NATURAL JUSTICE- MODULE 2

BY Kalyani Abhyankar
Natural Justice: A fundamental legal principle, yet often considered vague and
ambiguous.
Criticism of Natural Justice
Vague and Ambiguous: Criticized for lacking precision.
Ethical Encroachment: Considered by some as a concept that strays into ethics
rather than law.
 Judicial Perspective
Varying Interpretations: The concept of natural justice differs widely among
civilised countries.
Judicial Acceptance: Despite its vagueness, the principles of natural justice are
widely accepted and enforced.
Lord Reid’s Response (Ridge v. Baldwin)
Historical Case: Ridge v. Baldwin.
Lord Reid's View: Natural justice is not meaningless; its existence is valid even if
it cannot be precisely defined.
 NATURE AND SCOPE

Definition: Natural justice is a branch of public law.

Purpose: A powerful tool to secure justice for citizens.
Core Values
Basic Values: Cherished throughout the ages.
Constitutional Embedment: Integrated into the constitutional framework.
 Principles of Natural Justice
Key Aspects:
Reasonableness
Good Faith
Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience
Role: Governs actions of public authorities.
Importance in Administration of Justice
Justice and Fairness: Rules of natural justice are essential for ensuring justice
and fairness in public administration.
 Basic Values
Natural or Divine Law: Cherished values that guide human behavior.
Application: As reasonable beings, humans must apply these laws to human
affairs.
Object of Natural Justice
Fundamental Liberties and Rights: Ensures the protection of basic rights.
Public Interest: Serves to uphold public interest by preventing injustice.
 The Golden Rule
Doctrine of Natural Justice:
Secures justice.
Prevents miscarriage of justice.
Essence: Based on good conscience in any given situation.
Wade’s Perspective
Bias-Free Decisions:
More acceptable.
Better quality.
Justice and Efficiency: These two principles go hand in hand, as long as the law
remains practical.
 NATURAL JUSTICE: HISTORICAL AND
PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS

Definition and History

Natural Justice: Links common law with moral principles, distinguishing right
from wrong.
Historical Significance: Recognized from ancient times, not judge-made law.
Ancient Origins
Greek Principle: "No man should be condemned unheard."
Historical Roots: Traces back to Adam and Kautilya’s Arthashastra, emphasizing
social justice.
 Importance in Law
Supremacy of Natural Justice:
No human laws valid if contrary to natural justice.
Courts can void Acts of Parliament against natural law.
Influence on Legal Systems
Equity in England: Development deeply influenced by natural law.
US Constitution: Natural law and rights influenced its drafting.
International Law: Basis for international conventions, covenants, and
declarations.
 NATURAL JUSTICE IN STATUTORY LAW

Absence in Statutes: Often, statutes do not explicitly require adjudicating

authorities to observe principles of natural justice.
Key Question: Are adjudicating authorities bound to follow natural justice?
 Judicial Pronouncement: Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works
Byles J’s Observation:
Justice of common law fills legislative omissions.
Quote: "The justice of the common law will supply the omission of the legislature."
Supporting Perspectives
De Smith:
Courts apply natural justice when statutes are silent, based on "universal application" and
fundamental principles.
Wade:
Rules of natural justice are implied mandatory requirements.
Quote: "The presumption is, it will always apply, however silent about it the statute may be."
 Indian Perspective
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India:
Hegde J’s View: Natural justice secures justice, supplementing the law without supplanting
it.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India:
Beg CJ’s View: Even without specific statutory provision, a reasonable opportunity to be
heard is implied.
 Case Study: Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
Issue: Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act allowed removal of
illegal construction without notice.
Court’s Interpretation:
Applied the principle of “reading down” to sustain the law’s validity.
Quote: "We must lean in favour of this interpretation because it helps sustain the validity of
the law."
 NATURAL JUSTICE IN ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW

Introduction
Settled Law: Principles of natural justice are binding on all courts, judicial bodies,
and quasi-judicial authorities.
Key Questions:
Do these principles apply to administrative authorities?
Are administrative bodies bound to observe them?
Is an administrative order ultra vires if it violates these principles?
 Early Judicial Views
Franklin v. Minister of Town and Country Planning:
Lord Thankerton’s View: Natural justice does not apply to purely administrative
functions.
Chagla CJ: Natural justice principles are not relevant for administrative orders.
Kishan Chand Arora v. Commr. of Police:
Wanchoo J’s View: Audi alteram partem applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial
proceedings.
 Shift in Judicial Perspective
Ridge v. Baldwin:
Lord Denning: The "heresy" that natural justice applies only to judicial proceedings was
overturned.
Wade: Natural justice applies to "almost the whole range of administrative
powers."
 Key Cases Expanding Natural Justice
Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union:
Lord Denning: Statutory bodies must act fairly, regardless of function type.
Lord Morris: Natural justice principles apply broadly, including administrative law.
State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei:
Shah J: Even administrative orders with civil consequences must follow natural justice.
 Indian Perspective
A.K. Kraipak:
Supreme Court’s View: Natural justice should apply to administrative inquiries to prevent
miscarriage of justice.
Maneka Gandhi:
Kailasam J: The distinction between judicial/quasi-judicial and administrative acts has
blurred; natural justice applies to both.
 Recent Developments
Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT:
Supreme Court’s View: The old distinction between judicial and administrative acts has
withered away.
Conclusion: Even pure administrative actions with civil consequences must adhere to the
principles of natural justice.
Natural Justice in Administrative Law:Expands beyond courts to encompass
administrative authorities.
Ensures fairness, justice, and prevention of miscarriages of justice in all areas of
public law.
 Definition:
Natural justice is a fluid concept with varying interpretations.It cannot be confined
to a rigid formula; it adapts based on circumstances.
Key Reference:
Russell v. Duke of Norfolk: The requirements of natural justice depend on the case,
the nature of the inquiry, and the rules governing the tribunal.
 Core Principles of Natural Justice
Two Main Principles:
Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa:
No person should judge a case in which they have a personal interest.
Ensures impartiality and absence of bias.

