An overview of the Principles of natural justice in light of administrative law
🔷 What Are the Principles of Natural Justice?
Natural justice refers to a body of unwritten legal principles aimed at ensuring fairness, impartiality, and justice in administrative and quasi-judicial decisions. Though not codified, they are deeply embedded in common law systems and now form part of constitutional protections in many countries, including India, the UK, and others.
🔶 Importance in Administrative Law
Administrative agencies today exercise vast powers, including rule-making, enforcement, and adjudication. These functions, if unchecked, can adversely affect rights and liberties of individuals. Natural justice acts as a safeguard against abuse of power, ensuring that administrative decisions are:
Fair
Reasoned
Made without bias
Taken after giving affected parties a chance to be heard
🔷 Core Principles of Natural Justice
Audi Alteram Partem – “Hear the other side”
Nemo Judex in Causa Sua – “No one should be a judge in their own cause”
Reasoned Decision – Speaking orders / giving reasons (developed later as part of fairness)
🔷 Principle 1: Audi Alteram Partem – Right to Be Heard
➤ Meaning:
No person should be condemned or suffer a penalty without being given an opportunity to present their side.
➤ Includes:
Prior notice of the case
Disclosure of evidence
Right to reply/defend
Right to cross-examine witnesses (where applicable)
Right to legal representation (in certain cases)
🔷 Principle 2: Nemo Judex in Causa Sua – Rule Against Bias
➤ Meaning:
A person cannot judge a case where they have an interest or bias—real, perceived, or potential.
➤ Types of Bias:
Pecuniary bias (financial interest)
Personal bias (relationships, enmity, etc.)
Official bias (institutional allegiance)
🔷 Principle 3: Reasoned Decision (Speaking Order)
➤ Meaning:
Administrative/quasi-judicial bodies must provide reasons for their decisions. This ensures transparency and allows for judicial review.
✅ Detailed Case Law Illustrations (More Than 5)
1. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) – India
Facts: Members of the selection board for forest services were also candidates.
Issue: Bias and lack of fair hearing.
Held: The selection process violated natural justice. Even administrative actions must follow fair procedure if they affect rights.
Significance: Blended administrative and quasi-judicial actions under the umbrella of natural justice. No rigid categorization.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – India
Facts: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded "in public interest" without giving her a chance to be heard.
Held: Supreme Court held that right to travel is part of right to life under Article 21, and denial without hearing violates natural justice.
Significance: Established that fair procedure is an essential part of "procedure established by law".
3. Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) – UK
Facts: Chief Constable was dismissed without a hearing.
Held: House of Lords ruled that dismissal without giving the employee a chance to be heard violated natural justice.
Significance: Landmark in restoring audi alteram partem to administrative law. Even administrative dismissals require fair process.
4. D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries (1993) – India
Facts: A worker was dismissed for unauthorized absence without being given a hearing.
Held: Violation of Article 21 (right to livelihood) since no hearing was given before taking away a means of livelihood.
Significance: Reinforced the need for due process and fairness even in employment decisions.
5. State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei (1967) – India
Facts: The age of a government servant was arbitrarily changed without giving her a chance to be heard.
Held: Supreme Court held that even purely administrative orders affecting rights must be passed after giving a hearing.
Significance: Extended natural justice to non-judicial administrative actions.
6. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) – India
Facts: Government employees were dismissed without inquiry under Article 311(2) second proviso (national security concerns).
Held: Though natural justice is important, it can be excluded in rare cases (e.g., national security).
Significance: Recognized that natural justice is not absolute but subject to statutory and constitutional exceptions.
7. Canara Bank v. Debasis Das (2003) – India
Facts: Employee dismissed without providing an inquiry report.
Held: Supreme Court said natural justice is violated if an employee is not provided the inquiry report before dismissal.
Significance: Reinforced that procedural fairness includes access to inquiry findings.
8. Board of High School and Intermediate Education v. Kumari Santha (1970) – India
Facts: Student’s exam result was cancelled without a hearing.
Held: Supreme Court ruled the action void for violating audi alteram partem.
Significance: Even in education, administrative bodies must follow natural justice if their decisions affect reputation or rights.
📌 Key Takeaways
| Principle | Key Elements | Leading Cases | Applicability |
|---|---|---|---|
| Audi Alteram Partem | Notice, Hearing, Defense | Maneka Gandhi, Ridge v. Baldwin, Santha’s case | Any decision affecting rights |
| Nemo Judex in Causa Sua | No bias | A.K. Kraipak, Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal | Judges, administrators, selection committees |
| Reasoned Decision | Speaking order | Canara Bank, Siemens v. State of Maharashtra | Quasi-judicial & administrative orders |
⚖️ Conclusion
Natural justice is the backbone of fairness in administrative law.
Its application ensures transparency, accountability, and protection of individual rights.
While rooted in common law traditions, these principles are now embedded in constitutional guarantees (e.g., Article 14 and Article 21 in India).
Courts have been vigilant in upholding these principles, recognizing that even administrative efficiency must not come at the cost of fairness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments