Presented By: Shivaraj S. Huchhanavar., LL.M., UGC NET Asst. p rof. K.L.E.

Societys Law College, Bangalore, E-mail: shivashk100@gmail.com.

Synopsis I. Introduction

II. Foundational Principles of Natural Justice

III. Meaning and definition of Principles of Natural Justice

IV. Essential facets of Principles of Natural Justice

V. Conclusion

I. Introduction
Principles of Natural Justice are also known as substantial

justice, fundamental justice, universal justice, or fair play in action.

the aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or put

it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. II. The foundational Principles of Natural Justice
Nemo debet esse judex in propria sua cusa : no man shall be a

judge in his cause ,[by Lord Coke in Egerton v. Lord Derby, (1613)].
Justice not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be

seen to be done , (Lord Hewart in R v. Sussex Justices , (1924))

Cont. Judges, like Caesars wife should be above suspicion, (Justice Bowen in Lesson v. General Council , (1889)) III. Meaning and definition of Principles of Natural Justice Principles of Natural Justice are the derivatives of Roman and Greek natural Law theories.

JUS NATURALEE

Roman Law Greek Law

LEX NATURALE

NATURAL JUSTICE

Universal Law

Cicero: That ideal body of right and reasonable principles which

was common to all human beings.

Cont.
Lord Evershed: Natural Justice is the natural sense of what is

right and wrong .

Supreme Court: The principles of natural justice constitutes the

basic elements of fair hearing, having their roots in the innate

sense of man for fair play and justice which is not the perverse of any particular race or country but is shared in common by all

men. ( Union of India V. Tulsi Ram, AIR 1985 SC 1416)

those elementary norms of procedural and substantive law, ought to be followed in the interest of justice and fair play in

action, by administrative agencies while acting judicially.

(i)

Audi alteram partem : hear the other party, or both party should be heard before making decision.

(ii)

Nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa: no one should be made as judge in his own cause, or rule against bias.

(iii) Reasoned Decision

(i) Audi alteram partem Magna Carta: No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or ruined or dissected or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go or send against him, except the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of land De smith: No preposition can be more clearly established than that a man cannot incur the loss of liberty or property until he has had a fair opportunity of answering the case against him.

Cont. The Latin term coined by Lord Kenyon in R v. Gaskin (All ER 1698 at 704) quite earlier to R v. Gaskin, in the following case hearing role was well established, firstly in Baggs Case (1615). R v. Chancellor of the University of Cambridge ( Dr. Bentleys case, (1723) str 557) Important components of Audi alterm partem: a. Notice b. Hearing c. Disclosure of materials to the party d. Receiving evidence in the presence of the concerned party e. Receiving evidence produced by the party concerend f. opportunity to cross examine the witnesses

Cont. g. Right to counsel/Legal Representation h . One who decides must hear a. Notice Notice is sine qua non of fair hearing Baggs case and Bentley Case Elements of valid notice Properly served on the party concerned Sufficient time to enable the individual to prepare his case Precise and unambiguous Date, time, location of hearing must be correctly mentioned Grounds must be fully mentioned Satish Chandra v. U.o.I AIR 1983 Del 1 J. Vilangandan v. Executive Engineer AIR 1978 SC 930

b. Hearing before some one is condemned he ought to have an opportunity to defend himself such opportunity must be adequate and effective either it may be oral or through written representation in all the cases oral hearing is not necessary part of natural justice Cooper v. Wands worth Board of works, (1861-73) All ER 1554 Ridge v. Baldwin, (1964 AC 40) Travancore Rayons v. U.o.I, AIR 1971 SC 862 c. Disclosure of materials to the party Decision maker must not take extraneous matter in to consideration materials based upon which decision is arrived ought to be supplied to the concerned party

 No materials should be relied on against him without his being

given an opportunity of explaining them Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd v. CIT , AIR 1955 SC 65 d. Receiving Evidence in the presence of the concerned party Generally no evidence shall be taken behind the back of the party concerned S.P. Paul v. Calcutta University, AIR 1970 Cal 282 Ram Narayan v. Calcutta University, AIR 1982 Cal 1 Hiranath Mishra v. Rajendra Medical College, AIR 1973 SC 1260 Hari v. Deputy Commissioner of Police, AIR 1956 SC 559 e. Receiving Evidence Produced by the party concerned opportunity to produce evidence in support of his case Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd v. Commissioner of I.T , AIR 1955 SC 65

 Cross-examination is opportunity to rebut the material against

g.

him It is the weapon to bring out the truth and exposing falsehood in all the cases, right of cross examination will not be a part of natural justice State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Bakshi Ghulmmohad, AIR 2004 SC 510 Right to Counsel/Legal Representation exclusion of this right is based on the notion that, it saves the expenses and maintains plainness of the matter C.K. Allen : experience has taught me that to deny persons who are unable to express themselves the services of a competent man is very mistaken kindness. Administrative Proceedings Act, 1946 (USA) Sec. 555(b), right of legal representation is guaranteed Kavita v. State of Maharastrha , AIR 1981 SC 1641

Cont. A.K. Roy v. U.O.I, AIR 1982 SC 710 h. One who decides must hear that the hearing and the deciding functions ought not be separated Gullapalli Nageshwar Rao v. A.P.S.R.T.C , AIR 1959 SC 509 (ii) Nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa: rule against bias Meaning of bias: anything which tends 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. (Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1995, p.123)
A predisposition to decide for or against one party, without

proper regard to the merits of the dispute.

Cont.

Bias
Pecuniary bias

TYPES OF BIAS Pecuniary bias Personal bias Official/Subject-matter bias

Griffith and Street: a pecuniary interest, however slight, will

disqualify, even though it is not proved that the decision is in any way affected. Dr. Bonham Case, (1610) Dimes v. Grants Junction Canal, (1852) 3 HL 759 Lord Hewart stated: Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the Course of Justice. R v. Sussex Justices, (1924) 1 KB 256 Jeejeebhoy v. Asst. Collector of Thana, AIR 1953 Mad 709

Cont. Personal Bias Here a judged may be a relative, friend or business associate of a party or he may have some personal grudge, enmity or grievance or professional rivalry against such party. Cottle v. Cottle , (1939) 2 All ER 535 State of U.P v. Mohd. Nooh, AIR 1958 86 A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150 Official/Subject matter bias It arises where judge has a general interest in the subject matter Only rarely will this bias invalidate the proceeding A mere general interest in the general object to be pursued by the would not disqualify the judge. there must be some direct connection between the interest of the judge and subject matter. Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. A.P.S.R.T.C , AIR 1959 SC 1376

 every decision must be backed by reason whether such decision

making body is judicial, quasi-judicial or Administrative In U.K, The Franks Committee insisted that there should be a general practice for adjudicatory bodies to give reasons for their decisions fair play in action requires reasons to be given as of right In U.S.A, Administrative Procedure Act, 1946 Sec 557(c) requires that administrative decisions be accompanied by findings and conclusions, as well as the reasons or basis therefore, upon all the material issues of law, facts or discretion. RTI Act, 2006, Sec 4(1) (d): public authority to provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons. Benefits of reasoned decision Siemens Engg. Co v. U.O.I, AIR 1976 SC 1785 Maneka Gandhi v. U.O.I , AIR 1978 SC597 Reasons by appellate Authority

 Lack

of Legislative Instrument to govern procedure of Administrative Adjudication Judicial creativity leading to uncertainty as to procedural fairness Systematic violation of Principles of Natural Justice through institutional decision Wide and sweeping clauses of Acts, conferring administrative discretion on the authority leading to arbitrary exercise of administrative discretion, consequently negation of principles of natural justice.