Audi alteram partem:

Both sides must be heard before making a decision.
Guarantees fairness in the decision-making process.
 First Principle: Nemo Debet Esse Judex in Propria Causa
Rule Against Bias:
Maxims Supporting the Principle:
No man shall be a judge in his own cause.
Justice should be seen to be done.
Judges should be above suspicion, like Caesar’s wife.
Definition of Bias:
Bias occurs when there is a predisposition to favor one party over another without regard to
the merits of the case.
Franklin Case: Bias is a departure from even-handed justice.
 Understanding Bias
Doctrine Explained:
A judge must be impartial, neutral, and free from bias.
A judge cannot decide a case in which they have a personal or pecuniary interest.
Objectivity and judicial impartiality are crucial.
Judge’s Role:
The judge must remain firm and unbiased.
The appearance of neutrality is as important as actual neutrality.
 Implications of Bias
Consequences:
If a judge is biased or perceived as biased, they are disqualified from the case.
Proceedings are vitiated if bias is present.
Application:
This rule applies to both judicial and administrative authorities that are required to act
judicially or quasi-judicially.
 PECUNIARY BIAS

What is Pecuniary Bias?

Definition: Pecuniary bias occurs when a judge or decision-maker has a financial interest in
the outcome of a case.
Key Point: Even the smallest financial interest disqualifies a judge from presiding over a
case.
Quote: “A pecuniary interest, however slight, will disqualify, even though it is not proved
that the decision is in any way affected.” — Griffith and Street
 Principle Behind Pecuniary Bias

Explanation: The rule against pecuniary bias is to ensure impartiality in decision-making

and to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.
Key Point: The mere presence of financial interest can create a suspicion of bias, which is
sufficient to disqualify a judge.
 Landmark Case: Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal

Case Summary:
Facts: Lord Chancellor Cottenham, a shareholder in a canal company, dismissed appeals against the
company.
Outcome: The House of Lords quashed his decision, stating that his financial interest, however slight,
disqualified him.

Key Quote: “It is of the last importance that the maxim, that no one is to be a judge in his
own cause, should be held sacred.”
Significance: Established that even indirect financial interest can lead to disqualification.
 Case Example: Bonham's Case (1610)

Case Summary:
Facts: Dr. Bonham was fined by the College of Physicians, which would benefit financially from the fine.
Outcome: The fine was disallowed as the College was acting as both judge and beneficiary.

Significance: Early recognition of the principle that financial interest disqualifies a judge
from adjudicating.
 Case: N.B. Jeejeebhoy v. Collector of Thana (1965)
Facts: The Chief Justice was a member of a cooperative society for which land was acquired.
Outcome: Bench was reconstituted due to potential pecuniary bias.

Case: Visakapatnam Coop. Motor Transport Co. Ltd. v. G. Bangaruraju (1970)

Facts: The Collector granted a permit to a cooperative society he presided over.
Outcome: Decision was set aside due to violation of natural justice.
 Case: J. Mohapatra & Co. v. State of Orissa (1984)
Facts: Committee members selecting books were authors whose books were under consideration.
Outcome: Supreme Court ruled out the possibility of bias, emphasizing the importance of avoiding
even the appearance of bias.

Key Point: The principle of pecuniary bias continues to evolve, ensuring fairness and
impartiality in decision-making processes.
 PERSONAL BIAS

What is Personal Bias?

Definition: Personal bias arises when a judge or decision-maker has a personal connection,
grudge, or rivalry with one of the parties involved in the case.
Key Point: Such connections may lead to favoritism or prejudice, compromising the
fairness of the proceedings.
 Examples of Personal Bias

Friendship or Familial Ties: A judge related to or close friends with a party may exhibit
bias.
Grudge or Rivalry: Personal enmity or professional rivalry can lead to biased decisions.
Key Point: The likelihood of bias is significant in these situations, undermining the integrity
of the decision-making process.
 Case Example: Matrimonial Proceedings

Case Summary:
Facts: The Chairman of a Bench was a friend of the wife’s family in a matrimonial case. The wife
claimed the Chairman would favor her.
Outcome: The Divisional Court quashed the order due to potential bias.

Significance: Personal connections between the judge and a party can lead to
disqualification to preserve fairness.
 Magistrate Disqualification

Case Summary:
Facts: A Magistrate, previously assaulted by an accused, presided over the accused’s case.
Outcome: The Magistrate was disqualified from hearing the case.

Significance: Personal experiences, such as being a victim of the accused, can lead to
disqualification to avoid partiality.
 INDIAN PERSPECTIVES

Case 1: Manager Conducts InquiryFacts: A manager conducted an inquiry

against a workman accused of assaulting the manager.
Outcome: The inquiry was invalidated due to personal bias.
Case 2: Political RivalryFacts: A Minister with a political rivalry against an
individual canceled the latter’s license and filed a criminal case.
Outcome: The Minister was disqualified due to personal bias.
 LANDMARK CASE: A.K. KRAIPAK V UNION OF
INDIA

Case Summary:
Facts: N, a candidate for the Indian Foreign Service, was also a member of the Selection Board. Though
he did not participate when his name was considered, his presence on the Board created a potential
bias.
Outcome: The Supreme Court quashed the selection of N, citing a conflict of interest between his duty
and personal interest.

Key Quote: “It is against all canons of justice to make a man judge in his own cause.”
Significance: The case emphasized the importance of avoiding even the appearance of bias
to maintain public confidence in the fairness of administrative decisions.
 STATE OF U.P. V. MOHD. NOOH

Case Summary:
Facts: In a departmental inquiry, B, a witness against A, gave evidence, then resumed the role of the
decision-maker.
Outcome: The Supreme Court held that the principles of natural justice were violated due to personal
bias.

