Natural justice from time immemorial has been an integral part of the human justice system. It seeks to provide equality, fairness, rationality and equity to the human civilization. The principle of natural justice has its root from the Roman law’s Jus Natural. They are not only followed by all the citizens but are also given paramount importance. The idea of natural justice arose with the advent of industrial revolution where the laborers were made to work in hazardous and rigid conditions.
Natural justice can be referred as the rational and fair decision making procedure used by the decision makers to seek justice. The natural justice system follows three cardinal rules. Firstly, the ‘hearing rule’ which says the offending party should be given an equal say and fair opportunity to present his case before the decision makers. Secondly, the ‘bias rule’ which obligates the decision making panel to be from inclination towards a particular party. The decision given should be free and fair and lastly, ‘reasoned decision’ which means that the decision given should be reasonable and in validation with the law.
“Natural justice is a sense of what is wrong and what is right.”
The concept of natural justice was prevalent in India from the very ancient times itself. In one of the landmark cases of Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner[1], the court stated the concept of fairness should be in every action whether it is judicial, quasi – judicial, administrative and or quasi – administrative work.
Objective –
The objective of introducing the principle of natural justice was to prevent the wrong justice delivery and to protect the fundamental rights of the individuals. The idea of natural justice is also a basic feature of the constitution. It introduces the concept of fairness and rationality while delivery justice by the decision makers. The Supreme Court also seconds the idea behind natural justice which says the very purpose of judicial and administrative bodies it to give rational and justifiable decision.
It can be claimed against any judicial, quasi – judicial, and any statutory body. In the case of Board of high school vs. Ghanshyam[2], a student was debarred as he was caught cheating in the examination. The Supreme Court decided the Public Interest Litigation against the board was invalid by the student.
Rules of Natural Justice –
BIAS RULE –
The rule of hearing is based on the Latin maxim “Nemo Judex In Causa Sua” which means that a person should not act as a judge in his own affairs. Bias means giving an undue advantage to a particular individual, group or organization which is indifferent to consciousness or unconsciousness. This rule of natural justice makes the judge or the decision making board impartial any party of the dispute and give decision on the basis of established laws and evidences provided. The bias can be further divided into six categories:
- Personal Bias –
Personal bias refers to biasness practiced by an individual because of the personal or professional relationship with the other individual. Such familiarity might lead to an influence over the decision made by the person and unfair activity.
In Ramanand Prasad Singh vs. UOI[3]case, an individual’s brother was a part of a selection committee in which he was a candidate. The court decided that the whole selection procedure could not be quashed but the brother was asked to step out from the selection panel.
- Pecuniary Bias –
It refers to the situation where the judge or the decision making body might have a monetary benefit. Such situation always influences the decision no matter how small the financial benefit is.
- Subject Matter Bias –
Subject matter bias refers to the partiality done in decision making because the judge or the decision makers because of the involvement with the subject matter.
In the case of R. Deal Justices ex p.Curling[4], the magistrate who was a member of the royal society for prevention of cruelty to animals was not prevented to try a case of cruelty to an animal. This happened so because it does not stand as a reasonable ground.
- Departmental Bias –
The problem of departmental bias is very common in the administrative process. It happens in cases where the judge and prosecution belong to the same department. It negates the concept of fairness of judgment and proceedings.
- Bias on account of obstinacy –
Obstinacy means irrational or unfair persistence and the deciding judge would not take a no for an answer. This category was introduced when a judge of Calcutta High Court upheld his own judgment in appeal.
- Preconceived Notion Bias –
Preconceived notion bias refers to the bias arising because of the prior experience about something. It vitiates a free and fair trial. In Kondala Rao v. APSRTC, the court did not quash the nationalization of the road transport order of the minister who had heard the objections of private operators on the ground that the same Minister has presided over a meeting only a few days where nationalization was favored[5].
HEARING BIAS
The aforementioned bias is based on the legal maxim audi alteram partem which means no person should be condemned or punished unheard. In several cases, the decision is given without giving even equal opportunities to both the parties to present the case. The literal meaning of the maxim is to give equal opportunity to present their case and put forward their point of view and have an unbiased trial. Prior information should be given to the parties so that they can prepare for their trial. This rule of natural justice has four components:
- Issuance of notice –
It is obligations to priory inform the parties and provide them notice in order to proceed fairly for the trial. The notice should include the charges against the accused and about the proceedings. The accused can be tried only on the charges mentioned in the notice and not on any other ones.
In Fazalbhai vs. Custodian [6], it was held that issuing a notice in mandatory no matter whether it is inscribed in the statutory provisions or not.
- Right to present the case and evidence –
When the notice is issued and received, then equal opportunity should be given to both the parties to present their case and evidence. They should be given a chance to present their stance before the judge within a stipulated time.
- Right to Cross Examination –
Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays down the provision for cross examination. Cross examination is also a part of natural justice of hearing. Both the parties should be given the opportunity to cross examine the statements made and the documents presented. Denial of cross examination is a violation of natural justice.
In the case of Ludhiana food product[7], the court decided that the parties decide to waive off the right of cross examination, then this would lead to no violation.
- Right to Legal Representatives –
Every person has a legal right to be represented by a legal representative during a trial or an enquiry. This representative should be legally trained and no can deny such representation. Similarly, it was observed in Sanghi textile processor vs. Commissioner [8]that the department has the same right to direct its officer even though there are investigating officer in conducting an adjudicating officer.
These principles of natural justice are binding and duly followed by all. These principles cannot be skipped while making a decision but under certain situations there are waived off as in case of an emergency, public interest, express statutory provision, trivial cases and if it does not impact the status of an individual.
Administrative law has always changed as per the demands of the contemporary scenario. The rule of bias protects the parties from any sort of partiality practiced by the judge or the decision maker as it would result into unfair decision making. The rule of hearing provides an equal opportunity to both the parties to present their case before the judge and the decision maker and then arrive on a decision as to who is right or wrong.
[1] Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner AIR 1978 SC 851
[2] Board of high school vs. Ghanshyam AIR 1962 SC 1110
[3] Ramanand Prasad Singh vs. UOI, AIR 1996 SCC 64
[4] R. Deal Justices ex p. Curling (1992) 1 SCC 56
[5] http://legalserviceindia.com/article/128-Nemo-in-propria-causa-judex-esse-debet-(THE-RULE-AGAINST-BIAS).html
[6] Fazalbhai vs. Custodian, AIR 1961 SC 284
[7] Ludhiana Food Product , 1990 (47) ELT 294
[8] Sanghi Textile Processor vs. Commissioner, 1991 (55) ELT 151 A.P.
For more Blogs – CLICK HERE.
Lawyers Gyan is now on Telegram (t.me/LAWYERSGYAN). Follow us for regular legal updates. Follow us on Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter or join our WhatsApp group.
Disclaimer:
Lawyers Gyan has no control over above-listed items as it is directly from the customer or taken from other sources. Despite our best efforts, some of the content may contain errors. You can trust us, but please conduct your own checks too. In case of any discrepancy please write to lawyersgyaan@gmail.com.