(..4..)

NATURAL JUSTICE[1]

Table of Contents

QUESTION BANK

Q.1. Explain fully the principles of natural Justice.

Q.2. Explain fully ‘Audi alteram partem’ (i.e. both the sides must be heard before passing any order). Discuss fully the rule of hearing.

Q.3. Explain fully, ‘Nemo delect esse judex in propria causa’ (i.e. No man shall be a judge in his own cause or rule against bias) with various types of bias.

Q.4. Explain fully the principles of natural justice and its exceptions if any

Q.5. Discuss the principle of bias. What are various kinds of bias? Explain with decided cases.

Q.6. Discuss in brief the principles of natural justice and the applicability to administrative proceeding.

Q.7. Explain fully the principles of natural Justice with resided case

SHORT NOTES

Rule against bias.
Notice and hearing.
No man shall be judge in his own case.
No man shall be condemned unheard.
The deciding authority must be impartial and without bias.
Both sides must be heard.
Reasoned decisions.

SYNOPSIS

Introduction.
Definition.

III. Principles of natural justice.

No person shall be judge in his own case.

Bias –

Pecuniary Bias.
Personal Bias.
Official Bias.
No man shall be condemned unheard.
Reasoned decisions.
Exceptions to natural justice.
Statutory exclusion.
Developmental legislation.
Admitted facts.
Confidential inquiry.
Preventive action.
Prompt and urgent action.
Fair case.

The doctrine of pleasure-

INTRODUCTION: –

Natural justice is nothing but a common rule of fair procedure[2]. These rules are of binding nature and to be followed before taking any administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial action. The principles of natural justice are neither fixed nor prescribed in any Code. These are the rules of procedure for administrative action. A principle of natural justice is also known as ‘substantial justice[3]’ ‘fundamental justice[4]’, ‘universal justice[5]’ or ‘fair play in action[6]’. These fundamental principles seek to implement the law with fairness to secure justice and prevent miscarriage of justice[7]. Natural justice is thus one of the techniques followed by the courts in reviewing the actions of the administration. These rules apply to administrative action as well as to judicial procedure. (Related to judicial and quasi-judicial functions.)

II DEFINITION: –

It is very difficult to define the expression ‘natural justice’ precisely.

Prof. Wade – has defined ‘natural justice’ as ‘the name given to certain fundamental rules which are so necessary to the proper exercise of power (judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative) that they are projected from the judicial to the administrative sphere.[8]’.

According to Justice – S. M. Sikri – “Natural justice is the piece of the rule of law[9]”.

In conclusion, the rule of ‘natural justice’ requires that no person should be a judge in his own case (the rule against bias) and a person whose rights may be affected shall have a reasonable opportunity of being heard; and a person is entitled to know the reasons for the decision.

III. PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE[10]: –

English law recognises the following three principles of natural justice:-

No person shall be a judge in his own case[11] –

It is based on the maxim ‘nemo debet esse judex in propria causa’, which means no person shall be a judge in his own case, or the judge must be impartial and unbiased.[12]. So, this first requirement of natural justice is that the judge should be impartial, neutral, and free from bias.[13].

If a judge is found to be biased in favour of or against either party to the dispute, he is disqualified from acting as a judge. This rule applies to judicial and administrative authorities that act judicially or quasi-judicially.

Bias consists of the following three types:[14];

Pecuniary Bias[15] –

The pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the litigation will disqualify any person from acting as a judge.

In Dr Bonham case[16]

Facts – Bonham, a doctor, was found practising in the City of London without a Licence. Therefore, the licensing authorities, i.e., the College of Physicians in London, fined the Doctor. By the statute, half the fine should go to the King, and the remaining half should go to the College, the licensing authorities.

House of Lords Held – the order is liable to be quashed down because the college that had imposed the fine had a pecuniary interest in the fine.

Personal bias[17] –

A personal bias may come from being a relative, friend or business associate of a party or having a personal grudge, enmity or rivalry against such party.

In Cottle V/s.Cottle[18]

Facts – The judge was a friend of the wife’s family (i.e. Mrs Cottle) who had instituted matrimonial proceedings against her husband (i.e. Mr Cottle). Mrs Cottle challenged Mr Cottle that she would get the proceeding decided in her favour. The judge gave the judgment in her favour.

High Court Held – The court quashed the order on the grounds of personal bias and ordered another judge to rehearse the matter.