Significance: This case illustrates how personal involvement in multiple roles within the
same case can lead to a violation of natural justice.
 OFFICIAL BIAS OR BIAS AS TO THE SUBJECT-
MATTER

What is Official Bias?

Definition: Bias arising from a judge’s general or official interest in the subject
matter.
Does the official's role influence their impartiality?
 General vs. Specific Interest

General interest in policy typically does not disqualify.

Specific interest with a direct connection to the case can lead to disqualification.
Example: A minister framing a policy and also adjudicating related disputes.
 Ministerial or Departmental Policy
Bias Related to Policy Implementation
Ministerial or departmental policy generally doesn't constitute bias.
The decision-maker is expected to support government policy.
However, bias may be present if the decision-maker:
Prejudges the issue.
Fails to apply independent judgment.
Acts under superior’s dictation.
Case Study: Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. A.P. SRTC
Gullapalli I (1959):
The Secretary hearing objections was considered a party to the dispute.
Supreme Court ruled a violation of natural justice.

Gullapalli II (1960):
Minister, not the Secretary, heard objections.
Court ruled no bias as Minister wasn’t directly involved.
 Balancing Policy Implementation with Fairness

Officials must balance policy implementation with fairness in decision-making.

Public confidence depends on perceived impartiality.
Judicial standards for bias are evolving to meet modern governance needs.
 Krishna Bus Service v. State of Haryana
General Manager of Haryana Roadways had powers of DSP.
As a competitor, this created a conflict of interest.
Supreme Court quashed the notification, stressing public confidence in impartiality.
 JUDICIAL BIAS AND OBSTINACY

Understanding the Impact of Judicial Bias in Legal Proceedings

Judicial bias occurs when a judge's impartiality is compromised
Occurs when a judge fails to accept a higher court's decision.
The judge reasserts their original overruled judgment in subsequent proceedings.
Undermines the authority of superior courts.
 State of W.B. v. Shivananda Pathak

Initial Ruling: Single Judge ordered promotion.

Appeal: Division Bench set aside the order.
Subsequent Proceedings: Same judge reasserted the original decision in a fresh petition.
Supreme Court's Ruling: Identified judicial obstinacy and emphasized submission to
higher court rulings.
 REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF BIAS

Real Likelihood of Bias:

Bias is not determined by actual prejudice but by the possibility.
The test is whether a reasonable person would perceive bias.

Key Principle: Justice must be seen to be impartial to maintain public confidence.

A.U. Kureshi v. High Court of Gujarat
Reasonable Apprehension of Bias
Judge on the administrative side dealt with the misconduct of a subordinate.
Later, the same judge ruled on a petition filed by the same subordinate.
Supreme Court's Ruling: Reasonable apprehension of bias existed.
 Judges must avoid any situation that might create even a suspicion of bias.
Lord Denning: Justice must be rooted in confidence; public perception is key.
 BIAS IN COLLECTIVE DECISION-
MAKING AND ITS IMPACT

Bias can affect decisions when made by a group such as a Board or Committee.
Key focus: The impact of individual bias on collective decisions.

If one member of a decision-making body is biased, it can taint the entire decision.
Difficulty in assessing the influence of a biased member on others.
 A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India
Impact of Bias in Selection Process
Case Details:
A member of the Selection Board was also a candidate.
He did not participate when his case was considered.

Supreme Court Ruling:

Selection was set aside due to potential bias.
The presence of the candidate as a member likely influenced the Board's decision.
 PARTICIPATION IN APPEAL AGAINST OWN
DECISION

A person should not participate in an appeal against their own decision.

Risk:
Such participation risks bias, as the person may lean towards affirming their earlier decision.
 THE DOCTRINE OF AUDI ALTERAM
PARTEM

Meaning: "Hear the other side" or "No man should be condemned unheard."
Importance: Ensures fairness in judicial proceedings.
Definition: The principle that both sides must be heard before passing any order.
Rule of Law: This is a basic requirement and foundational concept of justice.
Scope: Applies to all courts and tribunals, both nationally and internationally.
De Smith’s View: No one should lose liberty or property without a fair opportunity to
answer the case against them.
 ELEMENTS OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM

1. Notice: Ensuring the person is informed of the case against them.

2. Hearing: Providing a fair chance to present their case before any decision is
made.
 NOTICE AND THE RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING

Key Point: Notice is a fundamental requirement for a fair hearing.

Principle: Any action taken without notice violates the principles of natural
justice and is void ab initio.
The Bagg Case
Incident: James Bagg was disfranchised without notice for alleged misconduct.
Outcome: Reinstated by mandamus as no notice was given.
 University of Cambridge
Dr. Bentley’s Misconduct Allegation
Incident: Dr. Bentley was deprived of his degrees without notice or hearing.
Outcome: Court declared the decision null and void.
Notice Requirements: Must be clear, specific, and unambiguous.Case Examples: The
notice must not be vague or uncertain.
 THE AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM MAXIM
AND THE RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING

Cooper v. Board
Demolition of Property Without Hearing
Incident: The defendant Board demolished a building without giving the owner a chance to
be heard.
Outcome: The court ruled that no one can be deprived of property without an opportunity
for a fair hearing.
 THE "MAGNA CARTA" OF NATURAL JUSTICE

Ridge v. Baldwin
Content:
Incident: A police officer was dismissed based on judicial observations without a hearing.
Outcome: The House of Lords declared the dismissal illegal due to the lack of an
opportunity to be heard.
 STATE OF ORISSA V. BINAPANI DEI

