Natural Justice

Natural justice is an expression of English common law, and involves a procedural requirement of fairness. The principles of natural justice have great significance in the study of Administrative law. It is also known has substantial justice or fundamental justice or Universal justice or fair play in action. The principles of natural justice are not embodied rules and are not codified. They are judge made rules and are regarded has counterpart of the American procedural due process.

Definition:
There is no precise and scientific definition of natural justice. However, the principles of natural justice are being acceptable and enforced. Different judges, lawyers and Scholars define it in various ways. In Vionet v. Barrett ,

Lord Esher M.R has defined it as the natural sense of what is right and wrong. Later, he had chosen to define natural justice as fundamental justice in a subsequent case (Hopkins v. Smethwick Local Board Of health) . Lord Parker has defined it as duty act fairly. Mr. Justice Bhagwati has taken it as fair play in action. Article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution has strengthened the concept of natural justice.

Basis of the application of the principle of natural justice:

The principles of natural justice, originated from common law in England are based on two Latin maxims, (which were drawn from jus natural).

In simple words, English law recognizes two principles of natural justice as stated below-

• Nemo Judex in causa sua or Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa or Rule against bias (No man shall be a judge in his own cause).
• Audi Alteram partem or the rule of fair hearing (hear the other side).

Rule against bias or bias of interest

the term bias means anything which tends to or may be regarded as tending to cause such a person to decide a case otherwise than on evidence must be held to be biased. In simple words, bias means deciding a case otherwise than on the principles of evidence.

This principle is based on the following rules

• No one should be a judge in his own cause.
• Justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.

The above rules make it clear that judiciary must be free from bias and should deliver pure and impartial justice. Judges must act judicially and decide the case without considering anything other than the principles of evidence.

Kinds of Bias

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

Pecuniary bias
Personal bias
Bias as to subject matter.

Pecuniary Bias:
pecuniary bias arises, when the adjudicator/ judge have monetary/ economic interest in the subject matter of the dispute/ case. The judge, while deciding a case should not have any pecuniary or economic interest. In other words, pecuniary interest in the subject matter of litigation disqualifies a person from acting as a judge.

Personal Bias:
Personal bias arises from near and dear i.e. from friendship, relationship, business or professional association. Such relationship disqualifies a person from acting as a judge. Relevant cases on this point is A.k. kripak v. Union of India . The Supreme Court quashed the selections made by the selection board on the ground that one of the candidates appeared before selection committee was also a member of the selection board.

 Bias as to subject matter (official bias):
Any interest or prejudice will disqualify a judge from hearing the case. When the adjudicator or the judge has general interest in the subject matter in dispute on account of his association with the administration or private body, he will be disqualified on the ground of bias if he has intimately identified himself with the issues in dispute. To disqualify on the ground there must be intimate and direct connection between the adjudicator and the issues in dispute. Now the question is, whether this principle can be extended to administrative adjudication also.

Exception to the rule against bias or the Doctrine of Necessity.

When bias is provided, it disqualified the adjudicator and an impartial adjudicator should replace him. However, there are certain extreme cases in which substitution/replacement of impartial adjudicator is not possible. In such situations, the principle of natural justice, under necessity has to give way.

Otherwise the administration of justice breaks down and there is no other means to decide. Though Indian courts have not expressly adopted it, this (doctrine of necessity) has been impliedly applied in several occasions. In contempt of court, the rule that no one shall be a judge in his own cause is not followed strictly. Similarly, in departmental enquiry in service matters the employee appoints enquiry officer and there is every possibility that the enquiry officer acts in favour of employer.

Audi alteram partem or the rule of fair hearing (hear the other side)

The second fundamental principle of natural justice is audi alteram partem or the rule of fair hearing. It means no one shall be condemned unheard i.e. there must be fairness on the part of the deciding authority.

According to this principle, reasonable opportunity must be given to a person before taking any action against him. This rule insists that the affected person must be given an opportunity to produce evidence in support of his case. He should be disclosed the evidence to be utilized against him and should be given an opportunity to rebut the evidence produced by the other party.

