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 [Link] 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 [Link]
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."