Compulsory Retirement Without Hearing

Content:
Incident: A government employee was retired without being heard.
Outcome: The Supreme Court set aside the order, citing a violation of natural justice.
 Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner
Cancellation of Poll Without Hearing
Content:
Incident: Polls were canceled due to election violence without giving candidates a chance
to be heard.
Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the objection, emphasizing fair play in action.
 Case Study: Olga Tellis
Removal of Unauthorised Constructions
Content:
Incident: The court interpreted statutory provisions regarding removal of structures as
requiring notice.
Outcome: Discretion must align with natural justice principles.
 Challenges in Application
Flexibility in Natural Justice
Examples: Variations in the extent of hearing opportunities based on situational demands.
Key Point: The application of natural justice is context-specific and not absolute.
 Maneka Gandhi
Passport Impounded Without Hearing
Content:
Incident: The petitioner's passport was impounded by the Indian Government without prior
notice.
Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled the action violated natural justice principles.
 ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY AND
DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE

Key Principle: The adjudicating authority must disclose all evidence and material
placed before it during proceedings.
Objective: To afford the person against whom the evidence is utilized an
opportunity to prepare a defense, rebut the evidence, and present their case.
 Right to Know the Case
Lord Denning's Principle:
"If the right to be heard is to be a real right, it must carry with it a right in the accused
person to know the case made against him."
The accused must know the evidence and statements affecting him and be given a fair
opportunity to correct or contradict them.
 Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT
Supreme Court Decision: Set aside the order by the Appellate Tribunal.
Reason: Non-disclosure of evidence by the department used against the assessee,
violating principles of natural justice.
 Bishambhar Nath Kohli v. State of U.P.
Facts of the Case : Custodian General accepted new evidence without giving the
other side an opportunity to respond.
Supreme Court Ruling: Principles of natural justice were violated due to non-
disclosure.
 CROSS-EXAMINATION AND NATURAL JUSTICE

Key Point: Cross-examination is not inherently part of natural justice.

Determination: Whether cross-examination should be allowed depends on the
specific facts and circumstances of each case.
Statutory Provision: If a statute permits cross-examination, the opposite party
has the right to it.
Common Practice: Normally allowed in disciplinary proceedings and domestic
inquiries.
 U.P. Warehousing Corpn. v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee
Facts of the Case : Employee was dismissed without being allowed to cross-
examine witnesses.
Supreme Court Ruling: The dismissal was set aside as it violated natural justice.
Khem Chand v. Union of India
Supreme Court Decision: Cross-examining witnesses is an important right for
defending oneself.
 State of Kerala v. K.T. Shaduli Grocery Dealer
Facts of the Case : Sales Tax Officer denied cross-examination of a wholesale
dealer.
Supreme Court Ruling: The decision was illegal, as cross-examination was
essential to prove the respondent's case.
Hira Nath Mishra v. Rajendra Medical College
Facts of the Case : Male students were rusticated for entering a girls’ hostel, and
their request to cross-examine female witnesses was denied.
Supreme Court Observation: Cross-examination was rightly refused due to
concerns for the safety of the girl students.
 Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti
Facts of the Case : A teacher charged with misconduct was denied cross-
examination of a girl student.
Supreme Court Ruling: The facts justified the refusal of cross-examination.
K.L. Tripathi v. SBI
Key Principle: When the credibility of a person is in dispute, cross-examination is
crucial for fair play.
Limitation: If there is no dispute regarding the facts, cross-examination may not
be necessary.
 " HE WHO HEARS MUST DECIDE"

"General Rule: "He who hears should decide" or "One who decides must hear."
Purpose: Ensures proper administration of justice.
Case Law: Ossein and Gelatine Manufacturers’ Assn. v. Modi Alkalies and
Chemicals Ltd.
Facts of the Case : Hearing was conducted by one officer, but the order was
passed by another.
Court's Observation: The officer who passed the order fully considered all
objections and the details of the case.
Outcome: The order was upheld, as the principle of justice was deemed satisfied.
 NATURAL JUSTICE AND PENAL ACTION

Key Principle: If principles of natural justice are not observed, any penal action
taken is liable to be set aside.
 The "Empty Formality" Argument
General Rule: The argument that issuing notice or providing a hearing would
have made "no difference" or is an "empty formality" is generally not accepted.
Key Case: General Council of Medical Education & Registration v.
Spackman
Lord Wright’s Observation: Violating natural justice principles invalidates the decision,
regardless of whether the outcome would have been the same.
 Case: Board of High School & Intermediate Education, U.P. v. Chitra
Srivastava
Facts: Examination canceled without notice due to attendance shortage.
Supreme Court Ruling: The Board's argument that notice wouldn't have made a
difference was rejected.
Case: ECIL v. B. Karunakar
Key Point: The failure to supply an inquiry report is not unlawful unless it causes
prejudice to the employee.
 Case: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
Observation: Earlier, any breach of natural justice was considered prejudicial.
However, this strict rule has been relaxed in both England and India.
Case: Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan
Facts: Automatic termination for unauthorized absence; the challenge based on
lack of hearing was dismissed as notice would not have changed the outcome.
 Case: Biecco Lawrie Ltd. v. State of W.B.
Facts: Delinquent admitted all charges and sought mercy but was dismissed.
Supreme Court Ruling: Despite admission of guilt, the court held that following
natural justice would have been a "useless formality."
 UNDERSTANDING FAIR HEARING AND
RIGHT TO BE HEARD

Key Principle:Natural Justice ensures fairness in administrative proceedings.

