4/24/2017 PrintArticle:PrinciplesofNaturalJusticeInIndianConstitution

PrinciplesofNaturalJusticeInIndianConstitution

Source:http://www.
Author:shivaraj
Publishedon:May09,2013

PrinciplesOfNaturalJusticeInIndianConstitution shivaraj'sProfileand
details
InTheConstitutionofIndia,nowheretheexpressionNaturalJusticeis
used.However,goldenthreadofnaturaljusticesagaciouslypassed ShivarajS.
throughthebodyofIndianconstitution.Preambleoftheconstitution
includesthewords,JusticeSocial,Economicandpoliticallibertyof
thought,belief,worship...Andequalityofstatusandofopportunity,
whichnotonlyensuresfairnessinsocialandeconomicalactivitiesof
thepeoplebutalsoactsasshieldtoindividualslibertyagainstthe
arbitraryactionwhichisthebaseforprinciplesofNaturalJustice.
Huchhanavar.,LL.M.,

UGCNET,
ApartfrompreambleArt14ensuresequalitybeforelawandequal
K.L.E.Society'sLaw
protectionoflawtothecitizenofIndia.Art14whichstrikeattheroot
College,Bangalore.
ofarbitrarinessandArt21guaranteesrighttolifeandlibertywhichis
thefundamentalprovisiontoprotectlibertyandensurelifewith
dignity.Art22guaranteesnaturaljusticeandprovisionoffairhearingtothearrestedperson.
DirectiveprinciplesofstatePolicyspeciallyArt39Atakescareofsocial,economic,andpolitically
backwardsectionsofpeopleandtoaccomplishthisobjecti.e.thispartensurefreelegalaidto
indigentordisabledpersons,andArt311oftheconstitutionensuresconstitutionalprotectiontocivil
servants.FurthermoreArt32,226,and136providesconstitutionalremediesincasesviolationofany
ofthefundamentalrightsincludingprinciplesofnaturaljustice.Withthisbriefintroductionauthor
undertakestoanalyzesomeoftheimportantprovisioncontainingsomeelementsofPrincipleof
NaturalJustice.

2.ConstitutionalProvisionsrelatingtothePrinciplesofNaturalJustice

2(a)Article14:asweknowthatthisArticleguaranteesequalitybeforelawandequalprotectionof
law.Itbarsdiscriminationandprohibitsbothdiscriminatorylawsandadministrativeaction.Art14is
nowprovingtobebulwarkagainstanyarbitraryordiscriminatorystateaction.Thehorizonsof
equalityasembodiedinArt14havebeenexpandingasaresultofthejudicialpronouncementsand
Art14hasnowcometohaveahighlyactivistmagnitude.Itlaiddowngeneralprepositionthatall
personsinsimilarcircumstanceshallbetreatedalikebothinprivilegesandliabilitiesimposed.

Art14manifestsintheformoffollowingpropositions:
(i)Alawconferringunguidedandunrestrictedpoweronanauthorityisbadforbeingarbitraryand
discriminatory.
(ii)Art.14illegalizediscriminationintheactualexerciseofanydiscretionarypower.
(iii)Art.14strikesatarbitrarinessinadministrativeactionandensuresfairnessandequalityof
treatment.

Insomecases,theCourtsinsisted,withaviewtocontrolarbitraryactiononthepartofthe
administration,thatthepersonadverselyaffectedbyadministrativeactionbegiventherightofbeing
heardbeforetheadministrativebodypassesanorderagainsthim.Itisbelievedthatsucha
proceduralsafeguardmayminimizethechanceoftheAdministrativeauthoritypassinganarbitrary
order.Thus,theSupremeCourthasextractedfromArt.14theprinciplethatnaturaljusticeisan
integralpartofadministrativeprocess.

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/print.php?art_id=1519 1/11
4/24/2017 PrintArticle:PrinciplesofNaturalJusticeInIndianConstitution

Art.14guaranteearightofhearingtothepersonadverselyaffectedbyanadministrativeorder.
InDelhiTransportCorporationv.DTCMazdoorUnion,SCheldthattheaudialteram
partemrule,inessence,enforcetheequalityclauseinArt14anditisapplicablenotonlytoquasi
judicialbodiesbutalsotoadministrativeorderadverselyaffectingthepartyinquestionunlessthe
rulehasbeenexcludedbytheActinquestion.SimilarlyinManekaGandhiv.UnionofIndiaSC
opinedthatArt14isanauthorityforthepropositionthattheprinciplesofnaturaljusticearean
integralpartoftheguaranteeofequalityassuredbyArt.14anorderdeprivingapersonofhiscivil
rightpassedwithoutaffordinghimanopportunityofbeingheardsuffersfromtheviceofviolationof
naturaljustice.

ThereareseveralinstanceswhereArt14oftheConstitutionisinvokedtoprotectindividualfromthe
violationofnaturaljusticeprinciples,inCentralInlandWaterTransportCorporationLtdv.Briojo
Nathinthiscaseagovernmentcompanymadeaserviceruleauthorizingittoterminatetheserviceof
permanentemployeebymerelygivinghimathreemonthsnoticeorsalaryinlieuofnotice.Therule
wasdeclaredtobeinvalidasbeingviolativeofArt.14onthegroundthatitwasunconstitutional.
Theruleinquestionconstitutedapartoftheemploymentcontractbetweenthecorporationandits
employees.TheCourtruledthatitwouldnotenforce,andwouldstrikedown,anunfairand
unreasonableclauseinacontractenteredintobetweenpartieswhowerenotequalinbargaining
power.ThiswasinconformitywiththemandateofthegreatequalityclauseinArt.14.

