Principles of Natural

Justice
Introduction
PNJ in Indian Constitution
• The phrase finds no mention in the constitution, but its principles
pervade the whole scheme of the constitution
• Social and Economic Justice mentioned in the preamble: imbibes in
itself the concept of fairness in social and economic actions in the
society.
• Fair procedure under Article 14 and 21
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India
(1978)
• Facts: The Petitioner’s passport was revoked by the Government under S 10(3)(c) of the Passports
Act, 1967, in ‘the public interest.’ The Passport Authority refused to disclose the reasons for
confiscation of the passport and denied the Petitioner any opportunity of being heard. The Petitioner
challenged the vires of both the Order that impounded her passport as well as the Act itself on
various grounds. One of the grounds of contention was violation of Article 21 due to non-observance
of the principles of natural justice.
• Section 10 (3) (c) of the Passports Act allowed the concerned authority to impound the passport of a
person if it “deems it necessary so to do in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the
security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country, or in the interests of the general
public.” Sub-section (5) of S. 10 lays down that authority in question while exercising such powers,
“shall record in writing a brief statement of the reasons for making such order and furnish to the
holder of the passport or travel document on demand a copy of the same unless in any case, the
passport authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity
of India, the security of India. friendly relations of India with any foreign country or in the interests of
the general public to furnish such a copy.”
• The reason, disclosed later, was because the Petitioner might be required to present in India for the
purpose of the inquiry being conducted by the Justice JC Shah Commission into the excesses of the
Emergency period.
• Issue: Whether the impugned order could be stuck down due to non-
observance of PNJ. Alternatively, whether the Act itself could be
questioned on the same grounds.

• Court:
• “Natural justice is a great humanising principle intended to invest law
with' fairness and to secure justice and over the years it has grown
into a widely pervasive rule affecting large areas of administrative
action. … natural justice "as a distillate of due process of law".
• On possible exceptions to PNJ: “The word 'exception' is really a misnomer because in
these exclusionary cases the audi alteram partem rule is held inapplicable not by way of
an exception to "fair play in action", but because nothing unfair can be inferred by not
affording an opportunity to present or meet a case. … Since the life of the law is not logic
but experience and every legal proposition must, in the ultimate analysis, be tested on
the touchstone of pragmatic realism, the audi alteram partem rule would, by the
experiential test, be excluded, if importing the right to be heard has the effect of
paralysing the administrative process or the need for promptitude or the urgency of the
situation so demands. But at the same time it must be remembered that this is a rule of
vital importance in the field of administrative law and it must not be jettisoned save in
very exceptional circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands.”

• “A fair opportunity of being heard following immediately upon the order impounding
the passport would satisfy the mandate of natural justice and a provision requiring
giving of such opportunity to the person concerned can and should be read by
implication in the Passports Act, 1967. If such a provision were held to be incorporated
in the Passports, Act, 1967 by necessary implication, as we hold it must be, the
procedure prescribed by the Act for impounding a passport would be right, fair and just
and it would not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.
Application of PNJ
• Where a person suffers a civil consequence, or a prejudice is caused
to him by any administrative action.
• Requirement can be read into the provisions even in cases of express
statutory power, or absence of any procedural safeguards.
• Adverse consequences inherent, but no law to support the claim.
• No differentiation between administrative order or quasi judicial
order
• Ridge v. Baldwin: Substance over form
• AK Kraipak in India
AK Kraipak v Union of India
• Applicability of PNJ: “If the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of
justice one fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable to administrative
enquiries.”

• How to determine which principles would apply to a given case: “What particular rule of
natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and
circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and
the Constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a
complaint is made before a court that some principle of natural justice had been contravened
the court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision
on the facts of that case.”

• State of Orissa v Binapani De (1967): “even an administrative order, which involves civil
consequences … must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice.”
Condensation of Natural Justice
Principles
1. No one should be made a judge in his own cause (rule against bias)
2. No one should be condemned unheard (rule of fair hearing)
Principle of Bias
• Meaning: An operative prejudice in relation to a party or an issue,
which may drive the decision making process through self interest
rather than through reason.

• Significance:
• Objectivity and Fairness
• Self interest
• Public Confidence: Justice should be ‘seen’ to be done
Test: Real Likelihood of Bias
• Doctrine of de-facto prejudice
• No actual detriment necessary, mere likelihood is enough.
• Real likelihood must be proved. Mere apprehension or vague
suspicion is not enough.
• State of mind of the party to be evaluated, rather than that of the
authority: reasoning of confidence in judicial procedure.