Core components: Right to a fair hearing and impartial adjudication.
Right to be Heard (Audi Alteram Partem)
Definition:
The person affected must be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case.
Case Law:
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1954): Supreme Court set aside an order where
evidence was used without disclosing it to the affected party.
 Oral Hearing Not Always Required
Concept:
Oral hearings are not mandatory unless explicitly required by law.
Case Law:
M.P. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1966): Oral hearing is not a sine qua non of
natural justice.
Practical Example:
Written submissions suffice in many administrative proceedings.
 Discretion of the Adjudicating Authority
Concept:
The authority can decide whether an oral or written hearing is appropriate, based on the
facts of the case.
Case Law:
Bishambhar Nath Kohli v. State of U.P. (1965): Violation of natural justice when new
evidence was not disclosed to the other party.
 Flexibility of Natural Justice
Concept:
Natural justice principles are adaptable to circumstances; fairness is the ultimate test.
Case Law:
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985): Natural justice principles can be excluded in
certain urgent situations.
 Impartial Adjudicating Authority
Concept:
The decision-making body must be impartial and free from bias.
Case Law:
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Bias or the likelihood of bias violates natural
justice.
 Fair Hearing Requirement
Concept:
A fair hearing can be either oral or written, depending on the context.
Case Law:
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969): Highlighted the importance of fairness in quasi-
judicial proceedings.
 Circumstances Requiring Oral Hearing
Concept:
Oral hearings are generally expected when significant rights (e.g., property) are involved.
Case Law:
State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei (1967): Emphasized the need for an oral
hearing in cases involving significant adverse decisions.
 Statutory Guidance on Hearing
Concept:
Statutes may require an oral hearing, and such requirements must be followed.
Case Law:
Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) [UK]: Failure to provide an oral hearing where required by law is
a violation of natural justice.
 PRE-DECISIONAL AND POST-DECISIONAL
HEARINGS IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Pre-decisional Hearing: A hearing afforded before a decision or order is made.

Post-decisional Hearing: A hearing provided after a decision or order has been
taken.
 DOCTRINE OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM

Fundamental Rule of Natural Justice:

Ensures just and fair decisions by the adjudicating authority.
Acts as a check on the abuse or misuse of power.
Key Principle:
The rule should be followed in both letter and spirit to achieve fairness.
General Rule for Hearings
Principle:
As a general rule, a hearing should be afforded before a decision is made.
Case Law:
Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) [UK]: The House of Lords rejected the argument that a prior hearing
wouldn't have made a difference, emphasizing the importance of a pre-decisional hearing.
 Pre-decisional Hearing
Concept:
Ensures that the affected party has an opportunity to present their case before a decision is
made.
Case Law:
Ridge v. Baldwin (1964): Highlighted the importance of giving a prior hearing, which
might have led to a more lenient decision by the authority.
 Post-decisional Hearing
Concept:
A hearing provided after the decision has been made, typically used in exceptional cases.
Case Law:
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): The Supreme Court of India recognized post-
decisional hearings in situations where prior notice or hearing is impractical due to urgent
circumstances.
 Application in India
Case Law:
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): The Government impounded the petitioner’s
passport without a prior hearing, arguing that the application of the audi alteram partem
rule would frustrate the purpose. The Supreme Court accepted the validity of post-
decisional hearing in exceptional circumstances.
 Exceptions to Pre-decisional Hearing
When Applicable:
In emergent situations requiring immediate action.
Where giving prior notice or hearing is impracticable.
Requirement:
Any preliminary action should be followed by a full and remedial hearing.
 Importance of Audi Alteram Partem
Purpose:
To prevent arbitrary decisions and ensure fairness.
Ensures that the affected party is heard, whether before or after a decision.
Practical Implication:
Authorities must balance the need for immediate action with the rights of individuals to be
heard.
 PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE:
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM & DISCLOSURE

Audi Alteram Partem: The Right to be Heard

Definition:
Fundamental rule of natural justice.
Ensures fair decision-making.
Key Concepts:
Pre-decisional vs. post-decisional hearing.
The importance of the opportunity to present a case.
Case Study: Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
Case Facts:
Removal of unauthorized construction.
Statute empowered Commissioner to act without notice.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court read the audi alteram partem rule into the statute.
A command to remove without notice would invalidate the law.
 K.I. Shephard v. Union of India
Case Facts:
Amalgamation of private banks with nationalized banks.
Termination of certain employees without hearing.
Court’s Decision:
Rejection of post-decisional hearing.
Importance of prior hearing to uphold natural justice.
 Practical Application: Hypothetical Scenario
Scenario: Unauthorized Construction
Municipal Commissioner orders demolition without notice.
Community argues for the right to be heard.
Discussion Points:
Should audi alteram partem apply even without explicit statutory requirement?
What if a post-demolition hearing is offered?
 H.L. Trehan v. Union of India: Case Overview
Facts:
A circular issued by a government company altered employee terms without a hearing.
Employees challenged the circular.
Company’s Argument:
Post-decisional hearing provided after the circular was issued.
 H.L. Trehan v. Union of India: Court's Decision
Supreme Court's Ruling:
Rejected the validity of post-decisional hearing.
Emphasized that such hearings do not fulfill the principles of natural justice.
Highlighted the risk of a closed mind by the authority during post-decisional hearings.
 Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (Bhopal Gas Disaster Case): Case
Overview
Facts:
Settlement of claims related to Bhopal Gas Disaster.
Issue of whether prior notice and hearing were required before settlement.
Supreme Court's Ruling:
Recognized the necessity of pre-decisional hearing.
Despite recognizing insufficiency of post-decisional hearing, did not quash the settlement
due to the case's peculiar circumstances.
 Comparison: H.L. Trehan vs. Charan Lal Sahu
Key Points:
H.L. Trehan: Strong rejection of post-decisional hearing as a substitute for pre-decisional
hearing.
Charan Lal Sahu: Although pre-decisional hearing was deemed necessary, the Supreme
Court chose not to quash the settlement due to specific case factors.
 Implications of Post-Decisional Hearing
Critical Analysis:
H.L. Trehan: Post-decisional hearing often leads to bias; principles of natural justice are
not fully served.
Charan Lal Sahu: Exceptional circumstances may lead to acceptance of post-decisional
hearing despite general principles.
Key Takeaway:
The timing and openness of the hearing process are crucial in upholding natural justice.
 NATURAL JUSTICE: CAN APPELLATE HEARING
CURE INITIAL NON-COMPLIANCE?

