AN OVERVIEW OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN CONTEXT TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Introduction

Principles of Natural Justice are a set of rules which have been laid down by the courts with the objective of protecting the rights of citizens against any arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative authority while passing an order infringing those rights. In other words the Principle of Natural Justice is the sine qua non of a democratic government. These principles propagate the idea that whenever the rights, interests or privileges of citizens are at stake, it becomes the duty of the court to act in a procedurally fair manner. Though these principles are closely related to moral principles and common law but they are not codified.

Principles of Natural Justice are judge-made laws and are considered to be similar to the American procedural due process. These principles are concerned with the manner in which a decision is taken and not with the correctness of decision. They are based on the theory that the structure of a decision is more likely to be fair if the judicial process followed is based on fair and just grounds.

Definition

The term ‘Natural Justice’ is an expression of English Common Law which derives its origin from the word ‘Jus Natural’ of the Roman law. Though there is no precise definition of Principle of Natural Justice, yet different authors and scholars have their own interpretation of the same.

In Vionet v. Barrett[i], Lord Esher M.R defined natural justice as ‘the natural sense of right and wrong’. Later he chose to define natural justice as a fundamental justice in the case Hopkins v. Smethwick Local Board of Health[ii] Lord Parker in his opinion defines it as a duty to act fairly. Also J. Bhagwati in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[iii] has recognised it as fair play in action.

Principles of Natural Justice

This principle is based on the following 2 rules:-

• NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA
• AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM

1. Nemo Judex in Causa Sua: also known as the ‘Doctrine of Biasness’ is a legal maxim which means ‘No man should be the judge in his own cause’ i.e. a person should not be allowed to act as a judge for a case which involves his own personal interest or benefit. The reason behind this rule is to ensure that the authority with the deciding power arrives at a decision on the basis of true facts and figures without any biasness.

The Rule against bias may be classified under the following three heads:

(A) Pecuniary Bias: This bias arises when either the adjudicator/judge sees his monetary/economic benefit in a particular case and on the basis of that benefit or bias, delivers his judgement. Thus in such cases the person found forming such bias is disqualified from acting as a judge. In Vishakhapatnam Co-operative Motor Transport Ltd. v. G.Bangar Raju[iv], the district collector holding the position of the chairman of the regional transport authority granted motor permit to the Vishakhapatnam Co-operative Motor Transport Ltd. Later it was found that the district collector was also the president of the above co-operative and his decision of grant involved his pecuniary interest in the subject matter. Thus the court refused to take any actions of the collector on the ground of pecuniary basis.

(B) Personal Bias: Such basis is usually formed due to close relations i.e. from family, friends, relatives, professional association. Such relationships often influence the decision of a person and disqualify him from acting as a judge. A reasonable likelihood is sufficient to establish bias. In Mineral Development Ltd. v. State of Bihar[v], the petitioner was a company owned by Raja Kamakshya Narain Singh and was granted mining license for 99 years. The license was cancelled by the Minister of Revenue acting as per the provisions of Bihar Mica Act. Later it was found that the cancellation was based on political rivalry between the minister and the owner of the company. Thus the cancellation was held invalid.

(C) Official Bias: Any interest or prejudice will disqualify a judge from hearing the case. When an adjudicator or the judge possesses a general interest in the matter of a particular case due to his association with the administration or private body will be disqualified on the grounds of biasness. To attract official bias, there must be an intimate and direct connection between the judge and issues in the dispute.

1. Audi Altarem Partem: also known as the ‘Rule of Fair Hearing’ is the second essential rule of Principle of Natural Justice. It means ‘hear the other side’. According to this rule every person should be presented with an opportunity of fair hearing i.e. before taking action against any person, he or she should be provided with a reasonable opportunity to justify themselves. The evidence presented by the accused should be taken into consideration before forming a judgement. Thus essentials of a Fair Hearing are:
2. Notice: Prior notice should be given to a person so that he can prepare and arrange the evidences which he aims to present before the court and to know what charges are framed against him. The notice must be reasonable and must contain the time, date, place, nature of hearing and other particulars essential to the case. If the notice is vague or incomplete then all the subsequent proceedings will be quashed.

In Punjab National Bank v. All India Bank Employees Federation[vi], a notice was given to the party stating certain charges but there was no mention regarding the penalty imposed along with such charges. Hence the notice was considered to be invalid as it was incomplete. The penalty which was imposed was also held invalid.

In Fateh Singh v. State of Rajasthan[vii], the court held that the right to fair hearing is an essential ingredient of Audi Altarem Partem and should be strictly followed. It is the duty of the authority to ensure that the affected parties get a chance of oral or personal hearing and are not deprived of it.

1. Hearing: A hearing will be considered as a fair hearing only if the following conditions are satisfied:

• The judge/adjudicating authority should not possess any bias or interest
• The adjudicating authority cannot delegate or sub-delegate its power to decide the case
• The adjudicating authority must present all the material evidences and must provide reasonable opportunity to the affected party to present their defence

Effect of breach of Principles of Natural Justice

When any authority does not comply or follow the Principles of Natural Justice, the judicial opinion of the authority in such cases becomes void. If the authorities do not provide valid reasons behind the decision taken to the party concerned or to the court, then in that case the order is quashed and the authorities are directed by the court to re-examine the matter. (Ajantha industries v. Central Board of Direct Taxes[viii])

Exceptions to the Rule of Natural Justice

Several factors are identified of being excluded from the normal procedural fairness requirements in Common Law Courts and they are:

(i) Exclusion in case of emergency,
(ii) Express statutory exclusion,
(iii) Where discloser would be prejudicial to public interests
(iv) Where prompt action is needed,
(v) Where it is impracticable to hold hearing or appeal,
(vi) Exclusion in case of purely administrative matters.
(vii) Where no right of person is infringed,
(viii) the procedural defect would have made no difference to the outcome.
(ix) Exclusion on the ground ‘no fault’ decision maker

Conclusion

The Rule of Natural Justice has evolved over the period of time and presently it plays a pivotal role in the Indian legal system. It has strengthened the position of equitable justice in society and has improved the position of affected parties of a case by providing them with the right to fair hearing. Thus this principle has not only reduced the number of cases based on partiality but has also resulted in the establishment of an effective and efficient legal system.

(The Author, Priyana Gupta is second-year law student at Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, GGSIPU)

References

1. 1985 55LJ QB
2. 1890 24 QBD 71
3. 1978
4. AIR 1953
5. AIR 1960 SC 468
6. AIR 1971 SC 389
7. AIR 1994 SC 39
8. AIR 1976 SC 437
9. 1985 55LJ QB
10. 1890 24 QBD 712
11. AIR 1953
12. AIR 1960 SC 468
13. AIR 1971 SC 389
14. AIR 1994 SC 39
15. AIR 1976 SC 437