Official bias[19] –

This is also known as bias, which refers to ‘subject matter’ or ‘departmental bias’. It arises when a judge is interested in the subject matter. According to Griffith and Street, this bias rarely invalidates proceedings. According to Wade, ministerial or departmental policy (i.e., departmental bias) cannot be considered disqualifying.

In Gullapalli Nageswara Rao V/s A.P.S. R.T.C[20]

Facts – The petitioner had a motor transport business. The Andhra Pradesh government wanted to nationalise transport and called for objections from newspapers. The petitioner filed objections. The secretary heard and received the objections, and later, the Chief Minister nationalised the transport without considering the petitioners’ objections.

Supreme Court held that there was a clear departmental bias as the objections were heard by one authority (e.g., the secretary) and decided by another authority (e.g., the Chief Minister).

No man shall be condemned unheard[21] –

The maxim ‘Audi alteram partem’ means ‘hear the other side’ or ‘both the sides must be heard’ or ‘no man shall be condemned unheard’ or ‘the authority deciding dispute must hear two sides with fairness’.

In other words, before an order is passed against any person by deciding authority, a reasonable opportunity to be heard must be given to him. This maxim has the following two elements.

i) Notice –

Notice is the essence (i.e. sine qua non) of the right to a fair hearing. Before the deciding authority takes action, the affected party must be given show cause notice.[22] as to why the action cannot be taken against him, seek his explanation thereto. Any order passed otherwise than notice is void.

In James Baggi Case[23]

Facts – James Bagg, a ‘Chief Burgess of Plymouth,’ had quarrelled with the Mayor of Municipality. With the hot exchange of words, Bagg scolded Mayor, “you are a cheat. I will make your neck craft’. He did not stop there; he removed his pants showed his hinder parts and uttered, “Come and kiss” on his behaviour, Mayor was annoyed and removed him on the spot.

House of Lords Held – that the removal order of the Mayor without giving notice was violative of the principles of natural justice.

Hearing[24] –

The second connotation of the maxim ‘Audi alteram partem’ is that a person must be given an opportunity to be heard before any adverse action is taken against him.

In Cooper V/s. Wandsworth Board of Works[25]

Facts—The defendant Board had the power to demolish any building erected without prior permission and without giving an opportunity for a hearing. The Board demolished the plaintiff’s house under this provision.

The House of Lords Held that – the Board had acted unlawfully in demolishing the house without first allowing the plaintiff to be heard.

In Maneka Gandhi V/s. Union of India

Facts—The passport of petitioner Mrs Maneka Gandhi, a journalist, was impounded by India’s government, showing the reason for the public interest. No opportunity was given to the petitioner, Mrs Maneka Gandhi, before the impugned action was taken.

Supreme Court Held that:– the order was violative of the principle of natural justice.

However, it is well settled in England and America that without specific statutory provisions, the administrative authority is not bound to give the concerned person an opportunity for an oral hearing and the right of representation through a lawyer. The same law applies in India also.

The right to counsel[26]:-

The right to representation through a lawyer cannot be claimed as a right. It is not a part of natural justice. However, if the said right is conferred by statute, the person cannot be denied such a right of representation through a lawyer. However, generally, a lawyer’s right to be represented is recognised in Administrative Law. However, it is often unjust to deny a person unable to express himself the assistance of a competent lawyer.

In Pett v. Greyhound Racing Assn.

Lord Denning Observed that “When man’s reputation or livelihood is at stake, he not only has right to speak with his own mouth but also with the mouth of counsel or solicitor or through a friend”.

Reasoned Decisions[27] –

It is also known as ‘speaking order’, which means an order speaking for itself. In other words, reasons must be given for administrative and judicial decisions. It is considered the third principle of natural justice.

According to this principle, the party has a right to know the result of the inquiry and the reasons supporting that decision.

In Siemens Engg. Co. v. Union of India[28]

The Supreme Court first held that the rule requiring reasons to be recorded by quasi-judicial authorities in support of the orders passed by them must be held to be a basic principle of natural justice.

The same rule was reiterated in the leading case of

Maneka Gandhi v. Union Of India[29].

Facts—The government of India impounded Mrs Maneka Gandhi’s passport. Those were the days of rivalry between the then Prime Minister, Smt. Indira Gandhi, and Mrs Maneka Gandhi (her daughter-in-law), owing to the death of Sanjay Gandhi (her son and husband). The impounding authority did not furnish her with a copy of the statement of reasons for impounding her passport as required by law.