Main Issue:
Can a failure of natural justice at the initial stage be cured by a subsequent
hearing at the appellate stage?
Can a defective trial be remedied by a curative appeal?
 Leary v. National Union of Vehicle Builders
Facts:
A member was expelled from the union without following principles of natural justice.
The issue was whether the subsequent appellate hearing could cure this defect.
 Court's Ruling in Leary v. National Union of Vehicle Builders
Megarry J's Statement:
“As a general rule, at all events, I hold that a failure of natural justice in the trial body
cannot be cured by a sufficiency of natural justice in an appellate body.”
Emphasizes the importance of natural justice at every stage of the process.
 Implications of the Ruling
Key Points:
Natural justice must be observed at all stages of the decision-making process.
An appellate hearing cannot replace the need for a fair trial at the initial stage.
Ensures the integrity of the legal process and prevents any bias or unfairness.
 Calvin v. Carr
Case Background:
Plaintiff disqualified as a member of the Australian Jockey Club.
No hearing was initially afforded to the plaintiff.
Privy Council Ruling:
The appeal provided “overall, full, and fair consideration.”
The defect was cured by the rehearing on appeal.
Case Comparison - Leary v. National Union of Vehicle Builders
Leary Case Background:
Expulsion of a member without following natural justice.
Privy Council Observation:
The rule in Leary was “too broadly stated.”
Unlike Leary, Calvin v. Carr had a satisfactory appellate hearing.
 Application in Indian Law - Mohd. Nooh Case
Supreme Court Ruling:
An order passed by a lower court or tribunal, if null and void, cannot be cured on appeal or
revision.
Confirmation in appeal does not rectify the initial defect.
 Application in Indian Law - Mysore SRTC Case
Case Background:
A civil servant's dismissal was ordered by a subordinate authority, not the Head of
Department.
Supreme Court Ruling:
The dismissal order was void and without jurisdiction.
Confirmation in appeal could not cure this defect, violating Article 311 of the Constitution.
 Application in Indian Law - Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad Case
Case Background:
Compulsory land acquisition without granting the appellant a personal hearing.
Supreme Court Ruling:
Personal hearing required under the statute was not substituted by an appeal.
The appeal provided under the Act could not remedy the lack of initial hearing.
 Overall Principle:
Natural justice at the initial stage cannot always be substituted by an appeal.
A proper hearing at the earliest stage is crucial to ensure justice.
Appellate hearings may cure defects only in specific, exceptional cases.
 GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Impartiality:
The adjudicating authority must be impartial and free from any interest or bias.
Non-Delegation:
When exercising judicial or quasi-judicial power, the adjudicating authority must issue
orders itself. This power cannot be delegated or sub-delegated.
Opportunity to Present Evidence:
The affected person must be given full opportunity to present relevant evidence.
Disclosure of Material:
The adjudicating authority must disclose all material used in the proceedings and cannot
use any material against a party without giving them an opportunity to respond.
 Opportunity to Rebut:
The party concerned must be given a chance to rebut evidence and material placed by the
other side.
Disclosure and Rebuttal:
The authority must disclose evidence it plans to use and give the concerned person a
chance to rebut. However, the right to cross-examination is not always guaranteed and
depends on the case's context.
Fairness:Even when not required to act judicially, the adjudicating authority must
act fairly.
Pre- and Post-Decisional Hearing:As a rule, hearings should be pre-decisional.
However, in exceptional cases, a post-decisional hearing is permissible.
 Oral or Personal Hearing:
Oral or personal hearings are not a guaranteed part of natural justice and cannot be
claimed as a right.
Representation:
Representation through counsel or an advocate is not a part of natural justice, but
in some cases, a delinquent employee may be allowed to be represented by a
“friend” or co-worker.
 Giving Reasons:
While not always required, giving reasons in support of an order is increasingly
seen as part of natural justice.
Void Orders:
If the adjudicating authority violates principles of natural justice by not giving a
hearing, the order is void, regardless of whether the hearing would have changed
the outcome.
 Prejudice and Appeals
Doctrine of Prejudice:
The recent trend has recognized and applied the doctrine of prejudice.
Hearing on Appeal:
A hearing given on appeal does not substitute for a hearing not given before the
initial decision.
 REPRESENTATION BY A LAWYER

The right to legal representation is generally not considered part of natural justice
unless conferred by statute.
 Legal Representation in Administrative Law
Pett v. Greyhound Racing Assn. Ltd.:
Lyell J observed: "Legal representation is not an elementary feature of fair justice. It only
arises in societies with a degree of sophistication."
C.K. Allen:
Denying legal representation is a mistaken kindness for those unable to express themselves
effectively.
De Smith:
Legal representation in disciplinary proceedings helps prevent serious prejudice, especially
when complex issues are at play.
 Statutory Provisions and Exceptions
Legal Representation Not Permitted:
Factory laws do not permit legal practitioners.
Legal Representation with Permission:
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 allows advocates only with the tribunal's permission.
Recognized Right:
Income Tax Act, 1961 allows representation through advocates.
 Advocates Act, 1961
Section 30 of the Advocates Act:
Confers the absolute right on advocates to practice in all courts, tribunals, and before any
legally authorized authority.
Criteria for Legal Representation
Simple Cases:
Where issues are straightforward, e.g., payment disputes or basic assessment orders, legal
representation may be rejected.
Complex Cases:
When the case involves cross-examination, legal complexity, voluminous evidence, or when a
party faces a trained prosecutor, legal representation should be allowed to ensure fairness.
 Refusal of Legal Representation
Potential Prejudice:
Denying legal assistance where complex or voluminous evidence is involved may cause
serious prejudice and deny the person reasonable opportunity to be heard.
 REPRESENTATION IN DEPARTMENTAL
PROCEEDINGS AND DOMESTIC ENQUIRIES

