Law and You > Administrative Law > Principles of Natural Justice
The principle of natural justice constitutes one of the most important concepts of administrative law. It is an expression of English Common Law having its origin in Roman phrase Jus natural (law of Nature). Natural justice is also referred as “substantial justice”, “fundamental justice”, “universal justice”, and “fair play in action”. It is a legal philosophy used in some jurisdictions in the determination of just, or fair, processes in legal proceedings. It involves the procedural requirements of fairness. In England, it was initially applied to the courts but later projected from the judicial to the Administrative sphere. It is justice that is simple and elementary, and fair play in action. Over the years the concept of natural justice grown into widely pervasive rules affecting large areas of administrative action. Its purpose is of the prevention of miscarriage of justice and hence is applicable to administrative enquiries. It was held that if there is no specific provision or rule to follow these principles, before taking action against an individual, the Court would read into the provision of the requirement of natural justice.
Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice. The rules of natural justice do not supplant the law of the land but only supplement it
Natural Justice and the Constitution:
- The Constitution of India does not discuss the doctrine of Natural Justice. However, the words, “Justice Social, Economic and political” liberty of thought, belief, worship are incorporated in the Preamble of the Constitution.
- Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of law to all the citizens of India. It hinders any form of discrimination and forbids both discriminatory laws and administrative action. It establishes to safeguard against any arbitrary or discriminatory State action. The sphere of equality as embodied in Article 14 has been expanding as a result of judicial decisions. This Article laid down a general proposition that all persons in similar circumstances shall be treated in a similar way both in privileges and liabilities imposed.
- Article 21 guarantees the right to life and liberty to all. The most significant expression under this Article is “procedure established by law”.
- Article 22 ensures the right to natural justice and the provision of an opportunity of fair hearing to the arrested person. This Article provides protection to arrested person from arrest and detention in certain cases which within its sphere contains a fundamental element of natural justice,
- Additionally, constitutional remedies are guaranteed under Articles 32, 226, and 136 in the matters pertaining to the violation of any of fundamental rights as well as in the cases of deprivation of the principles of natural justice. Under Article 32 and Article 226 the remedies can be exercised by seeking orders for issuance appropriate Writ, Directions and Orders.
This principle of Natural Justice was originated in Maclean vs. The Workers Union, (1929) 1 Ch. 602, 624 case. In this case, the Court said: “The phrase is, of course, used only in a popular sense and must not be taken to mean that there is any justice natural among men. Among most savages, there is no such thing as Justice in the modern sense. In ancient days a person wronged executed his own justice. Amongst our own ancestors, down to the thirteenth century, manifest felony, such as that of a manslayer taken with his weapon, or a thief with the stolen goods, might be punished by summary execution without any form of trial. Again, every student has heard of compurgation and of ordeal; and it is hardly necessary to observe that (for example) a system of ordeal by water in which sinking was the sign of innocence and floating the sign of guilt, a system which lasted in this country for hundreds of years, has little to do with modern ideas of justice. It is unnecessary to give further illustrations. The truth is that justice is a very elaborate conception, the growth of many centuries of civilization; and even now the conception differs widely in countries usually described as civilized”.
In Abbott vs. Sullivan reported in (1952) 1 K.B.189 at 195 case, the Court stated that “the Principles of Natural Justice are easy to proclaim, but their precise extent is far less easy to define”. It has been stated that there is no single definition of Natural Justice and it is only possible to enumerate with some certainty the main principles. During the earlier days, the expression natural Justice was often used interchangeably with the expression natural Law, but in recent times a restricted meaning has been given to describe certain rules of Judicial Procedure.
In State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and several other cases the Court held that “unfair procedure” amounts to “arbitrary” and “unreasonable” exercise of power. Such an act would attract Articles 14, 19 and even 21 of the Constitution.
In Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416 case, the Court opined: “the essence of natural justice, is good conscience in a given situation; nothing more and nothing less”.
In A.K Kraipak vs. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 150 and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 cases the Court held that in the absence of express provisions in any statute dispensing with the observance of the principles of natural justice, such principles will have to be observed in all judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings which involve civil consequences to the parties.
Basic Pillars of the Principle of Natural Justice:
Natural justice mainly focuses on the following:
- Nemo judex in causa sua means one cannot be a judge in his own cause also known as the rule against bias.
- Audi alteram partem means hear the other side/party or an opportunity for a fair hearing must be given before passing any order.
- Speaking Order or Reasoned Order
The first two have come to us from the Roman Law and the third one is a recent innovation due to the rapid development of the constitutional as well as administrative law.
From the above rules a corollary has been deduced namely that he who shall decide anything without the other side having been heard, although he may have said what is right, will not have done what is right, in other words has it is now expressed, Justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank and others vs. Sri Debasis Das AIR 2003 SC 2041 case, while considering the scope and ambit of the Canara Bank Officers Employees (conduct) Regulations 1976 had analyzed in-depth “Natural Justice” and “Audi Alteram Partem”. The observation in the said Judgment could be summarized as follows:
- Natural Justice is another name of commonsense Justice.
- Its rules are not codified canons.
- But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man.
- It is the administration of Justice in a commonsense liberal way.
- Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values.
- The administration of Justice is to be freed from the narrow and restricted considerations which are usually associated with a formulated law involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties.
- It is the substance of Justice which has to determine its form.
- The expressions “Natural Justice” and “Legal Justice” do not present a watertight classification.
- It is the substance of Justice which is to be secured by both and whenever legal Justice fails to achieve this solemn purpose, natural Justice is called in aid of legal Justice.
- It relieves legal Justice from unnecessary technicality, grammatical pedantry or logical prevarication.
- It supplies the omissions of a formulated law.
- As Lord Buckmaster said, no form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigants’ defence.
- The adherence to principles of Natural Justice as recognized by all civilized States is of Supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in the issue.
- Notice it is the first limb of the principle of Audi Alteram Partem.
- The notice should appraise the party the case he has to meet.
- Adequate time should be given to make his representation.
In M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 2583 case it was held “Before we go into the final aspect of this contention, we would like to state that case relating to the breach of natural justice do also occur where all facts are not admitted or are not all beyond dispute. In the context of those cases there is a considerable case law and literature as to whether relief can be refused even if the Court thinks that the case of the applicant is not one of “real substance” or that there is no substantial possibility of his success, or that the result will not be different, even if natural justice is followed”
In Bar Council of India v. High Court, Kerala, (2004) 6 SCC 311 case, the Court held that principles of Natural Justice cannot be put in a straitjacket formula, it must be viewed with flexibility and when there is complaint of violation of Principles of Natural Justice the Court may insist on proof of prejudice before interfering or setting aside an order.
In reason time the concept of Natural Justice has undergone a great deal of change. In the sense that what particular rule of Natural Justice to be applied depends upon the facts of that case, the statute governing the issue, etc. The old distinction between an Administrative Act and Judicial Act does not survive any longer. Every Administrative order which involves civil consequences must follow the rules of Natural Justice.
Related Topics:
- First Principle of Natural Justice: Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa
- Personal Bias
- Pecuniary Bias and Subject Matter Bias
- Second Principle of Natural Justice: Audi Alterem Partem
- Third Principle of Natural Justice: Speaking Order
- Exceptions to the Principle of Natural Justice