• Question to ask here: Whether a reasonable man, in possession of
relevant information, would have thought that bias was likely, and
whether the person concerned was likely to be disposed to decide the
matter only in a particular way.
Types of Bias
• Personal Bias: Arises from certain relationship equation between the
deciding authority and the parties.
• Pecuniary Bias: Financial or Proprietary interest: automatic
disqualification. Stricter enforcement in this case.
• Subject Matter Bias/ Departmental Bias: Where the deciding
authority is directly or otherwise involved in the subject matter of the
case.
Exceptions
• Doctrine of Necessity: The rules against bias will be displaced where
the individual whose impartiality is called to question is the only
person empowered to act.
• Statutory Exceptions: Strictly interpreted.
• Absence of a Personal Lis: Income tax department adjudicating on
violation cases for instance. Electricity board adjudicating on
irregularities of the consumers.
• Waiver
Personal Bias: GN Nayak v. Goa
University
• A senior officer praised his junior in his confidential report. Said senior
was also a member of the promotion committee. Recommendation
for promotion challenged
• Held: It is not every kind of bias which in law is taken to vitiate an act.
It must be a prejudice which is not founded on reason, and actuated
by self interest whether pecuniary or personal.
• If it is rational and unaccompanied by considerations of personal
interest, pecuniary or otherwise, it would not vitiate a decision.
Personal/Pecuniary Bias: J
Mohapatra and Co.
• Assessment committee for selection of books to be recommended to
schools
• Some of the authors were members of the committee, but an
individual member would withdraw when his book was taken up for
consideration
• Books of the author- members were eventually approved
• Bias? Held: Actual bias is not necessary but every possibility of bias
must be considered.
• Though members withdrew from the discussions of their own books,
their mere involvement in the process may bring up the possibility of
quid pro quo with other members.
Subject matter bias: Gullapalli cases
• Andhra Pradesh government order to nationalize transport
• First, duty of hearing given to Secretary of Transport: the person who
initiated the scheme, and who would execute it.
• Challenged: order quashed due to possibility of bias
• Order amended thereafter. Duty now given to the Chief minister
• Challenged: Court rejected the contentions this time.
• Held: “The position of the Chief Minister was quite distinct from that of the
Secretary of the Department. While the Secretary of the Department
was its head and so a part of it, the Minister in charge was only primarily
responsible for the disposal of the business pertaining to that
Department.”
Doctrine of Necessity
• The law permits certain things to be done as a matter of necessity
which it would otherwise not allow on the touchstone of judicial
propriety.
• This is generally done when there is no other authority empowered to
act.
• Choice of possible bias v. inability to carry out the action all together
AK Yadav v State of Haryana
• Selections made by public service commissions challenged as many
selected candidates were related to the members of the commission.
• Held: Member of a constitutional body like the Public Service
Commission could not entirely disassociate himself with the process
just because a few candidates are related to him
• Selective Disassociation can be done, but not exclusion
• The principle which requires that a member of a selection Committee whose
close relative is appearing for selection should decline to become a member
of the selection committee or withdraw from it leaving it to the appointing
authority to nominate another person in his place, need not be applied in
case of a constitutional Authority like the Public Service Commission,
whether Central or State.
• If a member of a Public Service Commission was to withdraw altogether
from the selection process on the ground that a close relative of his is
appearing for selection, no other person save a member can be substituted
in his place. And it may sometimes happen that no other member is
available to take the place of such member and the functioning of the Public
Service Commission may be affected.
Tata Cellular v. Union of India
• Concerns tender for operating the cellular mobile service in four metro cities
• The tenders are to be evaluated by the Tender Evaluation Committee, which is a
recommendatory body. The selection was based on merit through the normal
procedure
• One of the applicant companies in this case is the employer of the son of one of the
tender evaluation committee members. Personal bias alleged.
• “Mr Nair was not the decision-maker at all. He was one of the recommending
authorities. His involvement in the approval and selection of the tender was
indispensable. He was originally the Member (Services) on 29-5-1992. Thereafter he
became Director General, Telecommunications by a notification issued by 28-7-1992
by the President of India. As such, he was to exercise all powers of Telegraph
Authority under Section 3(6) of the Act. Therefore, the High Court was right in
applying the doctrine of necessity.”
ECI v Subramanian Swamy
• The respondent filed a petititon to the election commission on the
disqualification of Jaya Lalitha
• Jaya Lalitha file a writ, asking the election commissioner to not
proceed with the petition as she has a reasonable apprehension of
bias
• Single judge bench: doctrine of necessity does not yield here as it was
permissible under Article 324 of the Constitution to appoint an
additional Election Commissioner, who, if appointed, would constitute
an alternative forum for dealing with the matter.