Key Point:Employees or workmen are usually allowed to represent their case

through a friend, co-worker, or a union representative.
Supreme Court View on Representation
Supreme Court Ruling:
In domestic enquiries, employees should be given the liberty to choose their representative,
provided there is no standing order against it and no objections.
Case Reference: A.K. Roy v. Union of India
 Legal Representation in Detention Cases
A.K. Roy v. Union of India:
It was argued that a detenu has the right to legal representation.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument but allowed the detenu the right to assistance
by a friend.
Right to Representation
Legal Representation:
Denial of legal representation is not considered a violation of natural justice per se.
If the statute explicitly excludes legal representation, tribunals must follow it.
 Assistance by a Friend
Detention Cases:
The right to have the aid of a friend, if demanded, should be granted by Advisory Boards, as
long as the statute does not exclude it.
Summary of Representation Rules
Departmental and Domestic Enquiries:
Representation through a friend or union representative is generally allowed unless
objected.
Detention Cases:
Legal representation can be excluded by statute, but assistance by a friend should be
granted when requested.
 SPEAKING ORDERS

Definition:A "speaking order" means an order that speaks for itself.

It must contain reasons in support of its decision.
Importance of Speaking Orders
Third Principle of Natural Justice:
Reasons in support of an order are essential for fairness.
A party has the right to know both the result and the reasoning behind it.
 OBJECT OF SPEAKING ORDERS

No General Rule (English Law):

There is no general requirement in English law for reasons to be given for administrative or
judicial decisions.
India’s Adoption:
Initially, India did not require speaking orders as part of natural justice.
 Evolution of the Speaking Order Principle
Lord Denning’s View:
“The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.”
Reasons provide clarity, transparency, and prevent arbitrariness.
Safeguards Against Abuse of Power
Welfare State:
With the increase in governmental and administrative functions, the requirement to record
reasons prevents arbitrary exercise of power by authorities.
 Regular Courts vs. Administrative Tribunals
Courts vs. Tribunals:
Regular courts may dismiss cases without providing detailed reasons.
Administrative tribunals, however, are required to record reasons to ensure fairness and
prevent abuse of discretion.
 REQUIREMENT TO RECORD REASONS

Statutory Obligation:If the statute mandates recording of reasons, it is a binding

requirement.
No further inquiry is needed when the statute clearly specifies this duty.
Importance of Recording Reasons
Even Without Statutory Obligation:
Recording reasons is essential for quasi-judicial authorities.
It is the "only visible safeguard against possible injustice and arbitrariness."
 Reasons as Links
Reasoning Process:
Reasons connect the materials on which decisions are based and the actual conclusions
reached.
They reveal how the decision-maker's mind is applied to the facts.
 Rational Nexus:
Reasons must show a rational connection between the facts considered and the conclusions reached.
This ensures that decisions are manifestly just and reasonable.
Grounds for Insisting on Disclosure of Reasons
Right to Appeal:
The aggrieved party can challenge the reasoning before an appellate or revisional court.
Prevention of Arbitrary Action:
Recording reasons acts as a deterrent against arbitrary decisions by executive authorities.
Satisfaction of the Affected Party:
It provides the party affected by the order with a clear explanation.
 Exceptional Circumstances for Non-Disclosure
Power to Refuse Disclosure:
Refusal to disclose reasons is “exceptional” and must be used cautiously.
Only justified in rare, uncommon situations.
Rule of Non-Arbitrariness
Non-Arbitrariness Principle:
Every State action must adhere to the rule of non-arbitrariness.
Recording reasons is implicit, even in the absence of statutory requirements.
 S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India
Key Observation by the Supreme Court:
Recording Reasons for Decisions:
Administrative authorities exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions must record reasons unless expressly exempted.
Considerations for Recording Reasons:
Subject to Appellate Jurisdiction:
Decisions are subject to appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (Article 136) and supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts
(Article 227).
Guarantees Proper Consideration:
Ensures the adjudicating authority gives due consideration to the case.
Enhances Clarity:
Recording reasons introduces transparency and clarity in the decision-making process.
Prevents Arbitrariness:
Minimizes the chances of arbitrary decisions and promotes fairness.
 CONTROVERSIAL QUESTION: IS RECORDING OF
REASONS A PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE?

Established Principles of Natural Justice:

Nemo Debet Esse Judex in Propria Causa:
No one shall be a judge in their own cause.
Audi Alteram Partem:
No one should be condemned unheard.
Siemens Engineering Case (First Time Ruling):
Supreme Court's Stance:
Recording of reasons by quasi-judicial authorities is a basic principle of natural justice.
Bhagwati J's Observation:
“The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is, like audi alteram partem, a basic
principle of natural justice.”
 Maneka Gandhi Case:
Supreme Court Ruling:
The order impounding Maneka Gandhi's passport violated the principle of natural justice (audi
alteram partem).
Union of India v. E.G. Nambudiri Case:
Issue:
Representation against adverse remarks in a government servant’s confidential record was rejected
without recording reasons.
Outcome:
Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the order for lack of reasons.
Supreme Court Involvement:
Union of India challenged the tribunal's decision.
 NON-EXISTENCE VS. NON-
COMMUNICATION OF REASONS