Essentials of fair hearing

To constitute fair hearing, the following ingredients are to be satisfied-

• Notice
• Hearing

1. Notice: There is a duty on the part of the deciding authority to give notice to a person before taking any action against him. The notice must be reasonable and must contain the time, place, nature of hearing and other particulars. If the notice is defective or vague, all subsequent proceedings would be vitiated. 

2. Hearing: Fair hearing in its full sense means that a person against whom an order to his prejudice is passed should be informed of the charges against him, be given an opportunity to submit his explanation thereto, have a right to know the evidence both oral and documentary, by which the matter is proposed to be decided and to have the witnesses examined in his presence and have the right to cross examine them and to lead his own evidence both oral and documentary in his defence. It is a code of procedure, which has no definite content, but varies with the facts and circumstances of the case.

Ingredients of fair hearing: a hearing will be treated as fair hearing if the following conditions are satisfied:

• Adjudicating authority receives all the relevant material produced by the individual
• The adjudicating authority discloses the individual concerned evidence or material which it wishes to use against him
• The adjudicating authority providing the person concerned an opportunity to rebut the evidence or material which they said authority wants to use against him

Exclusion of natural justice (exceptions to the rule of natural justice)

• Exclusion by statutory provisions.
• Exclusion by the constitutional provisions.
• Exclusion in case of legislative act.
• Exclusion in public interest.
• Exclusion in case of the need of prompt action or in emergency or necessity.
• Exclusion on the ground of the impracticability.
• Exclusion in case of confidentiality.
• Exclusion in cases of academic adjudication.
• Exclusion when no right of the person is infringed.
• Exclusion in the cases of interim prevention action.
• Exclusion in case of fraud.

Effect of Breach of Natural Justice

When the authority is required to observe the principle of natural justice in passing an order but fails to do so, the general judicial opinion is that the order is void.

In England, in the case of Ridge v. Baldwin , the court held the decision of the authority void on the ground of the breach of the rule of fair hearing.

In India, the position is well settled that the order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is void.

Failure to give reason:

Where the reason for the decision are not given to the person concerned or reasons are not given to the court, the order is quashed and the authority is directed by the court to examine the matter afresh. Where the reasons are not communicated to the person concerned that they are on record, in some cases, the court has upheld the action but in some other cases, the court has not upheld it.

Components of fair hearing

There are some essential requirements in order to constitute the principle of fair hearing. These are as follow:

A) Notice
B) Right to know the evidence against him.
C) Cross Examination.
D) Representation by a lawyer.
E) Right to know evidence.

When Natural Justice can be claimed?

Natural justice can be claimed where the proceedings is judicial or quasi-judicial like panchayat and tribunals etc. It envisaged the concept of fairness, just and basic moral principles. In a present welfare state with complex socio economics problems the functions of the government has been increase and in the same manner administrative authorities has acquired vast powers which might affect private rights without any adequate safeguards or some protection. Due to this factor procedural fairness is regarded as an integral part of administrative authorities.

Reasoned Decisions:

A reasoned decision means a decision which must contain reasons in support of it. Natural Justice required that the party has a right to know not only the decision but also the reasons. This is not a universally established law although it might provide in statute. Where the duty is required by the statute then the authority is bound to give reasoned decisions in all cases to which the provision applies. But in absence of statutory requirement, the courts advise the judicial or quasi-judicial bodies to assign reasons, so that it justify the order. It is called as speaking orders.

Basically, it has three grounds on which it relies:

• The aggrieved party has the chance to demonstrate before the appellate and revisional court that what was the reason which makes the authority to reject it.
• It is a satisfactory part of the party against whom the decision is made.
• The responsibility to record reasons works as obstacles against arbitrary action by the judicial power vested in the executive authority.

Conclusion:

The principles of natural justice have been adopted by the judiciary to protect public rights against the arbitrary decision by the administrative authorities. At all the stages of the proceedings the main motive of the principles of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice. One must keep in mind that in order to held the decision of the adjudicating authorities as valid principles of natural justice is equally important in procedure.

In India the principles of natural justice are provided in Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. With the introduction of concept of substantive and procedural due process in Article 21, all that fairness which is included in the principles of natural justice can be read into article 21. The violation of principles natural justice results in arbitrariness and such decision is said to be void or voidable.