• SLP against this
HELD:
• Question to be asked: whether Chief election commissioner’s participation is indispensable
to the decision making process?
• If the choice is between allowing biased person to act or to stifle the action altogether, the
choice must fall in favor of the former as it is the only way to promote decision-making. In
the present case also if the two Election Commissioners are able to reach a unanimous
decision, there is no need for the Chief. Election Commissioner to participate, if not the
doctrine of necessity may have to be invoked.
• We think that is the only alternative in such a situation. We are, therefore. of the opinion
that the proper course to follow is that the Chief Election Commissioner should call a
meeting of the selection Commission to adjudicate on the issue of disqualification of Ms.
J.Jayalalitha on the grounds alleged by Dr. Swamy. After calling the meeting he should act as
the Chairman but then he may recuse himself by announcing that he would not participate
in the formation of opinion.
• If the two Election Commissioners reach a unanimous opinion, the Chief Election
Commissioner will have the opinion communicated to the Governor. If the two Election
Commissioners do not reach a unanimous decision in the Matter of expressing their
opinion on the issue referred to the Election Commission, it would be necessary for the
Chief Election Commissioner to express his opinion on the doctrine of necessity.
Audi Alteram Partem
• Application of the doctrine depends upon factual matrix to improve
administrative efficiency, expediency and to mete out justice. The
procedure adopted must be just and fair.
• Administrative difficulty in giving notice/ hearing cannot be a
justification for non adherence to this principle.
• No opportunity to be heard v. No adequate opportunity: test of
prejudice. (MC Mehta v UoI 1996 case)
Audi Alteram Partem
• Application: to quasi judicial matters (duty to act judicially)
• Administrative actions (Subject to AK Kraipak): duty to act fairly
• Adverse civil consequences: everything that affects a person in his
civil rights: case of real prejudice
• “acting fairly is an additional weapon in the armory of the court. It is
not intended to be substituted for another much more powerful
weapon of acting judicially. Where, however, the latter cannot be
wielded, the court will try to reach injustice by taking resort to the
former, less powerful weapon of acting fairly”
• Empty Formality Theory
Olga Tellis case
• the principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rule
dependent on whether it would have made any difference if natural
justice had been observed. The non-observance of natural justice is
itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of
proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary (referred to SL Kapoor
v. Jagmohan)
• Intrinsic and instrumental value. – “Both the right to be heard from,
and the right to be told why, are analytically distinct from the right
to secure a different outcome.”
• “The appearance of injustice is the denial of justice.”
Opportunity to be heard
• Content of the right:
• Notice: Reasonable time and information to prepare the case
• Representation: not indispensable. No legal right to this effect. Depends on
the statute.
• Hearing: The type of hearing can be decided from the nature and stage of the
proceedings and the nature of interest being asserted. Rules of evidence may
not be strictly adhered to.
• Reasoned Orders: based on particular statutory requirements. Requires
decision makers to justify their conclusions and draw a chain of reasoning. If
provided for in the statute, its necessary for a valid order.
 Notice
• If statutory requirement: then as provided by law
• Adequacy important: whether enough to enable defence
• Content:
• Time, place and nature of the hearing
• Legal authority under which hearing has to be held
• Statement of specific charges that the person has to meet
• If the accused is aware of the charges then formal defect will not invalidate
the notice; unless prejudice is caused to the individual.
• Prejudice is caused or not depends on the circumstances of the case.
• Proper time must be given. (short notice not valid in respect of the action)
• Noticed considered weak if it mentions only charges without mentioning the
action proposed to be taken.
Disclosure of evidence
• Nothing shall be used against a person which has not been brought to
his notice
• Substantial compliance is adequate. Individual notice might not be a
necessity in all cases.
Suresh Koshy v. University of
Kerala ( AIR 1969)
• The examinee who was a candidate using unfair means in the examination had not asked
for the enquiry report
• Show cause notice was issued by the Vice chancellor to the Appellant. After reply, not being
satisfied with his explanation, the vice chancellor passed an order debarring the applicant
from appearing in any examination for year.
• Appellant Challenged the order on the ground that no copy of the report made by the
respondent was made available to the appellant before he was called upon to submit his
explanation in response to the show cause notice.
• Court Held: dismissing the appeal. No principle of natural justice which was breached.
Appellant was duly informed of the charge against him, enquiry was held after do you
notice to him and in his presence; he was allowed to cross examine the witnesses and
was permitted to adduce evidence in rebuttal of the charges. No rule, either statutory or
otherwise, required the vice chancellor to make Available to appellant a copy of the
report submitted by the inquiry officer.