TheCourtemphasizedthatthejudicialconceptofArt.14haveprogressedfromaprohibition
againstdiscriminatoryclasslegislationtoaninvalidatingactorforanydiscriminatoryorarbitrary
stateaction.TheCourtalsoemphasizedthattherulewasbotharbitraryandunreasonableandas
italsowhollyignoredandsetasidetheAudialterumpartumruleviolatedArt.14.Thisisofthe
viewthattheprincipleofnaturaljusticehasnowcometoberecognizedasbeingapartofthe
constitutionalguaranteecontainedinArt.14.Theruleinquestionwasbotharbitraryand
unreasonable,anditalsowhollyignoredandsetasidetheAudialtermpartumruleand,thus,it
violatedArt14.

InCantonmentBoard,Dinaporev.TaramaniinthiscasetheCommandinginchiefofthe
cantonmentboardcancelledtheboardsresolutionaftergivingitahearingbutnottotherespondent
towhomthepermissionhadbeengiven.TheSupremeCourtruledthatCommandinginchiefought
tohavegivenahearingtotherespondentaswellbeforecancellingthepermissiongivenbythe
board.TheCourtobserved:audialterampartumisapartofArt.14oftheConstitution.Thereal
affectedpartyinfactwasthepartybeingultimatelyaffectedbycancellationoftheBoards
resolution.BecauseofArt.14noordershallbepassedatthebackofaperson,prejudicialinnature
tohim,whenitentailscivilconsequences.ThisishowArt14oftheConstitutionholdselementof
Naturaljusticeintoit.
2(b)Art.21:Article21laysdownthatnopersonshallbedeprivedofhislifeorpersonalliberty
except,accordingtoprocedureestablishedbylaw.ThemostimportantwordunderthisArticleis
procedureestablishedbylawthequestionariseswhetherthesewordscanbereadasrulesofnatural
justice.i.e.whetherlawU/Art21canbereadasprinciplesofnaturaljustice?TothisquestionThe
SupremeCourtruledbymajoritythatthewordlawinArt.21couldnotbereadasrulesofnatural
justice.Theserules(naturaljusticeprinciples)werevagueandindefiniteandtheconstitutioncould
notbereadaslayingdownavaguestandard.Nowhereintheconstitutionwasthewordlawusedin
thesenseofabstractlawornaturaljustice.

Thewordlawwasusedinthesenseofstate(lex)madelawandnotnaturallaw(jus).The
expressionprocedureestablishedbylawwouldthereforemeantheprocedureaslaiddowninan
enactedlaw.Ontheotherhand,FazalAli,J.,disagreeingwiththemajorityview,heldthatthe
principleofnaturaljusticethatnooneshallbecondemnedunheardwaspartofgenerallawofthe
landandthesameshouldaccordinglybereadintoArt21.However,lateronmajorityopinion
ofA.K.Gopalanwasdiscardedthisisbecauserighttolifedoesnotmeanmereanimalexistence.
Thisrightcannotbeallowedtoviolatebylaw,whichiswhollyunreasonable,suchlawmustbe
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/print.php?art_id=1519 2/11
4/24/2017 PrintArticle:PrinciplesofNaturalJusticeInIndianConstitution

reasonable,fairandjust.Theseterminologiesaresimilarincontentthatofdueprocessclauseof
Americanconstitution.Accordinglysuchlawmustprovesubstantivereasonablenessaswellas
proceduralreasonableness,lateronerequiressuchprocedureshouldbefair,fairnessrequires
reasonablenotice,reasonableopportunityofhearing,legalrepresentation,reasonsfordecision,etc.
whicharethefundamentalcomponentofnaturaljustice.

InManekaGandhiv.UnionofIndia,SCbyrealizingtheimplicationsofGopalanduring
1975emergencytookUturnandheldthatArt21wouldnolongermeanthatlawcouldprescribe
somesemblanceofprocedurehoweverarbitraryorfanciful,todepriveapersonofhispersonal
liberty.Itnowmeansthattheproceduremustsatisfycertainrequisitesinthesenseofbeingfairand
reasonable.Theprocedurecannotbearbitrary,unfairorunreasonable.Theconceptof
reasonablenessmustbeprojectedintheprocedurecontemplatedbyArt.21.TheCourthasnow
assumedthepowertoadjudgethefairnessandjustnessofprocedureestablishedbylawtodeprivea
personofhispersonalliberty.TheCourthasreachedthisconclusionbyholdingthatArts.21,19and
14aremutuallyexclusive,butareinterlinked.

Bhagawati,J.,theprincipleofreasonablenesswhichlegallyaswellasphilosophicallyisan
essentialelementofequalityornonarbitrarinesspervadesart14likeabroodingomnipresence.
Thus,theprocedureinArt.21mustberight,justandfairandnotarbitrary,fancifuloroppressive,
otherwise,itwouldbenoprocedureatallandtherequirementofArt.21wouldnotbesatisfied.In
thesamecaseIyer,J.,opinedprocedureinArt.21,meansfair,notformal,procedurelawis
reasonablelawandnotanyenactedpiece.Thismakesthewordsprocedureestablishedbylawby
andlargesynonymouswiththeproceduraldueprocessintheU.S.A.thismakestherightofhearing
acomponentpartofnaturaljustice.AccordinglyasresultofthisepochmakingjudgmentinManeka
GandhicaseCourtcametoconclusionthatastherighttotravelabroadfallsunderArt.21,natural
justicemustbeappliedwhileexercisingthepowerofimpoundingapassportunderthepassportAct.
AlthoughthepassportActdoesnotexpresslyprovidefortherequirementofhearingbeforea
passportisimpounded,yetthesamehastobeimpliedtherein.

SupremeCourtofIndiaknowingtheimportanceoffairtrialbyliberalinterpretationofArt.21,
madeseveralprovisionfortheprotectionofaccusedandprovidedadequatesafeguardstodefendhis
case.SCisoftheopinionthatconductingafairtrialforthosewhoareaccusedofcriminaloffences
isthecornerstoneofdemocracy.Conductingafairtrialisbeneficialbothtotheaccusedaswellasto
thesociety.Aconvictionresultingfromanunfairtrialiscontrarytoourconceptofjustice.

