Exceptions to the principles of natural justice
Principles of Natural Justice: Quick Overview
Before we get into exceptions, remember the two key principles of Natural Justice:
Nemo judex in causa sua – No one should be a judge in their own cause (Rule against bias).
Audi alteram partem – Hear the other side (Right to a fair hearing).
These principles ensure fairness, transparency, and non-arbitrariness in administrative, quasi-judicial, and even legislative processes.
✅ Exceptions to the Principles of Natural Justice
Although vital, these principles are not absolute. In specific circumstances, natural justice can be relaxed, modified, or excluded.
Common Exceptions Include:
| Exception | Description |
|---|---|
| 1. Emergency Situations | Immediate action is needed for public safety or interest. |
| 2. Legislative Actions | When actions are legislative (general in nature), not administrative or quasi-judicial. |
| 3. Confidentiality or National Security | Disclosure of reasons or hearings may compromise national interests. |
| 4. Statutory Exclusion | A statute may expressly or impliedly exclude natural justice. |
| 5. Impracticality | Where holding a hearing is not feasible due to time, scale, or context. |
| 6. Interim or Preliminary Orders | No need for hearing if the order is temporary or does not affect final rights. |
| 7. No Civil Consequences | If the decision does not affect rights or interests, natural justice may not apply. |
⚖️ Detailed Case Law Explanation (More than 5 Cases)
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – India
Principle: Exception not allowed unless justified; natural justice must be followed unless strong reasons exist.
Facts: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded under the Passport Act without giving her a chance to be heard.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that even when the law does not mandate a hearing, natural justice must be read into it unless the situation specifically requires otherwise.
Significance: While not an exception case per se, this decision limits when exceptions can apply, affirming that fairness is a constitutional requirement under Article 21.
2. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) – India
Principle: Emergency or public interest can justify exclusion of hearing.
Facts: Civil servants were dismissed without inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution due to threat to state security.
Holding: The Supreme Court upheld the dismissals, stating that in exceptional cases, like threats to national security or emergency, natural justice can be excluded.
Significance: One of the strongest affirmations of emergency exception. The court stressed that this exclusion must be strictly interpreted and not abused.
3. Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (1990) – India
Principle: Legislative actions are not bound by principles of natural justice.
Facts: After the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, Parliament passed the Bhopal Gas Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, allowing the government to act as the sole legal representative of victims.
Challenge: It was argued that the victims were not given a hearing before this law was passed.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that natural justice does not apply to legislative functions, even if they affect individuals.
Significance: Clearly distinguished legislative action from administrative/judicial action in terms of applying natural justice.
4. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) – India
Principle: Test to determine whether natural justice applies is the nature of the function, not the form.
Facts: A member of the selection board for Indian Forest Services was also a candidate.
Holding: Though the board was administrative, its function was quasi-judicial in nature. Therefore, natural justice applied, and the selection was quashed.
Significance: While this case reinforces natural justice, it also suggests that administrative actions of purely policy or legislative character might not attract these principles.
5. H.L. Trehan v. Union of India (1989) – India
Principle: No natural justice required if there is no prejudice or civil consequence.
Facts: Government took over a company and made changes to terms of employment.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that employees must be heard before altering terms. But if no prejudice is caused, failure to give hearing may not invalidate the action.
Significance: Introduces a practical element — test of prejudice. If no right is affected, hearing may not be necessary.
6. Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India (1981) – India
Principle: Natural justice must be followed unless statute clearly excludes it.
Facts: The government took over Swadeshi Cotton Mills under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act without giving prior hearing.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that unless the statute explicitly excludes hearing, it must be implied, especially when civil consequences follow.
Significance: Warns against implied exclusion; courts lean in favor of natural justice unless there's clear legislative intent.
7. Malak Singh v. State of Punjab (1981) – India
Principle: Natural justice may not apply to confidential surveillance decisions.
Facts: Individuals were kept under police surveillance without being informed or heard.
Holding: The court held that natural justice cannot be applied to secret surveillance, as disclosure would defeat the purpose.
Significance: Introduced confidentiality and public interest as a valid exception.
8. State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei (1967) – India
Principle: Even administrative actions affecting rights must follow natural justice.
Facts: Dr. Binapani’s date of birth was changed by the government without giving her a chance to be heard.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that even an administrative decision must follow natural justice if it affects civil rights.
Significance: While reinforcing natural justice, this case helps identify situations where exception cannot be claimed.
🔍 Summary Table of Exceptions and Cases
| Exception Type | Key Case | Court’s Holding |
|---|---|---|
| Emergency/Public Interest | Tulsiram Patel (1985) | Hearing not required during national emergency or public threat |
| Legislative Function | Charan Lal Sahu (1990) | No need for hearing in legislative actions |
| Statutory Exclusion | Swadeshi Cotton Mills (1981) | Hearing must be implied unless statute clearly excludes it |
| Confidentiality/National Security | Malak Singh (1981) | Natural justice not applied to confidential police actions |
| No Civil Consequences | H.L. Trehan (1989) | Hearing not needed if no rights are affected |
| Impracticality or Mass Decisions | Implied in various judgments | Hearing may not be possible in large-scale public actions (e.g., tax changes, economic decisions) |
✅ Conclusion
The principles of natural justice are flexible, not rigid. Courts have recognized well-defined exceptions, but they are narrowly construed and closely scrutinized. Any departure must be justified by compelling circumstances such as emergency, confidentiality, legislative function, or statutory exclusion.
The judiciary consistently holds that fairness is fundamental — and even when exceptions are allowed, decisions must be reasonable, proportionate, and lawful.
RELATED Blog
0 comments