Managing director, electronic Corporation
of India v. B Karunakar [ ECIL Case] (1992)
• Departmental Proceedings against an employee by an enquiry officer.
• The question with regard to serving of the enquiry report was finally settled in this case
by the Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court of India. The court held that when the
enquiry authority and the administrative/disciplinary authority is different then the
delinquent employee has the right to the copy of the enquiry report before the
disciplinary authority takes any decision on the question of his guilt.
• Non-supply of the report is the breach of natural justice. Failure to supply the enquiry
report will not ipso facto render the whole proceeding null and void. It is upon the
delinquent employee to show that the failure to serve the report has caused prejudice
and resulted in the miscarriage of justice. It would apply even to cases where there is
the requirement of furnishing a copy of the enquiry report under the statutory provision
and/or service rules. However it does not mean that the mere fact that the delinquent
employee did not ask for the report means that he has given up his right.
• Therefore the court has tilted in favour of the claims of individual
justice as against the claims of discipline in public services. These rules
applies to all types of institutions including government and non-
governmental public and private.
• Therefore serving of the report is important only when it could have
made a difference to the result in the case.
• Even if the hearing is not afforded to a person who is sought to be
affected are penalised, it can be argued that the move would have
served no purpose or hearing could not have made any difference or the
person could not have offered any difference whatsoever. The position
earlier in English law was that non-compliance with the natural justice
rendered the decision void. The recent trend is of prejudice. Even in
those cases where procedural requirements have not been complied
with, the action has not been held ipso facto illegal unless it is shown
that non- observance has prejudicially affected the applicant.
Right to Present Case and Evidence
• Allegations plus penalty should be stated.
• Oral hearing is not an indispensable part of fair hearing unless, given the
facts, it is indispensable for effective representation.
• The type of hearing can be decided from the nature and stage of the
proceedings and the nature of interest being asserted. Rules of evidence may
not be strictly adhered to.
• Opportunity to provide material evidence integral to the idea of
representation and hearing.
• One who decides must hear
• Opportunity to rebut adverse evidence
• Cross examination: can be dispensed with in certain cases.
Cross Examination
• Cross Examination: not a pre-requisite. In the absence of an express
provision, it depends on the facts of the case whether this
opportunity should be given, and whether denying this opportunity
can be fatal to the action taken
• Hiranath Mishra case: Flexibility of the rules of natural justice.
State of J.K. v. Bakshi Gulam
Mohammad AIR 1967
• The Commission of enquiry appointed by the government to inquire into the acts of
former prime minister of State of Jammu and Kashmir
• Prime Ministership Established in state of Jammu and Kashmir After the accession of
Jammu and Kashmir to India in 1947
• First election Was held after the new constitution was framed for Jammu and Kashmir.
• Party called National conference got majority of votes. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad were
members of this party. Ministry was formed with him as the Prime Minister. The party
again came into power in 1962. Bakshi became prime minister again. Bakshi was deputy
prime minister from 1947 to 1953 and its Prime Minister From 1953 to 1963.
• In 1965 a notification was issued by the state government appointing a commission of
enquiry constituted by N.Rajagopala Ayyanger to enquire into the nature and extent of
assets and pecuniary resources of Bakshi and other members of his family; and whether
Bakshi had abused his official position.
• Commission held sittings between February to August 1965 where Bakshi took part.
• In September, he moved to High Court of Jammu and Kashmir for a writ striking down the
notification and quashing the proceedings of the commission taken till then and for certain
other reliefs.
• One of the contentions of Bakshi was that the proceedings had been conducted in a manner
Contrary to The rules of natural justice.
• Commission had not allowed Bakshi to go through all the documents before he Was called upon
to answer the allegations made against him and that the commission had refused to him
permission to cross examine purses who had filed affidavit supporting the allegations made
against him.
• Procedure of the commission –First of all the government was asked to file affidavit in support
of the allegations and to produce evidence which supported them. After that Bakshi was asked
to file his affidavit on answer. Thereafter, the commission decided.
• Bakshi wanted to cross examine all the people who had filed affidavits against him.
• With regard to The access of the documents, they were made available
to the accused in due process after the allegation was made, therefore
the court did not consider it necessary to dwell Into this question. No
prejudice caused.
• With regard to cross-examination the court held that – we are not aware
of any such rules of natural justice.
• Rules of natural justice require that the party against whom allegation is
being inquired into should be given a hearing.