TheSupremeCourthastakenagiganticinnovativestepforwardinhumanizingtheadministrationof
criminaljusticebysuggestingthatfreelegalaidbeprovidedbytheStatetopoorprisonersfacinga
prisonsentence.WhenanaccusedhasbeensentencedbyaCourt,butheisentitledtoappealagainst
theverdict,hecanclaimlegalaid:ifheisindigentandisnotabletoaffordthecounsel,theState
mustprovideacounseltohim.TheCourthasemphasizedthatthelawyersservicescontinuedan
ingredientoffairproceduretoaprisonerwhoisseekinghisliberationthroughtheCourtsprocedure,
Bhagwati,J.,hasobservedinHussainaraKhatooncase.

Now,aprocedurewhichdoesnotmakeavailablelegalservicetoanaccusedpersonwhoistoopoor
toaffordalawyerandwhowould,therefore,havetogothroughthetrialwithoutlegalassistance,
cannotpossiblyberegardedasreasonable,fairandjust.AccordinglyinIndiafreelegalaidto
indigentordisabledpersonisconsideredtobeessentialcomponentofNaturalJustice.Toensurefree
legalaidtocitizenofIndiaArt39AisinsertedinpartIVoftheconstitutionwhichstatesthat,The
Stateshallsecurethattheoperationofthelegalsystempromotesjustice,onabasisofequal
opportunity,andshall,inparticular,providefreelegalaid,bysuitablelegislationorschemesorin
anyotherway,toensurethatopportunitiesforsecuringjusticearenotdeniedtoanycitizenbyreason
ofeconomicorotherdisabilities.AccordinglysufficientsafeguardhasbeenprovidedunderIndian
ConstitutiontogetLegalrepresentation.

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/print.php?art_id=1519 3/11
4/24/2017 PrintArticle:PrinciplesofNaturalJusticeInIndianConstitution

2(c)Art.22:givesprotectiontoarrestedpersonagainstarrestanddetentionincertaincaseswhich
withinitsambitcontainsveryvaluableelementofnaturaljustice,
(1)Nopersonwhoisarrestedshallbedetainedincustodywithoutbeinginformed,assoonas
maybe,ofthegroundsforsucharrestnorshallhebedeniedtherighttoconsult,andtobedefended
by,alegalpractitionerofhischoice.

(2)Everypersonwhoisarrestedanddetainedincustodyshallbeproducedbeforethenearest
magistratewithinaperiodoftwentyfourhoursofsucharrestexcludingthetimenecessaryforthe
journeyfromtheplaceofarresttothecourtofthemagistrateandnosuchpersonshall
bedetainedincustodybeyondthesaidperiodwithouttheauthorityofamagistrate.

Article22(1)and(2)confersfourfollowingfundamentalrightsuponapersonwhohasbeen
arrested:
i)Righttobeinformed,assoonasmaybe,ofthegroundsforsucharrest.
ii)Righttoconsultandtobedefendedbyalegalpractitionerofhischoice.
iii)Righttobeproducedbeforethenearestmagistratewithintwentyfourhoursofhisarrest
excludingthetimenecessaryforthejourneyfromtheplaceofarresttotheCourtofMagistrate.
iv)Rightnottobedetainedincustodybeyondtheperiodoftwentyfourhourswithouttheauthority
oftheMagistrate.

2(c)(i):RighttobeinformedoftheGroundsofArrest:
Theobjectunderlyingtheprovisionthatthegroundforarrestshouldbecommunicatedtotheperson
arrestedappearstobethis.Onknowingaboutthegroundsofarrest,thedetenuewillbeinaposition
tomakeanapplicationtotheappropriatecourtforbailormovetheHighCourtforawritofhabeas
corpus.TheSupremeCourtobservedthatArticle22(1)embodiesarulewhichhasalwaysbeen
regardedasvitalandfundamentalforsafeguardingpersonallibertyinalllegalsystemswherethe
RuleofLawprevails.Informationastothegroundsofarrestprovidereasonableopportunityto
prepareacasebydetenu,suchgroundsmustbepreciseclearandunambiguous,ifthegroundsare
notfullydisclosedtoaccusedthanitwouldamounttodenialoffairhearingandresultsinto
violationofNaturalJustice.
Inre,MadhuLimayethefactswere:MadhuLimaye,MemberoftheLokSabhaandseveral
otherpersonswerearrested.MadhuLimayeaddressedapetitionintheformofalettertothe
SupremeCourtunderArticle32mentioningthathealongwithhiscompanionshadbeenarrestedbut
hadnotbeencommunicatedthereasonsorthegroundsforarrest.Itwasstatedthatthearrested
personshadbeenmerelytoldthatthearresthadbeenmadeundersectionswhicharebailable.In
thereturnfiledbytheStatethisassertionhadneitherbeencontrovertednorhadanythingbeenstated
withreferencetoit.OneofthecontentionsraisedbyMadhuLimayewasthattherewasaviolationof
themandatoryprovisionsofArticle22(1)oftheConstitution.

TheSupremeCourtobservedthatArticle22(1)embodiesarulewhichhasalwaysbeen
regardedasvitalandfundamentalforsafeguardingpersonallibertyinalllegalsystemswherethe
RuleofLawprevails.ThecourtfurtherobservedthatthetworequirementsofClause(1)ofArticle
22aremeanttoaffordtheearliestopportunitytothearrestedpersontoremoveanymistake,
misapprehensionormisunderstandinginthemindsofthearrestingauthorityand,alsotoknow
exactlywhattheaccusationagainsthimissothathecanexercisethesecondright,namelyof
consultingalegalpractitionerofhischoiceandtobedefendedbyhim.Thosewhofeelcalledupon
todepriveotherpersonsoflibertyinthedischargeofwhattheyconceivetobetheirdutymust,
strictlyandscrupulously,observetheformsandrulesoflaw.

