias is one thing. The right to be heard is another. These two rules are

characteristic of what is often called ‘natural justice’. They are twin pillars supporting it. They

have been put into two words- Impartiality & Fairness.

The Principles of natural justice are considered to be more important to ensure justice to the

workman whose conduct is being enquired into. It is essential to understand its scope and extent

and implications for purpose of domestic enquiry. We come across new cases every day but basic

structure about the machinery entrusted with the task of holding departmental enquiry and coming

to a decision, remains the same.

CONCLUSION

In a welfare state like India, the role and jurisdiction of administrative agencies is increasing at a

rapid pace and with rapid expansion of state liability and civic needs of the people conferment of

administrative discretion became need of an hour. With expansion in scope of discretionary power

of administrative authority the regulatory measures are to be equipped with sufficient power to

prevent abuse of discretion. In this regard Constitutional rule of law in a country like India,

component of natural law, i.e. fair play in action must be found and reproclaimed by judiciary to

keep intact the supremacy of rule of law in India. The rules of natural justice can operate only in

areas not covered by law validly made. Such old judicial decisions of Apex Court and other High

Court must be reconsidered and correct view would be declaring principles of natural justice

necessary outcome of Law, they must operate in presence of and even in contravention to the

established law where the interest of justice demands.






In India, the principles of natural justice are firmly grounded in Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution.

With the introduction of concept of substantive and procedural due process in Article 21, all that

fairness which is included in the principles of natural justice can be read into Art. 21. The violation

of principles of natural justice results in arbitrariness; therefore, violation of natural justice is a

violation of Equality clause of Art. 14.


rules of natural justice: under the rubrics...

Documents