2.

Principles of Natural Justice: - PNJ

What is PNJ?

 “.. Justice that is simple and elementary.” “..fair play in action.”

 Not fixed / mentioned in any code.
 So vague and unclear/ not easy to define – means different things in different countries
but is widely enforced in all civilized nations.
 Basic values – cherished throughout ages – reasonableness, fairness, good faith, justice,
equity and good conscience.
Underlying object – ensure fundamental liberties and rights of subjects + prevention of
miscarriage of justice.
Wade – “… decision without bias, proper consideration of both parties involved,… just
and efficient”
 Applicable on who? PNJ is binding on all courts, judicial bodies and QJ bodies.
Is it applicable on AA when discharging QJ functions?
Initially – only courts of law are bound by PNJ. Does not apply to AA and its QJ
functions.
However, position has changed over the years.
State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei (1967)
“… true that an Order of AA is administrative in character, but even it has civil
consequences… therefore must be consistent with rules of natural justice.”
A.K. Kraipak v. UOI (1970)
“..purpose of rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice… by implication
those rules should be made applicable to decisions of AA also”
Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT (2008)
“…old distinction between judicial act and administrative act is blurred. Any decision
involving civil consequences must be consistent with PNJ.”
 Attempts to define PNJ in various cases – GIST
- Of universal application to every inquiry – depending on the circumstances of cases.
- Person accused should know the nature of accusation, be given an opportunity to be
state his case, tribunal to act in good faith
- Depends on the characteristics of the rights affected of the parties, scheme and policy
of statute

Basically – cannot be restricted through a formula.

 However – 2 recognized principles

1. Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa: No man shall be a judge in his own cause
Meaning – Deciding authority must be impartial and without bias.
2. Audi Alteram Partem – Hear the other side.
Meaning – Deciding authority must ensure fairness to both sides.
The above 2 principles has developed to become 2 Doctrines

2A. Doctrine of Bias: - Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa.

 aka – Rule against Bias – Based on 3 maxims

1. No man shall be a judge in his own cause
2. Justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done
3. Judges should be above suspicion
 Bias? – predisposition about an idea/ person – without proper regard to the true merits of
the case/ dispute.
Judges – impartial/ neutral/ free from bias – decide objectively.
 This Bias – can usually take 4 forms

A. Pecuniary Bias
- Whether decision is in anyway affected or not, if money of the slightest
denomination is involved, bias maybe presumed or even evident.
- Bonham’s Case (1610) –
Dr. Bonham – practicing medicine without license in the city of London. Fined by
College of Physicians fined Dr. Bonham. ½ fine goes to King, ½ fine goes to
College of Physicians.
Held – Coke J. – because ½ fine goes to the College of Physicians, they cannot be
the deciding authority who can impose the fine.
- Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal (1852)
Decrees passed by Vice-Chancellor. – Appealed before Chancellor (Lord
Cottenham – who was a substantial shareholder in the Canal Company)
Appeal – Lord Cottenham – upholding the decisions of the Vice-Chancellor,
decreed in favour of the Canal Company.
House of Lords – quashed the Chancellor’s decision – “… nothing is to be done
which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference in the
course of justice…” here - based on – Pecuniary bias – no one can is to be a judge
in his own cause.
Even least pecuniary interest – disqualifies a judge.
- N B Jeejeeboy v. Collector of Thana (1965)
CJ – member of the co-operative society – which had acquired the disputed land
Held – CJ could not sit on the bench in deciding this case.
- Vishakapatnam Coop Motor Transport Co Ltd v. G. Bangaraju (1953)
Co-op society – asked for permit.
Collector – President of society + Chairman of Regional Transport Authority
In his capacity as RTA Chairman – granted permit to society
Held – Unacceptable and against PNJ
- J. Mohapatra & Co v. State of Orissa (1984)
 Committee set up to select books for educational institutions – some members
themselves authors of books which were under consideration
Held – presumption of bias – “it is not the actual bias… mere possibility of such
bias is also enough to disqualify.”

B. Personal bias
- Relative/ friend/ business associate of a party or personal grudge/ enmity/
grievance/ professional rivalry against the party – Bias is evident – towards one
party or prejudiced towards the other.
- Cottle v. Cottle – 1939
Judge – in a matrimonial proceeding – wife’s friend.
Wife had told the husband – Judge will decide the case in her favour
Order of Judge – rightfully quashed by the Divisional Court.
- Meenglas Tea Estate v. Workmen – 1963
Workmen beats the manager. Inquiry proceeding initiated – presided over by the
Manager himself.
Held – Against PNJ – personal bias
- Mineral development Ltd v. State of Bihar (1960)
Minister & M – political rivalry. Criminal case filed by Minister against M.
Minister cancels M’s license
Held – Personal bias – Minister disqualified from taking any action against M.
- A.K. Kraipak v. UOI (1969)
N – candidate for selection to IFS + member of the Selection Board.
N did not sit on the Board when his own name was considered. N’s name was
recommended for IFS.
Held – “… Real question is not whether he was biased. Proving state of mind is
difficult… Reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have been biased
is enough..”