• The rights of natural Justice depends upon the circumstances and facts
of the case and also on the statute under which allegations are being
inquired into.
• The commission was set up for fact-finding purposes.
• In this case also the statue did not provide for right to cross examine.
Hiranath Mishra v The Principal
• Hostel Disciplinary Issue. Boys entering the girls hostel in an objectionable
state. Complaint by the girls to the authorities. The boys expelled after due
hearing.
• The procedure challenged by the expelled boys on the grounds of no
opportunity of cross examining the girls
• Held: The principles of natural justice are not inflexible and may differ in
situations. In the present case, the complaint was of an extremely serious
nature and the way to handle it was a delicate matter, as they needed to be
confidentiality involved. (i)The boys had been given full description of what
the charged were against them, (ii) they had been given the opportunity to
state their case, and (iii) the tribunal acted in good faith
• Therefore no cross examination was not fatal to the validity of the procedure
Right to counsel
• Legal Representation: not indispensable. Can be statutorily given/
curtailed. This is justified on the ground that lawyers tend to
complicate and prolong matters and destroy informality. Moreover,
representation through a lawyer of choice would give an edge to the
rich over the poor who cannot afford a good lawyer
• This right depends entirely on the parent statute. Some statutes
prescribe a statutory right to a legal representative. In certain matters,
professional assistance might be required to make the right of
defence meaningful.
• Representation through a ‘friend’. This is subject to restrictions too.
JK Agarwal v. Haryana Seeds
Development Corporation
• Service Rule: where charges against the delinquent employee were so serious as to entail
his dismissal, the inquiry officer could permit him to be represented by a counsel.
• Permission for a counsel denied in this case, even though the presenting officer of the
corporation was trained in law
• Held: The right to representation by a lawyer may not in all cases be held to be a part of
natural justice. In non-statutory domestic tribunals, when a man’s reputation or livelihood
is at stake, he not only has the right to speak himself but also to speak through a counsel.
However, this ought to provided for in the rules. When the rules are silent about it, there is
no absolute right. Then it becomes a matter of discretion.
• In the matter of exercise of this discretion one of the relevant factors is whether there is
likelihood of the combat being unequal entailing a miscarriage or failure of justice and a
denial of a real and reasonable opportunity for defence by reason of the appellant being
pitted against a presenting-officer who is trained in law. In such a case, denial of a
reasonable request to defend oneself is a violation of the principles of natural justice
Reasoned Decisions/ Speaking
Orders
• Requirement not mandatory in administrative decisions unless
specified by statute: varied opinions
• Might be read into the statute in case of serious prejudice
• If reasons given are extraneous or irrelevant of wrong: proceedings
can be set aside- State of Bombay v KP Krishnan
Reasons for the existence of the
principle
• Allows the person affected by the decision to know why the decision is being rendered
– in this particular sense, this duty to give reasons can be seen as flowing from the audi
alteram partem rule, because it is linked to the fairness of the trial. That is, a trial that
is fair is one in which reasons are given for a decision.
• Curtails the tendency towards arbitrariness on the part of the administrative authority
in question.
• “reasons promotes thought by the authority and compels it to cover the relevant points and
eschew irrelevancies and assures careful administrative consideration.” John T. Dunlop v. Walter
Bachowski [1975] 44 L Ed. 2377 (US)
• Makes judicial review possible – non-recording of reasons would make it difficult for
courts to look into the validity of the decision made.
• Also, “a reasoned decision is essential in order that, where there is a right of appeal, the
applicant can assess whether he has good grounds of appeal and know the case he will have to
meet if he decides to appeal.” (Franks Committee, 1957)
SN Mukherjee v. Union of India
• This appeal is to challenge the validity of the finding and the sentence
recorded by the Chief of Army Staff confirming the finding and the
sentence by the General Court Martial passed by the Central
Government
• Argument for Respondent: There is no general principle or rule of NJ
that a statutory tribunal should always and in every case give reasons
in support of its decision (Som Datt Datta v Union of India)
• Issue: Is there any general principle of law which requires an
administrative authority to record the reasons for its decision?
Held
• An important consideration which has weighed with the Court for holding that
an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must record the
reasons for its decision is that whether such a decision is subject to appeal
through writs.
• However, this is not the only consideration. The courts must also require the
reasons to (i) guarantee consideration by the authority (ii) introduce clarity in
the decisions, and (iii) minimize chances of arbitrariness in decision-making
• The only difference between judicial exercise and administrative exercise would
be that the administrative officer looks at it from the standpoint of policy and
expediency.
• However, they need not be elaborate like court orders, and the nature of the
orders can differ based on facts and circumstances.