Held – The Supreme Court quashed the order of the passport authority for not giving the reasons and not furnishing a copy of their decision to the petitioner.

IV EXCEPTIONS TO NATURAL JUSTICE[30]:-

Although the principles of natural justice are well understood and established, they are excluded in certain circumstances viz-

Statutory exclusion[31] –

Where a statute, either expressly or by necessary implication, excludes the application of natural justice, it does not apply.

Necessity[32] –

In case of necessity, natural justice principles do not apply.

In Nathulal v. Bombay corporaiton[33]

Facts – The building of plaintiff Nathulal was very old, 200 years old, in which several families were residing. The condition of the building was ruinous. It was about to collapse, fearing the death of several persons. Therefore, without giving any notice or hearing to the inhabitants, the municipal authorities forcibly vacated and demolished the building.

Held – The Supreme Court upheld the decision of Municipal Corporation denying the right of natural justice.

Developmental legislation[34] –

In cases of developmental actions, the Statute confers certain powers upon the executive to acquire any land or property for the development of any project, mine, forest, etc. In such circumstances, parties may receive a post-decisional compensation hearing, etc.

Admitted facts[35] –

The rule of natural justice may be excluded when the facts are admitted or undisputed.

Confidential inquiry[36] –

In a case where the inquiry is of a confidential nature, the natural justice rule may be excluded.

Preventive action[37] –

In the case in which preventive action is to be taken, the rule may be excluded.

Prompt and urgent action[38]–

Where prompt and urgent action is necessary, the rule may be excluded.

Fair case[39] –

When the non-observance of natural justice can infer nothing unfair, the natural justice rule is excluded.

Doctrine of pleasure[40] –

The Crown in England and the President in India can remove their servants without giving any notice because they hold office during their (Crown or President) pleasure. *****

[1] नैसर्गिक न्याय [प्राकृतिक न्याय]

[2] न्याय/स्वच्छ प्रक्रियेचे नियम [न्याय/उचित प्रक्रिया के नियम]

[3] परिपूर्ण न्याय [पूर्ण न्याय]

[4] मूलभूत न्याय [मौलिक न्याय]

[5] वैष्विक न्याय [वैश्विक न्याय]

[6] न्यायपूर्ण कृती [न्यायपूर्ण कार्य]

[7] अन्याय

[8] नैसर्गिक न्याय हे नाव अश्या काही मुलभूत तत्वांना/नियमांना दिलेले असते की जे अधिकारांच्या न्यायिक, समन्यायिक, प्रषासकीय योग्य वापरासाठी इतके गरजेचे असतात की त्यांना न्यायिक क्षेत्रापासून प्रषासकीय क्षेत्रात स्थान दिलेले असते.[ प्राकृतिक न्याय कुछ बुनियादी सिद्धांतों/नियमों को दिया गया नाम है जो न्यायिक, न्यायसंगत, अधिकारों के प्रशासनिक उचित प्रयोग के लिए इतने आवश्यक हैं कि उन्हें न्यायिक क्षेत्र से प्रशासनिक क्षेत्र में स्थानांतरित कर दिया गया है।]

[9] कायदयाचे राज्य या तत्वाचा एक भाग म्हणजे नैसर्गिक न्याय तत्वे आहेत [कानून के शासन के सिद्धांत का एक हिस्सा प्राकृतिक न्याय का सिद्धांत है]

[10] निसर्गन्यायाची तत्वे [प्राकृतिक न्याय के सिद्धांत]

[11] कोणत्याही व्यक्तीला स्वतःच्या प्रकरणात न्यायाधिष होता येत नाही [कोई भी व्यक्ति अपनेही मामले में जज नहीं हो सकता]

[12] निश्पक्ष व अकलुशित [निष्पक्ष और बेदाग]

[13] पक्षपातीपणा [पक्षपात/ पूर्वाग्रह]

[14] पक्षपातीपणा हा 3 प्रकारचा असू शकतो [पूर्वाग्रह 3 प्रकार के हो सकते हैं]

[15] आर्थिक स्वरुपातील पक्षपात [आर्थिक रूप में पक्षपात]

[16] 1610.

Dimes V. Grant Junction Cana (1852)

Facts:- The court of Lord chancellor, Cottenham, were dismissed the appeals filed before it on merits and declared in favour of Canal Company in which he was a substantial shareholder. In fact, Lord Chancellor’s decision was no way affected by his interest as shareholder.