C. Official Bias
- Bias as to subject-matter/ Judge has interest in the subject.
- General interest can be overlooked – has to be specific and direct in connection
with the litigation + TOTAL non- application of mind / prejudged the issue.
- However, mere advocacy of ministerial policy cannot be overlooked. Frame
scheme after hearing objections – followed PNJ – if frames policy after such
hearing, cannot be objected as being biased. Duty of Minister – implement policy
of the Govt.
- Gullapalli Nageshwar Rai v. APSRTC (1959) – Gullapalli – I
Petitioners – motor transport business. Govt – Scheme for nationalization.
Objections heard by Secy, decision by CM.
 Held – Secy – who heard the matter – “in substance” one of the parties to the
dispute, Hence PNJ is violated.
- Gullapalli Nageshwar Rai v. APSRTC (1960) – Gullapalli – II
Objections heard by the Minister – Secy – part of department – Minister only
primarily responsible for disposal of business.
- Krishna Bus Service (P) Ltd v. State of Haryana (1985)
By Notification – SG conferred powers of DySP on General Manager, Haryana
Roadways. Private operators challenged.
Held - Quashed Notification, GM, Haryana Roadways – rival in business of
private operators – cannot be expected to discharge functions in a fair and
reasonable manner. Chances of stopping a vehicle – searching / seizing / detaining
motor vehicles & leniency to own department vehicles. Conflict between duty and
interest.
“… administration is rooted in confidence and that confidence is destroyed when
people begin to think that the officer concerned is biased.”
- Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L K Ratna (1986)
Member of institute – removed on the ground of misconduct. Disciplinary
Committee – CM and Vice-CM – both members are ex-officio President and
Vice-President of the Council.
Held – Decision vitiated. “ …No doubt decision is taken objectively during the
decision-making process. But to the member accused of misconduct, the danger
of partisan consideration being accorded to the report would seem very real.”

D. Judicial Obstinacy
- Stubbornness, inflexibility, unreasonableness
- State of WB v. Shivananda Pathak (1998)
Mandamus sought to direct Govt. to promote petitioner.
Single Judge (A) – Allowed mandamus.
Division bench – set aside the order.
2 years later, fresh petition – filed for salary and other benefits due as per the
Single Judge’s order. Dismissed by the Single Judge. – This was Appealed before
the Division bench (one member was Single Judge (A)) – allowed the petition and
granted certain reliefs. State appealed before SC.
Held – Set aside the order. Cannot over superior court judgment just to prove his
own point or rewrite judgments without merits to suit one’s judgment.
- A.U. Kureshi v. High Court of Gujarat (2009)
Member of sub-ordinate judiciary – misconduct proceedings – disciplinary
proceedings – presided by Judicial member X.
Appeal by member before HC – Appeal decided by Judge X – who was on the
disciplinary proceedings panel
Held – reasonable apprehension of bias. – Appeal order set aside.
2B. Hear the other side/ Audi Alteram Partem

 Meaning – no man should be condemned unheard / both sides must be heard before
passing any order.
 Basic requirement of ROL + foundational and fundamental concept
 De Smith opines – “… a man cannot incur loss of liberty…until he has had a fair
opportunity of answering the case against him.”
Painter v. Liverpool Oil Gas Light Co. (1836) – “… no party is to suffer in person or in
purse without an opportunity of being heard.”

2 elements –
a) Notice
b) Hearing – multiple facets
A. Notice:
- Affected party – notice – why? Showcause against the proposed action and seek
his explanation.
- Without it, against PNJ + void ab initio
- Notice – to be clear, specific and unambiguous + Charges should not be vague
and uncertain. Reasonable opportunity to comply with the requirements
mentioned in the Notice.
- Garden of Eden – “… God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam, before he
was called upon to make his defence. ‘Adam’, says God, ‘Where art thou? Hast
thou not eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat?’
- R. v. University of Cambridge (1723)
Dr. Bentley – without notice – not bestowed with doctorate for allegations of
misconduct.
King’s bench – decision null and void.
- Ghanshyam Das v. State of MP (1973)
Govt servant – suspended for misconduct. Subsistence allowance – not paid.
Enquiry held at a different place from the place of his residence – no notice given.
Held – Enquiry vitiated and against PNJ
- State of J&K v. Haji Wali Mohd (1972)
24 hours Notice to dismantle a structure alleged to be in a dilapidated condition
Held – Notice not valid.
- Annamunthodo v. Oilfield Workers Trade Union (1961)
Notice for one charge – given and person punished for a different charge.
Held – Invalid – Notice not complete + not opportunity of being heard given to
the person
- Ajit Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corpn (2005)
Employee of IOC – led unruly mob to the hospital run by IOC + beat up the Chief
Medical Officer. Services of the employee terminated immediately.
 Held – PNJ is flexible, not immutable, whether requirements of PNJ is complied
with or no, has to be considered in the context of the facts and circumstances of
the case.