2(c)(ii):RighttoconsultandtobedefendedbyLegalPractitioner:
aswealreadydealtU/Art.21thatprincipleoffairhearingrequiresadequatelegalrepresentation,
thisprincipleiscarriedforwardbyArt.22(1).Art22(1)guaranteesrightoflegalrepresentationby
advocateofhischoice.TheArticledoesnotrequirethestatetoextendlegalaidassuchbutonly
requirestoallowallreasonablefacilitiestoengagealawyertothepersonarrestedanddetainedin
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/print.php?art_id=1519 4/11
4/24/2017 PrintArticle:PrinciplesofNaturalJusticeInIndianConstitution

custody.Thechoiceofcounselisentirelylefttothearrestedperson.Therighttoconsultarisessoon
afterarrest.

InNandiniSatpathyv.P.L.DanitheSupremeCourtobservedthatArticle22(1)directsthat
therighttoconsultanadvocateofhischoiceshallnotbedeniedtoanypersonwhoisarrested.This
doesnotmeanthatpersonswhoarenotunderarrestorcustodycanbedeniedthatright.Thespirit
andsenseofArticle22(1)isthatitisfundamentaltotheruleoflawthattheservicesofalawyer
shallbeavailableforconsultationtoanyaccusedpersonundercircumstancesofnearcustodial
interrogation.Moreover,theobservanceoftherightagainstselfincriminationisbestpromotedby
concedingtotheaccusedtherighttoconsultalegalpractitionerofhischoice.Lawyer'spresenceisa
constitutionalclaiminsomecircumstancesinourcountryalso,andinthecontextofArticle20(3)is
anassuranceofawarenessandobservanceoftherighttosilence.NandiniSatpathy'sCasemakesa
cleardeparturefromtheliteralinterpretationstanceoftheSupremeCourtinearliercases.Thecase
addedanadditionalfortificationtotherighttocounsel.TheSupremeCourtwentastepforwardin
holdingthatArticle22(1)doesnotmeanthatpersonswhoarenotstrictlyunderarrestorcustodycan
bedeniedtherighttocounsel.TheCourtenlargedthisrighttoincluderighttocounseltoany
accusedpersonundercircumstancesofnearcustodialinterrogation.

InJoginderKumarV.StateofU.P.TheSupremeCourtheldthatrightofarrestedperson
uponrequest,tohavesomeoneinformedabouthisarrestandrighttoconsultprivatelywithlawyers
areinherentinArticles21and22oftheConstitution.TheSupremeCourtobservedthatnoarrestcan
bemadebecauseitislawfulforthePoliceofficertodoso.Theexistenceofthepowertoarrestis
onething.Thejustificationfortheexerciseofitisquiteanother.ThePoliceOfficermustbeableto
justifythearrestapartfromhispowertodoso.Arrestanddetentioninpolicelockupofapersoncan
causeincalculableharmtothereputationandselfesteemofaperson.Noarrestshouldbemadeby
PoliceOfficerwithoutareasonablesatisfactionreachedaftersomeinvestigationastothe
genuinenessandbonafidesofacomplaintandareasonablebeliefbothastotheperson'scomplicity
andevensoastotheneedtoeffectarrest.

TheSupremeCourtissuedthefollowingrequirements:
(1)Anarrestedpersonbeingheldincustodyisentitled,ifhesorequests,tohaveonefriend,relative
orotherpersonwhoisknowntohimorlikelytotakeaninterestinhiswelfaretoldasfaras
practicablethathehasbeenarrestedandwhereisbeingdetained.
(2)ThePoliceOfficershallinformthearrestedpersonwhenheisbroughttothepolicestationofthis
right.

(3)AnentryshallberequiredtobemadeintheDiaryastowhowasinformedofthearrest.These
protectionsfrompowermustbeheldtoflowfromArticles21and22(1)andenforcedstrictly.The
aboverequirementsshallbefollowedinallcasesofarresttilllegalprovisionsaremadeinthis
behalf.InM.H.HoskotV.StateofMaharashtraitwasobservedbytheSupremeCourtthat
generallyspeakingandsubjecttojustexceptions,atleastasinglerightofappealonfacts,where
criminalconvictionisfraughtwithlonglossofliberty,isbasictocivilizedjurisprudence.Everystep
thatmakestherightofappealfruitfulisobligatoryandeveryactionorinactionwhichstultifiesitis
unfairandunconstitutional.Pertinenttothepointaretworequirements:(i)serviceofacopyofthe
judgmenttotheprisonerintimetofileanappealand(ii)provisionoffreelegalservicestoa
prisonerwhoisindigentorotherwisedisabledfromsecuringlegalassistancewheretheendsof
justicecallforsuchservice.BoththeseareStateresponsibilitiesunderArticle21.Wherethe
procedurallawprovidesforfurtherappealtheserequirementswillsimilarlyapply.Oneofthe
ingredientsoffairproceduretoaprisoner,whohastoseekhisliberationthroughthecourtprocessis
lawyer'sservices.Judicialjustice,withproceduralintricacies,legalsubmissionsandcritical
examinationofevidence,leansuponprofessionalexpertiseandafailureofequaljusticeunderthe
lawisonthecardswheresuchsupportiveskillisabsentforoneside.TheIndiansociolegalmilieu
makesfreelegalserviceattrialandhigherlevels,animperativeprocessualpieceofcriminaljustice
wheredeprivationoflifeorpersonallibertyhangsinthejudicialbalance.Partialstatutory
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/print.php?art_id=1519 5/11
4/24/2017 PrintArticle:PrinciplesofNaturalJusticeInIndianConstitution

implementationofthemandateisfoundinS.304Cr.P.C.,andinothersituationscourtscannotbe
inertinthefaceofArticle21and39A.ManekaGandhi'sCasehaslaiddownthatpersonalliberty
cannotbecutoutorcutdownwithoutfairlegalprocedure.Enoughhasbeensetouttoestablishthat
aprisoner,deprivedofhisfreedombycourtsentencebutentitledtoappealagainstsuchverdict,can
claim,aspartofhisprotectionunderArticle21andasimpliedinhisstatutoryrighttoappeal,the
necessaryconcomitantofrighttocounseltoprepareandarguehisappeal.