House of Lords Held:- By quashing the order of Lord Chancellor ‘court Held, that sheer possibility of pecuniary bias is enough to disqualify person from acting as judge.

In Visaka patnam Co.Op Motor Transport Co. Ltd V. G. Banjaru Raju (AIR 1953 Mad. 709).

Facts:- A Cooperative society had asked for a permit. The Collector was the President of that cooperative society, he was also the Chairman of Transport Authority who had granted permit to the society.

Held:- The court set aside the decision as being against the principles of natural justice.

[17] व्यक्तीगत पक्षपात

[18] (1939) 2 All.E.R. 353.

In R. V. Hardley (1921)

A Magistrate who was beaten by the accused was Held disqualified from hearing a case filed against that accused.

In State of U.P. V Mohd. Nooh. (AIR 1958 SC 66)

Facts:- A departmental inquiry was held against ‘A’ by ‘B’. One of the witnesses turned hostile, B left the inquiry and himself gave evidence against A, A completed inquiry and passed order of dismissal of B.

Supreme Court Held: – It is grave violation of natural justice, because one person cannot be judge as well as witness in a case.

[19] कार्यालयीन पक्षपात

[20] AIR 1959 SC 308;

In Krishna Bus Services (P) Ltd, V. State of Hariyana (AIR 1985 SC 1651)

Facts:- In this case, the legality and validity of the notification issued by the State Government, delegating its powers on the general manager; Hariyana Roadways, was challenged by the petitioner a private operators of motor vehicles, on the ground of interest and bias.

By quashing notification Court observed, “The General Manager of Hariyana Roadways who is the rival in the business of private operators of motor vehicles cannot be expected to discharge his duties in a fair and reasonable manner.”

[21] व्यक्तीची बाजू ऐकल्याषिवाय षिक्षा देता येणार नाही/एकतर्फा निकाला विरुध्द नियम [एकतरफा फैसले के खिलाफ व्यक्ति का पक्ष/नियम सुने बिना सजा नहीं दी जा सकती]

[22] कारणे दाखवा नोटीस [कारण बताओ नोटिस]

[23] James Bagg V. Major,(1915 All.E.R)

In R.V. University of Cambridge (1723)

Facts:- Dr. Bently was a qualified doctor. His degree was given by Cambridge University. The same University again cancelled his degree alleging that he misbehaved and did some fraud with the University. The University did not give any notice to him.

Kings Bench declared, the decision of University canceling ‘degree’, as null and void.

[24] बाजू ऐकूण घेणे [उनकी बात सूनणा]

[25] 1863;

In Ridge V. Balelwin ((1964) A.C.40)

Facts:- This case popularly is known as ‘Magna Charta’ of ‘Natural Justice’. In this case a plaintiff Mr. Ridge a Chief Constable had been prosecuted for corruption charges and subsequently acquitted. During the course of Judgement, certain observations were made by the judge against the character of Mr. Ridge as a senior police officer. Taking into account those stair observations, the Departmental Watch Committee dismissed Mr. Ridge from services, without hearing to him.

House of Lords Held:- that the power of dismissal could not be exercised without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard and without observing the principles of natural justice.

[26] वकील नेमण्याचा अधिकार

[27] कारणांसह निकाल [कारण सहित निर्णय]

[28] AIR 1976 SC 1785

[29] AIR 1978 SC 597

[30] निसर्ग नियमांच्या तत्वांना अपवाद [प्राकृतिक कानूनों के सिद्धांतों के अपवाद].

[31] कायदयाव्दारे प्रतिबंध [कानून द्वारा निषिद्ध]

[32] आवष्यकता [ज़रूरत]

[33] AIR 1959 SC 354

[34] कल्याणकारी कायदे [कल्याण अधिनियम]

[35] वस्तुस्थिती मान्य केल्यास [अगर तथ्य माने]

[36] गोपनिय चैकषी [गोपनीय जाँच]

[37] प्रतिबंधात्मक कारवाई [निवारक कार्रवाई]

[38] तत्परतेने कृती आवष्यक असल्यास [यदि शीघ्र कार्यवाही की आवश्यकता है]

[39] न्याय परिस्थिती [न्याय स्थिति]

[40] मर्जीची संकल्पना [मरज़ी की अवधारणा]