NATURAL JUSTICE- PRINCIPLES, EXCEPTIONS AND EFFECTS OF IT’S BREACH, Administrative Law

INTRODUCTION

Generally, ‘natural justice’, represents the principles and procedures that:

• govern the adjudication of disputes between persons or organizations, that the adjudication should be unbiased and given in good faith and
• each party should have-
  • equal access to the court or tribunal or authority and
  • awareness of agreements and documents adduced by the other.

‘Natural Justice’, is a concept of common law and represents higher procedural principles developed by the courts, which every judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative agency must follow while taking ant decision adversely affecting the rights of a private individual.

‘Natural Justice’ has meant different things to different peoples at different times. In its widest sense, it was formerly used as a synonym for natural law. It has been used to mean that reasons must be given for judicial decisions that a body deciding an issue must only act on evidence of probative value.

MEANING

JUSTICE:

‘justice’ means and includes inter-alia, that:

• there shall be fair and equitable treatment of all individuals under the law,
• fairness in protecting rights and in punishing deviant actions or omissions,
• to render every man his due,
• everyone’s life and property should be protected by law,
• fair and equitable distribution of liberty and liabilities,
• harmonization of social and political interest of any individual without compromising with capabilities of future generation to reach higher levels in individual, associational, national and international spheres

NATURAL JUSTICE:

• The most significant amongst various types of justice are natural and legal justice.
• The word ‘Natural Justice’ manifests justice according to one’s own conscience.
• It is derived from the Roman concept ‘jus-natural’ and ‘Lex- natrale’ (Greek) which meant principle of natural justice law, natural justice, eternal law, natural equity or good conscience.

Case: Vionet V Barrett 1885(55) LJRD 39

Lord Evershed remarked, “Natural Justice is the natural sense of what is right and wrong.”

PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

In modern jurisprudence natural justice is construed to include following 3 procedural safeguards, which are the quintessence of justice:

I. NEMO DEBET ESSE JUDEX IN PROPRIA CAUSA:

No one should be made a judge in his own cause, popularly known as the rule against bias.

II. AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM:

No one shall be condemned unheard or let the other side be heard as well or both parties shall be heard before taking a decision, properly known as the rule of the fair hearing.

III. REASONED DECISION OR SPEAKING ORDER:

Every decision must be based on reason.

EXPLANATION OF PRINCIPLES-

I. NEMO DEBET ESSE JUDEX IN PROPRIA CAUSA (or RULE AGAINST BIAS):

This maxim depicts that, ‘when there is a dispute between 2 parties, judge should always be the impartial third party.’ It means that the judge should not be a relative, a friend, an enemy, or otherwise related to the subject matter of litigation. The word ‘bias’, literally means ‘anything which tends or may be regarded as tending to cause such a person to desire a case otherwise on evidence.’

• Essentials-
  • The minimal requirement of natural justice is that the authority must be composed of impartial persons:
    • acting fairly,
    • without prejudice and bias.
• Types-
  • There are 4 kinds of bias, they are:
    • Personal Bias
    • Pecuniary Bias
    • Subject matter Bias
    • Departmental Bias

I. PERSONAL BIAS:

This bias arises when the deciding authority or judge is related to either of the parties to the litigation. Such a relation may be personal fiduciary or professional and may be friendship or hostility.

II. PECUNIARY BIAS:

Deciding authority is disqualified on the ground of pecuniary bias if it has a financial interest in the subject matter of the litigation.

III. SUBJECT MATTER BIAS:

This bias arises, when the judge or deciding authority is interested in the subject matter of the litigation. Where the judge is having an interest in the subject matter, there is a conflict between his duty and his interest. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to believe that he acted impartially. Accordingly, to save the confidence of people in the adjudicatory process, such proceedings need to be set aside.

IV. DEPARTMENTAL BIAS:

Only rarely will this bias nullify the proceedings because mere general interest in the subject matter of the case, especially in an administrative proceeding, does not affect the validity of decision.

II. AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM OR RULE (or FAIR HEARING):

• Fair hearing is considered to be the first principle of rule of law.
• This principle infers that the person against whom any action affecting his rights is to be taken should be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
• It is very important to note that hearing means ‘fair hearing’ it must not be a matter of mere formality.
• Therefore ‘fair hearing’ must involves-
  • Notice,
  • Hearing,
  • Cross-examination,
  • Legal representation,
  • Receiving evidence in the presence of the concerned party and
  • One who decides must hear, etc.

III. REASONED DECISIONS (or SPEAKING ORDERS)

• Concept is, as judges should act according to the rule of law, they are duty bound to explain why and on what reasons he or she decided the matter in a particular way.
• Along with being impartial and an adherent of ‘fair hearing’ the judge must also provide reasons, which:
  • cannot be accepted as fair, just and reasonable and
  • violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
• Therefore, the established norm of natural justice is that every judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority acting judicially must supply reasons for the decision, which is termed as a reasoned decision or speaking order.

Case: Maneka Gandhi V Union of India

The Supreme Court in this case gave a judgment in favor of Maneka Gandhi and stated several rules to support the application of the principle of natural justice.