Ifaprisonersentencedtoimprisonment,isvirtuallyunabletoexercisehisconstitutionalorstatutory
rightofappeal,inclusiveofspecialleavetoappealforwantoflegalassistance,thereisimplicitin
theCourtunderArticle142readwithArticles21and39AoftheConstitution,powertoassign
counselforsuchimprisonedindividual'fordoingcompletejustice'.Theinferenceisinevitablethat
thisisaState'sdutyandnotGovernment'scharity.Equallyaffirmativeistheimplicationthatwhile
legalservicesmustbefreetothebeneficiarythelawyerhimselfhastobereasonablyremuneratedfor
hisservices.Naturally,theStateconcernedmustpayareasonablesumthatthecourtmayfixwhen
assigningcounseltotheprisoner.Ofcourse,thecourtmayjudgethesituationandconsiderfromall
angleswhetheritisnecessaryfortheendsofjusticetomakeavailablelegalaidintheparticularcase.
ThatdiscretionresidesintheCourt.Thisisthepresentpositionrelatingtolegalrepresentationto
detenuU/Art22(1).

Art22(4)to(7)dealswithpreventivedetention,Art.22(5)providessamesafeguardstoperson
detainedunderPreventiveDetentionLaws,likeUnderCOFEPOSA1974,NationalSecurity1980,
etcInNandlalBajajv.StateofPunjab,theCourtallowedlegalrepresentationtothedetainee
throughalawyerevenwhenSection11ofthePreventionofBlackMarketingandMaintenanceof
SuppliesofEssentialCommoditiesAct,1980,andSec8(e)ofCOFEPOSA1974deniedlegal
representationinexpressterm,becausestatehadbeenrepresentedthroughalawyer.TheSC
observedevenwhenthelawdoesnotallowlegalrepresentationtothedetenu,heisentitledtomake
sucharequestandtheadvisoryboardisboundtoconsiderthisrequestonmerit,andBoardisnot
precludetoallowsuchassistancewhenitallowsthestatetoberepresentedthroughalawyer.

2(d):Art32,226and227:
Art32and226oftheconstitutionprovidesforconstitutionalremediesforviolationof
fundamentalRightsandotherlegalrightsrespectivelyremedies,UnderArt32and226canbe
exercisedbyissuingappropriateWrit,DirectionandOrders.WritsinthenatureofHabeasCorpus
mandamus,prohibitionquowarrantoandcertiorari.WritofHabeasCorpusisinvokedtoprevent
unlawfuldetentionandMandamusisinvokedtocompelpublicofficialtoperformhislegalduties.
WhereasWritofProhibitionandCertiorariareusedtopreventJudicialandquasijudicialbodies
fromactingwithoutjurisdiction,inexcessofjurisdiction,orwhereerroroflawapparentonfaceof
record,violationofFundamentalRightandonthegroundofviolationofPrinciplesofNatural
Justice.However,inrecenttimeitisnewdevelopmentthatWritofCertioraricanalsobeinvoked
againstAdministrativeauthorityexercisingadjudicatoryfunction.

InU.P.WarehousingCoprorationV.VijayNarain,inthiscaseCourtheldthatWritof
certiorariorprohibitionusuallygoestoabodywhichisboundtoactfairlyoraccordingtonatural
justiceanditfailstodoso.Inthesamemannerwherethedecisionisaffectedbybias,personal,or
pecuniary,orsubjectmatterasthecasemaybeconsideredasviolationofprincipleofnaturaljustice.
InsuchcircumstancesalsowritofcertiorariandprohibitioncanbeissuedbothUnderArt32and
226.InManacleV.Dr.Premchand,speakingforSC,Gagendragadkar,J.,remarked:itisobvious
thatpecuniaryinterest,howeversmallitmaybeinthesubjectmatterofmatteroftheproceedings,
wouldwhollydisqualifyamemberfromactingasjudge.InGullapalliNageshwarRaoV.
APSRTCtheSCquashedthedecisionoftheAPGovt.,nationalizingRoadtransportontheground
thattheSecretaryoftheTransportDepartmentwhowasgivenahearingwasinterestedinthesubject
matter.Anyordermadeinviolationofprinciplesofnaturaljusticeisvoidabinitioandisliabletobe
annulledandcancelled.TheSupremeCourtinNawabkhanAbbaskhanV.StateofGujaratheld
thatanorderwhichinfringesafundamentalfreedompassedinviolationoftheaudialteram
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/print.php?art_id=1519 6/11
4/24/2017 PrintArticle:PrinciplesofNaturalJusticeInIndianConstitution

partemruleisanullity.Whenacompetentcourtholdssuchofficialactororderinvalidorsetsit
aside,itoperatesfromnativity,i.e.theimpugnedactororderwasnevervalid.

InParry&CoV.P.C.Palitwasobservedthatwritofcertiorariisgenerallygrantedwhena
Courthasactedwithoutorinaccessitsjurisdiction.Itisavailableinthosecaseswhereatribunal
thoughcompetenttoenteruponaninquiry,actsinflagrantdisregardoftherulesofprocedureor
violatesthePrinciplesofNaturalJustice,wherenoparticularprocedureisprescribed.Wherethe
tribunalhasdisableditselffromreachingafairdecisionbysomeconsiderationsextraneoustothe
evidenceandthemeritsofthecaseorwheretheconclusionontheveryfaceofitissowholly
arbitraryandcapricesthatnoreasonablepersoncaneverhavearrivedattheconclusioninterference
underArt.226wouldbejustified.