Non-Existence of Reasons:
No action can be taken without reasons.
If no reasons exist, the action is arbitrary and unreasonable and must be quashed.
Non-Communication of Reasons:
Reasons may exist but may not be communicated due to public interest or similar justification.
Supreme Court Observation in Liberty Oil Mills Case:
Clause 8-B of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955:
“Without assigning any reason” implies that:
The decision must be communicated.
The reasons for the decision may not be stated, but they must exist.
 Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P.:
Case Summary:
State Government terminated appointments of all Government Counsel without assigning
any cause.
Supreme Court Ruling:
Non-assigning or non-communication of reasons may be justified by public policy.
However, termination without cogent reasons is arbitrary and against public policy.
 JUSTICIABILITY OF REASONS IN
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

(i) Doctrine Explained:

Judicial Scrutiny:
Reasons recorded by an adjudicating authority are subject to judicial review.
Courts can set aside decisions if the reasons are found to be:
Irrelevant
Extraneous
Incorrect
Non-existent
Irrational
 (ii) Importance of Justiciability:
Safeguard Against Arbitrary Power:
Judicial scrutiny acts as a safeguard against arbitrary decisions by authorities.
Without this power, courts cannot act even if reasons are irrelevant or unlawful.
 Key Case: Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Facts:
Minister refused to refer a complaint to a committee, providing reasons for the refusal.
Decision challenged as the reasons were irrelevant and extraneous.
Minister's Defense:
Claimed he was not bound to give reasons, and giving them shouldn't disadvantage his
decision.
 House of Lords Ruling:
Rejection of Minister’s Argument:
The decision could have been questioned even without stated reasons.
Lord Upjohn's Observation:
If no reasons are given, courts may infer that there was no valid reason for the decision
and may intervene.
The same principle is accepted in India. In Hochtief Gammon v. State of Orissa256,
the Supreme Court held that it is the duty of the court to ensure that the executive
acts lawfully and it cannot avoid scrutiny by courts by failing to give reasons. Even
if the Executive considers it inexpedient to exercise their powers they should state
their reasons and there must be material to show that they have considered all the
relevant facts.
 FLEXIBILITY OF NATURAL JUSTICE

Key Principles of Natural Justice:

Nemo Judex in Causa Sua
No one should be a judge in their own cause.
Audi Alteram Partem
Right to be heard.
 Characteristics of Natural Justice:
Non-Statutory:
Not defined by law but established by legal principles.
Flexible and Adaptable:
These rules are not rigid or fixed; they adapt to different situations and contexts.
They can be modified by statutes, tribunal constitutions, and specific circumstances.
 Exclusion of Natural Justice:
Certain circumstances may justify the exclusion of natural justice, such as:
Statutory Exclusion:
When a statute expressly or implicitly excludes the application of natural justice.
Legislative Action:
Applies to legislative actions (plenary or subordinate).
Doctrine of Necessity:
When the doctrine of necessity applies.
.
 Admitted or Undisputed Facts:
If facts are clear and undisputed, natural justice may not be required.
Confidential Enquiries:
Confidential matters may justify exclusion.
Preventive Action:
In cases requiring preventive measures.
Urgent Action:
Prompt and urgent actions may not observe natural justice principles.
Fairness Presumed:
Where non-observance does not result in unfairness
 EFFECT OF BREACH OF NATURAL JUSTICE

Key Question:
What is the effect of a breach or contravention of natural justice?
Does it render a decision void or merely voidable?
Voidable Order:
Definition:
An order that is valid and legal until it is set aside by a court at the instance of an
aggrieved party.
Effect:
Remains effective unless challenged in court.
 Void Order:
Definition:
An order that has no legal standing. It is as if it was never made.
Effect:
Can be:
Ignored
Disregarded
Disobeyed
Impeached in any proceeding.
Legal Status:
It is considered a nullity and void ab initio (from the beginning).
 EFFECT OF VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN
INDIA

Settled Legal Principle:

In India, violation of natural justice results in the order being declared null and void.
Examples of Null and Void Orders:
Cancellation of Government Servant's Appointment:
Without hearing: The order is void.
Retirement of Civil Servant:
Without opportunity to respond: The order is void ab initio.
Impounding of Journalist's Passport:
Without notice: The order is considered null and void.
Imposition of Liability Without Hearing:
If an assessee is not given a hearing before a Commission, the liability imposed is invalid.
Bias or Partiality in Judgment:
Judgments resulting from bias are null and the trial is considered coram non judice (not before a proper judge).
 Case Study: Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. State of Gujarat
Externment Order:
Passed against the petitioner under the Bombay Police Act, 1951.
Violation of Externment Order:
Petitioner entered the forbidden area, violating the order.
Supreme Court Ruling:
The externment order was quashed as unconstitutional.
The violation was declared null, as the petitioner could not be guilty of breaching an order
that never legally existed.
 WHERE NATURAL JUSTICE VIOLATED

Assessment by Commercial Tax Officer:

The assessment was done based on instructions from a superior without giving the appellant a chance to respond,
which was deemed unfair and undermined public confidence .
Proceedings Under Taxation Laws:
Failure to allow cross-examination of individuals who made statements against the accused led to the order being
vitiated .
Selection Committee Bias:
A member of the Selection Committee being a candidate for selection violated the principles of natural justice .
Examination Malpractice Case:
A student charged with malpractice and not given a fair hearing had their debarment order quashed .
Termination of Employment Without Cause:
A permanent employee’s services were terminated without an opportunity to show cause, leading to the order being
quashed .
4o
 CONCLUSION: NATURAL JUSTICE -
KEEPING IT FAIR (AND FUN!)

Natural Justice: The ultimate referee - no bias, no ignoring pleas!

Rules: Not set in stone but definitely not to be ignored!
Lesson Learned: If you're going to be unfair, at least give a reason… or face the
mighty quash-hammer!
Moral of the Story: Don't mess with the audi alteram partem – it's Latin for
"Listen up, or else!"
“Injustice never sleeps, but neither do the courts!” 😄