Fact:

The passport authority did not follow the principles of “audi alteram partem” the natural justice in issuing orders against Maneka Gandhi. They simply tried to avoid it under the pretext of ‘public interest’. But they did not show what public interest is going to be protected by impounding the passport of Maneka Gandhi if a public interest is going to be protected by, they might have disclosed it in the order itself.

Justice Bhagwati observed:

“Fundamental Rights represent basic values cherished by people of this country since the Vedic times and they are calculated to protect the dignity of individual and create conditions in which every human being can develop his personality to the fullest extent. They wave a “pattern of guarantee” on the basic structure of human rights and impose negative obligations on the state not to encroach on individual liberty in it’s various dimensions.”

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE OF NATURAL JUSTICE

Principle of Natural Justice, could be exclude in the following cases-

I. EMERGENCY:

Exceptional cases of emergency, where urgent action, preventive or remedial, is needed application of rule of fair hearing may be excluded, where-

• a company has to be wound up to save the depositors or
• a trade, dangerous to the society is to be prohibited or
• a dangerous building is to be demolished or
• any other emergency.  

II. DIRE PUBLIC INTEREST:

Principle of Natural Justice, could be excluded in dire public interest, better explained by-

Case: Mohinder Singh Gill V Chief Election Commissioner

The Supreme Court of India held that “Rule of Fair Hearing” can be obviated to save greater public interest, in-

• administrative adjudication or  
• decision making process.

III. ACADEMIC ADJUDICATION:

• As a fact of the case, a student of the University was removed from the rolls for unsatisfactory academic performance without giving any pre-decisional hearing.
• The Supreme Court of India held that application of the rule of fair hearing is not needed, where-
  • the competent academic authorities examine and assess the work of a student over a period of time and
  • declare his performance unsatisfactory.

IV. CONFIDENTIALITY:

This rule may be excluded, if application of the rule of fair hearing breaks any confidentiality which is detrimental to:

• national interest or
• public order.

V. IMPRACTICABILITY:

Impracticability could even be a reasonable exception of not honoring the principle of natural justice, which could be better explained through-

Case: R. Radhakrishna V Osmania University

It was found that the entire M.B.A. entrance examination was cancelled, by the University authority because of mass copying. The court held that notice and hearing to all candidates is impossible, since assumed national proportions.

VI. INTERIM PREVENTIVE ACTION:

If any order taken by an administrative authority is a suspension order being preventive in nature and not final order, in that case application of rules of natural justice may be excluded.

VII. LEGISLATIVE ACTION:

Exclusion is justified if the nature of administrative action is legislative. If any administrative action, taken in violation of natural justice, does not apply to a single individual or a few specified people and is of general nature, it may be called legislative.

EFFECTS OF BREACH OF NATURAL JUSTICE

To answer the query as to what relief the individual is entitled to at the hands of the court when failure of natural justice has occurred, it is that pragmatic considerations could prevail rather than trying to answer the question by applying such obtuse words as “void” and “voidable” or conceptual logic.

‘PRAGMATIC CONSIDERATIONS, APPLYING CONCEPTUAL LOGIC OF BEING VOID OR VOIDABLE’

I. FAILURE OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM

Situation: Impractical or expedient to restore party’s original position:

Case 1: Maneka Gandhi V Union of India

Breach:

After the passport of the petitioner was impounded no hearing was given to her which was the requirement of the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court. She was also not given the reasons, though they were supplied to the court.

Effect:

The court did not quash the order of impounding the passport, as the Attorney-General gave the undertaking that the government would comply with requirements of hearing.

Case 2: Swadeshi Cotton Mills V Union of India

Breach:

It was held that the takeover of the mills by the government under section 18-AA of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1959 was in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Effect:

The Supreme Court however refused to quash the order of takeover but directed the government to give a full, fair and effective hearing to undertaking within the three months and to take just and proper remedial action. (The unstated consideration for such a course of action by the court appears to be that it would create confusion and chaos if the undertaking is handed back to the owners and if after hearing the government again passes an order of takeover.)

II. FAILURE TO GIVE REASONS

Situation 1: Absence of reason to an individual as well as to the Court:

Case: Mayker Simon, Parur V Advocate-general of Kerala

Breach:

The advocate-general refused his consent to the petitioner for filling a suit under section 92 of eth Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. No reasons were given for the refusal.

Effect:

The High Court quashed the order of the advocate-general for failure to give reasons and directed him to deal with the matter afresh with expedition.

Situation 2: Absence of reason to an individual but on record:

Case: Ahmedabad Municipal Corp. V Ramanlal Govindram

Breach:

A municipality passed an order of eviction against a tenant but did not communicate the reasons to the party though they were on the record.

Effect:

Without quashing the order the Supreme Court merely contended by saying that it showed inefficiency and warned that it should not happen again. It orders the municipality to give reason.

CONCLUSION

Natural Justice is basically a concept of fair adjudication by following some rules. It is a price of rule of law and a branch of public law. It’s even a formidable weapon which can be wielded to secure justice to citizens. Basically, describes what is right and what is wrong.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brief overview on Principles Natural Justice
By Mahamudul Hasan Rakib

Introduction_to_Natural_Justice.pdf
By Shivaraj Huchhanavar

003_Effect of Failure of Natural Justice – the Ultimate Relief (13-24).pdf