ApartfromArt.32and226,itisArt227whichcanbeusedbyHighCourtasanotherextraordinary
weapontopreventviolationprinciplesofnaturaljusticeinanyofthelowercourtsortribunalsasthe
casemaybe.Art227runsasfollows,

Art.227.PowerofsuperintendenceoverallcourtsbytheHighCourt
(1)EveryHighCourtshallhavesuperintendenceoverallcourtsandtribunalsthroughoutthe
territoriesinrelationtowhichitexercisesjurisdiction

(2)Withoutprejudicetothegeneralityoftheforegoingprovisions,theHighCourtmay
(a)Callforreturnsfromsuchcourts
(b)Makeandissuegeneralrulesandprescribeformsforregulatingthepracticeandproceedingsof
suchcourtsand
(c)Prescribeformsinwhichbooks,entriesandaccountsshallbekeptbytheofficersofanysuch
courts

(3)TheHighCourtmayalsosettletablesoffeestobeallowedtothesheriffandallclerksand
officersofsuchcourtsandtoattorneys,advocatesandpleaderspracticingtherein:Providedthatany
rulesmade,formsprescribedortablessettledunderclause(2)orclause(3)shallnotbeinconsistent
withtheprovisionofanylawforthetimebeinginforce,andshallrequirethepreviousapprovalof
theGovernor

(4)NothinginthisarticleshallbedeemedtoconferonHighCourtpowersofsuperintendenceover
anycourtortribunalconstitutedbyorunderanylawrelatingtotheArmedForces.
HighCourtmayinexerciseofitspowerofsuperintendenceissuedirection,Orderorwritincases
whereitfeltthatthereisviolationofprinciplesofnaturaljusticeaccordinglyitisoneofthe
constitutionalprovisionsframedinthespiritofprinciplesofnaturaljustice.

2(e):Art.311andprinciplesofNaturalJustice:
Art311dealswithDismissal,removal,orreductioninrankofpersonsemployedincivilcapacities
undertheUnionoraState,thoughArt.310oftheconstitutionadaptsdoctrineofPleasureArt311
constitutionprovidessufficientsafeguardsagainstmisuseofsuchpower,(1)ofArt311declaresthat
nopersonwhoisamemberofcivilserviceoftheUnionoranallIndiaserviceofStateorholdsa
civilpostunderUnionoraStateshallbedismissedorremovedbyanauthoritysubordinatetothatby
whichhewasappointedandClause(2)ofArt.311declaresnosuchpersonasaforesaidshallbe
dismissedorremovedorreducedinrankexceptafteraninquiryinwhichhehasbeeninformedof
thechargesagainsthimandgivenareasonableopportunityofbeingheardinrespectofthose
charges.Thewordreasonableopportunityofbeingheardincludesallthedimensionofprinciplesof
naturaljustice,accordinglynodismissal,removal,orreductionofrankofcivilservantcanbemade
withoutgivingreasonableopportunityofbeingheard.

InPunjabNationalBankV.KunaBiharMira,thefollowingquestionwasraised:whenthe
inquiryofficer,duringthecourseofthedisciplinaryproceedings,comestotheconclusionthatthe
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/print.php?art_id=1519 7/11
4/24/2017 PrintArticle:PrinciplesofNaturalJusticeInIndianConstitution

chargesofmisconductagainstanofficialarenotproved,thencanthedisciplinaryauthoritydiffer
fromthatviewandgiveacontraryfindingwithoutaffordingandopportunitytothedelinquent
officerTheCourthasruledthatnaturaljusticedemandsthattheauthoritywhichproposestoholdthe
delinquentofficerguiltymustgivehimahearing.Iftheinquiryofficeroldsthechargestobeproved
thenthereporthastobegiventothedelinquentofficerwhocanmakearepresentationbeforethe
disciplinaryauthoritytakesfurtheractionprejudicialtothedelinquentofficer.

Art.311requirestheauthority,whichhastotakeafinaldecisionandcanimposeapenalty,to
giveanopportunitytotheofficerchargedofmisconducttofilerepresentationbeforethedisciplinary
authorityrecordsitsfindingsonchargesframedagainsttheofficer.Thisisbecausebeforeimposing
thepunishment,theemployerisexpectedtoconductaproperenquiryinaccordancewiththe
provisionsoftheStandingOrders,ifapplicable,andprinciplesofnaturaljustice.Theenquiryshould
notbeanemptyformality.

EffectoffailureofnaturaljusticeinproceedingscontemplatedU/Art.311isdefendsuponthe
followingcircumstances(i)wherethereistotalviolationofnaturaljustice,i.e.,wherenoopportunity
ofhearinghasbeengiven:wheretherehasbeennonotice/nohearingatalland

(ii)Whereafacetofnaturaljusticehasbeenviolated,i.e.wheretherehasbeenadequateopportunity
ofhearing,orwhereafairhearingislacking.

Insituation(i),theorderwouldundoubtedlybevoid.Insuchacase,normally,theauthority
concernedcanproceedafreshaccordingtonaturaljustice.

Insituation(ii),theCourthastoseewhetherintotalityofthecircumstances,thedelinquentservant
didordidnothaveaffairhearing.Whileapplyingtheaudialtermpartemrule,theultimateand
overridingobjectivemustbekeptinmind,toensureafairhearingandtoensurethatthereisno
failureofjustice.TheseprepositionswerelaiddownbyHonbleSCinStateBankofPatialaV.
S.K.Sharmatheseprepositionsequallyappliestoinquiryaffectedbybias,enquiryofficershould
beapersonwithanopenmindandheshouldholdanimpartialdomesticenquiry.Heshouldnotbe
basedeitherinfavourofthedepartmentoragainstthepersonagainstwhomtheinquiryistobeheld,
orprejudgetheissue,orhaveaforeclosedmind,orhavepredeterminednotions.