B. Hearing
- To be heard before any adverse action is taken. What entails hearing? Heard?
- Cooper Case(1863)
Building constructed without prior permission – demolished without giving an
opportunity to be heard.
Held – Though there was no statutory provision violated – Court opined – “… no
man can be deprived of his property without having any opportunity of being
heard.”
- Ridge Case (1965) – “Magna Carta” of PNJ
Plaintiff – Chief Constable – heard and acquitted on certain charges of
conspiracy. Judge made certain observations on the CC. Based on this, Watch
Committee – dismissed the CC.
Court of Appeal – Watch Committee – acting as AA – PNJ does not apply + very
well within their quasi-judicial capacity.
HOL – 4:1 ruling, overturned Court of Appeal and opined – PNJ was violated
when CC was dismissed without according an opportunity of being heard.
Dismissal therefore – is illegal
- State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei (1967)
Compulsorily retired because 55 years of age without hearing.
Held – Retirement is illegal.
- Maneka Gandhi (1978)
Passport impounded “in public interest”, no hearing before the impugned action
SC Held – PNJ violated.
- Mohinder Sing Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978)
CEC cancelled election in certain constituencies on account of violence. No
hearing for the candidates
SC held – PNJ violated. “….soul of PNJ is fair play in action… essence is good
conscience in a given situation, nothing more but nothing less.”
- Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
Statutory provision about removal from unauthorized construction without notice
– challenged
Held – Statutory provision is merely enabling and not a command not to issue
notice before demolition of structure. “…discretion was required to be exercised
in consonance with PNJ.”
What is reasonable? Relative to each and every factual matrix.
The test of reasonableness is not applied in vacuum but in the context of life’s
realities.
 It is not dependent on the quantum of loss to the aggrieved party – essentially
related to the demands of each and every case.
- Hiranath Mishra v. Rajendra Medical College (1973)
Harassment case (boys entered naked into girls hostel)– statement of girls
students were recorded behind the back of the boy students involved.
No hearing, no cross- examination accorded to the boys
Students expulsed.
Held – PNJ not required to be the followed in the present case. SC upheld the
order of expulsion.

B1. Disclosure of materials

- Adjudicating authority – putforth all materials placed before it – Why? Afford an

opportunity to prepare one’s defence, rebut the evidence and defend his case
honourably.
- In the words of Lord Denning, “… hearing includes… he must know what
evidence has been given and what statement have been made affecting him; and
then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them.”
- Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v. CIT
CIT disclosed material based on which Appellate Tribunal passed order for the
Assessee.
SC held – non-disclosure of material – affected Assessee’s right to make a proper
case for defense – therefore PNJ is violated.
- Change in time / trend – prima facie has to satisfy the court that prejudice has
been caused to the petitioner by any such non-disclosure of materials.

B2. Cross-examination

- What is? Statutory requirement – followed? In case of domestic or disciplinary

inquiries? Is it part of PNJ?
- Based on the factual matrix. However, right is not denied.
- U P Warehousing Corporation v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee (1980)
Employee of corporation dismissed from service without according an
oppurtunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the management
SC Held – Dismissal is illegal as right to cross-examination was denied and
thereby PNJ was violated.
- State of Kerala v. K T Shaduli Grocery Dealer (1977)
Grocery Dealer – assessee – book of accounts that he submitted – appeared to be
incomplete to the State Sales Tax Officer. (STO) – discrepancy between
wholesale dealer BOA and grocery dealers BOA.
 Grocery dealer requested STO to allow to cross-examine the wholesale dealers
BOA which according to the grocery dealer were all bogus. STO denied the right
to cross- examine
SC Held – Order of the STO is void as the Assessee could have possibly expected
to defend his case fully without this right to cross-examine
- However, Cross- examination is not available always – adjudicating authority
will consider if and whether it is an “essential ingredient of PNJ” and then
according allow or deny the right based on every case in the absence of express
statutory provision.
- “… Cross –examination is not a part of PNJ where the object would be wholly
defeated if a right to confront or cross-examine these witnesses was given to a
suspect….”
- State of J&K v. Bakshi Gulam Mohammed (1967)
Commission of Enquiry – to inquire into acts of former PM of J&K.
Held – Right to cross-examine witnesses is not an undeniable right of the person
against whom allegations are leveled and enquiry Commission is set up.
- Hiranath Mishra v. Rajendra Medical College (1973) – previously studied.

B3. One who decides must hear / One who hears must decide
- Gullapalli Nageshwar Rao- previously studied.
“… divided responsibility is destructive of the concept of judicial hearing.
Personal hearing – enables the authority
a. To watch the demeanour of the witnesses and clear –up his doubts during the
course of the arguments
b. Party appearing to persuade is given a chance by reasoned arguments to
accept his point of view
If one person hears and the other decides, then personal hearing becomes an
empty formality.”
-
-
-
-