Aninquirybyapersonwhoisbiasedagainstthechargedofficeriscleardenialofreasonable
opportunity.Forexample,oneandthesamepersoncannotbeajudgeandawitnessinthesamecase.
Therefore,theinquiryofficercannotalsobeawitnessagainsttheservantagainstwhomheisholding
theinquirysuchaproceduredenotesabiasedstateofmindagainstthepersonconcerned.

InKuldeepSinghV.CommissionerofPolice,theSCheldthattheinquiryofficeasbiased
ashedidnotsitwithanopenmindtoholdanimpartialdomesticinquirywhichisanessential
componentofnaturaljusticeasalsothatofreasonableopportunity,contemplatedbyArt.311(2)of
theConstitution.Theenquiryofficer,saidtheCourt,actedarbitrarilyinthematterandfoundthe
employeeguiltyinsuchacoarsemannerthatitbecameapparentthathewasmerelycarryingoutthe
commandfromsomesuperiorofficerwhoperhapsdirectedtofixhimup.

However,merelybecauseofficerholdingenquiryisnotlikedbyservanttheremaynotbepossibility
ofbiasandnoproceedinginsuchcircumstancesaidtobeaffectedbybias,thereisauthorityforthe
viewthat,wheretherearecertainrulesgoverningtheprocedureofenquires,themereviolationof
suchruleswillnotgiveapartyacauseofactionunlesstherehasbeen,inconsequence,prejudice
caused.

AnotherimportantquestionhereisshouldanAdvocatebePermittedinallDomesticEnquiries?
IntheBoardofTrusteesV.NadkarnitheSupremeCourtstatedthatinthepasttherewasinformal
atmospherebeforeadomesticenquiryforumandthatstrictrulesofprocedurallawdidnothamstring
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/print.php?art_id=1519 8/11
4/24/2017 PrintArticle:PrinciplesofNaturalJusticeInIndianConstitution

theenquiry.Wehavemovedfarawayfromthisstage.Thesituationiswheretheemployerhasonhis
payrollsLabourOfficers.LegalAdvisors,Lawyersinthegarbofemployeesandtheyareappointed
asPresentingOfficersandthedelinquentemployeepittedagainstsuchlegallytrainedpersonnelhas
todefendhimself.

However,thefactisthattheweightedscalesandtiltedbalancecanonlybepartlyrestoredifthe
delinquentisgiventhesamelegalassistanceastheemployer.Itapplieswithequalvigourtoallthose
whomustberesponsibleforfairplay.WhentheBombayPortTrustAdvisorandJuniorAssistant
LegalAdvisorwouldactasthePresentingcumProsecutingOfficerintheenquiry,theemployeewas
askedtoberepresentedbyapersonnottrainedinlaw,washeldutterlyunfairandunjust.The
employeeshouldhavebeenallowedtoappearthroughlegalpractitionerandfailurevitiatedthe
enquiry.InGhatgePatilTransportPvt.Ltd.VB.K.Patelandothers.Apartfromtheprovisions
oflaw,itisoneofthebasicprinciplesofnaturaljusticethattheenquiryshouldbefairandimpartial.
EvenifthereisnoprovisionintheStandingOrdersorinLaw,whereinanenquirybeforethe
domesticmind,ifheseekspermissiontoappearthroughalegalpractitionertherefusaltograntthis
requestwouldamounttoadenialofreasonablerequesttodefendhimselfandtheessentialprinciples
ofnaturaljusticewouldbeviolated.AndinIndiaPhotographicCoV.SumatraMohan
Kumarthoughthecourtshoulddiscourageinvolvementoflegalpractitionersinsimpledomestic
enquiries,likedisciplinaryenquiries,foravoidingcomplicationsanddelays,yetthecourtsrefusalof
suchrepresentationwouldconstitutefailureoftheenquiryitself.PrinciplesofNaturalJustice
demandsconcedingtosuchaclaim.Nogeneralrulecanbelaiddowninthisrespectbuttheissue
mustbeleftfortheconsiderationinthelightofthefactsandcircumstancesofeachindividualcase.
TheviewofCalcuttaHCappearstobecorrect.

FurtherinenquirywhenPrinciplesofNaturalJusticehavenotbeenobserved,ifthedisciplinary
authoritycomestotheconclusionthattheinquirywasnotmadeinconformitywithprinciplesof
naturaljustice,itcanalsoremitthecaseforfurtherenquiryonallorsomeofthecharges.The
discretioninthisregardshouldbeexercisedbythedisciplinaryauthorityforadequatereasonstobe
recordedinwriting.Afurtherenquirymaybeordered,forexample,whentherearegravelacunaeor
proceduraldefectsvitiatingthefirstenquiryandnotbecausethefirstenquiryhadgoneinfavourof
thedelinquentofficer.Inlattertypeofcases,thedisciplinaryauthoritycan,ifitissatisfiedonthe
evidenceonrecord,disagreewiththefindingsoftheInquiringAuthority.

InthiscontextthefollowingobservationsoftheRajasthanHighCourtinDwarkaChandV.Stateof
Rajasthanarerelevant:Ifweweretoholdthataseconddepartmentalenquirycouldbeorderedafter
thepreviousonehasresultedintheexonerationofapublicservantthedangerofharassmenttothe
publicservant,wouldinouropinion,beimmense.Ifitwerepossibletoignoretheresultofanearlier
departmentalenquiry,thentherewillbenothingtopreventasuperiorofficer,ifheweresominded,
toorderasecondorathirdorafourthorevenafifthdepartmentalenquiryaftertheearlieroneshad
resultedintheexonerationofapublicservant.

Art311(2)providesinvaluablesafeguardstocivilservantsbutatthesametimeprovidessome
exceptiontorequirementofnaturaljustice,underfollowingcircumstancereasonableopportunityof
beingheardisnotessentialtocivilservantsunderUnionofIndiaoraState,

(i)Whereapersonisdismissed,removedorreducedinrankonthegroundofmisconductwhichhas
ledtohisconvictiononacriminalcharge.

(ii)Wheretheauthorityempoweredtodismissorremoveapersonortoreducehiminrankis
satisfiedthatforsomereason,toberecordedbythatauthorityinwriting,itisnotreasonably
practicabletoholdsuchanenquiry.

(iii)WherethePresidentortheGovernorasthecasemaybeissatisfiedthatintheinterestofthe
SecurityoftheState,itisnotexpedienttoholdsuchenquiry.
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/print.php?art_id=1519 9/11
4/24/2017 PrintArticle:PrinciplesofNaturalJusticeInIndianConstitution

ReferringtoArticle311(2)(b),thejudgeshavepointedoutthatsometimesbynottakingprompt
actionmightresultinthesituationworseningandattimesbecominguncontrollable.Thiscouldalso
beconstruedbythetroublemakersandagitatorsasasignofweaknessonthepartoftheauthorities.
ItwouldnotbereasonablypracticabletoholdaninquirywheretheGovernmentServantterrorizes
threatensorintimidatesdisciplinaryauthorityorthewitnessestotheeffectthattheyareprevented
fromtakingactionorgivingevidenceagainsthim.Itwouldnotbereasonablypracticabletoholdthe
enquirywhereanatmosphereofviolenceorgeneralindisciplineandinsubordinationprevails.
Thisisaboutconstitutionalprovisionembeddedwithprinciplesofnaturaljustice.

3.Conclusion
InawelfarestatelikeIndia,theroleandjurisdictionofadministrativeagenciesisincreasingata
rapidpaceandwithrapidexpansionofstateliabilityandcivicneedsofthepeopleconfermentof
administrativediscretionbecameneedofanhour.Withexpansioninscopeofdiscretionarypowerof
administrativeauthoritytheregulatorymeasuresaretobeequippedwithsufficientpowertoprevent
abuseofdiscretion.InthisregardConstitutionalzedruleoflawcountrylikeIndia,componentof
naturallaw,i.e.fairplayinactionmustbefoundandreproclaimedbyjudiciarytokeepintactthe
supremacyofruleoflawinIndia.Inthisregardauthorsubmitsthattherulesofnaturaljusticecan
operateonlyinareasnotcoveredbylawvalidlymadesucholdjudicialdecisionsofApexCourt
andotherHighCourtmustbereconsideredandcorrectviewwouldbedeclaringprinciplesofnatural
justicenecessarycorollaryofLaw,theymustoperateinpresenceofandevenincontraventiontothe
establishedlawwheretheinterestofjusticedemands.

InIndia,theprinciplesofnaturaljusticearefirmlygroundedinArticle14&21oftheConstitution.
WiththeintroductionofconceptofsubstantiveandproceduraldueprocessinArticle21,allthat
fairnesswhichisincludedintheprinciplesofnaturaljusticecanbereadintoArt.21.Theviolation
ofprinciplesofnaturaljusticeresultsinarbitrarinesstherefore,violationofnaturaljusticeisa
violationofEqualityclauseofArt.14.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
***MissKavitaS.BandMr.ShivarajS.H
#M.P.Jani,IndianConstitutoionalLaw,VIEd,Reprint(2011),(GurgaonLexisNexis
ButterworthsWadhwaNagpur),at,p.963.
#AIR1999SC564.3.
3.AIR1978SC597.
4AIR1986SC1571
#AIR1992SC61
#A.K.Goplanv.UnionofInida,
#AIR1976SC597.
#Ibid,at,p621
#Ibid
#StateofPunjabv.BaldevSingh,AIR1999SC2378
#HussainaraKhatoonv.StateofBiharAIR1979SC1369
#AIR1969SC1014
#Inre,MadhuLimayeAIR1969SC1014
#AIR1978SC1025
#AIR1994SC1349
#AIR1978SC1548
#AIR1978SC597
#AIR1980SC840
#AIR1957SC425
#AIR1959SC308
#AIR1974SC1471
#B.P.Benarjee,WritRemediesIvEd.,(2007)reprint2008,(NagpurLexisNexis,Butterworths
Wadhwa),p.no.217(1998)7SCC84
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/print.php?art_id=1519 10/11
4/24/2017 PrintArticle:PrinciplesofNaturalJusticeInIndianConstitution

#AIR1996SC1669.
#B.MartianV.UnionofIndia.,AIR1976Kant.144
#KumaionMandalvikasNigamLtd.V.GeraShankarPant,AIR2001SC24
#AIR1999SC677
#VeerabadreshwarRao&OilMillVsCollector,CentralExcise,AIR1966SC1348
#30.1983)ILJ.p1
#1984IILLJBombayHighCourt,p.121
#1984ILLJCalcuttaHCp.471
#AIR1959,Raj.38
#SwadeshiCottonMillsV.UnionofIndiaon13January,1981

Rulesofnaturaljusticecanoperateonlyinareasnotcoveredbyanylawvalidlymade.Ifa
statutoryprovisioneitherspecificallyorbyinevitableimplicationexcludestheapplicationofthe
rulesofnaturaljusticethentheCourtcannotignorethemandateoftheLegislature.Whetherornot
theapplicationoftheprinciplesofnaturaljusticeinagivencasehasbeenexcludedintheexercise
ofstatutorypowerdependsuponthelanguageandbasicschemeoftheprovisionconferringthe
power,thenatureofthepowerthepurposeforwhichitisconferredandtheeffectofthatpower
Theauthorcanbereachedat:shivaraj@legalserviceindia.com

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/print.php?art_id=1519 11/11