Local Government Board V Alridge (1915) AC 120: A case analysis with respect to principles of natural justice
Local Government Board v. Arlidge (1915) AC 120
Case Analysis with Respect to Principles of Natural Justice
Facts of the Case:
The Local Government Board issued an order sealing a slaughterhouse owned by Arlidge.
Arlidge claimed that the order was unlawful as he was not given an opportunity to be heard before the order was passed.
The issue was whether the failure to provide a hearing violated the principles of natural justice.
Legal Issue:
Does an administrative authority have to follow the principles of natural justice (specifically, the right to be heard) before passing an order affecting a person’s rights or interests?
Judgment:
The House of Lords held that the Local Government Board’s decision was subject to the principles of natural justice.
It was mandatory to give Arlidge an opportunity to be heard before passing an order that affected his property and rights.
The decision without hearing was held to be unlawful and invalid.
Principles of Natural Justice Affirmed:
Audi Alteram Partem (Right to be Heard):
Affected parties must be given a fair chance to present their case before a decision is made.
Nemo Judex in Causa Sua (Rule against Bias):
Though not directly challenged in this case, it underpins the impartiality expected of decision-makers.
Significance:
Local Government Board v. Arlidge firmly established that natural justice applies to administrative actions that affect rights or legitimate interests.
Administrative bodies must act fairly and cannot deprive individuals of rights without notice and an opportunity to respond.
It reinforced that natural justice is a mandatory procedural safeguard.
Related Important Cases on Principles of Natural Justice
1. Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) AC 40
Facts: A police chief was dismissed without a hearing.
Held: The House of Lords ruled that the dismissal was invalid as natural justice was violated by the lack of a hearing.
Principle: Reinforced that administrative decisions affecting rights must comply with the right to a fair hearing.
2. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262
Facts: Selection process for government posts was challenged for lack of fairness.
Held: Supreme Court held that quasi-judicial authorities must follow principles of natural justice.
Principle: Natural justice is applicable wherever administrative action affects rights.
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
Facts: Passport impounded without giving opportunity to be heard.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the right to personal liberty includes the right to fair procedure.
Principle: Expanded natural justice to include fair, just, and reasonable procedures in administrative action.
4. Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405
Facts: The petitioner was disqualified without proper hearing.
Held: Supreme Court held the importance of hearing before adverse decisions affecting rights.
Principle: Emphasized the need for adequate notice and hearing before administrative sanctions.
5. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831
Facts: Removal of a government employee without hearing.
Held: Violation of natural justice principles rendered the removal invalid.
Principle: Fundamental that no person shall be condemned unheard in administrative proceedings.
Summary of Natural Justice Principles in These Cases
| Case | Principle Established | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|
| Local Government Board v. Arlidge | Right to be heard before action | Natural justice is mandatory for administrative decisions |
| Ridge v. Baldwin | Hearing required before dismissal | Due process in administrative action |
| A.K. Kraipak | Quasi-judicial decisions require fairness | Natural justice applies beyond courts |
| Maneka Gandhi | Due process includes fairness and reasonableness | Administrative fairness is constitutional |
| Mohinder Singh Gill | Notice and hearing before adverse action | Procedural fairness in administrative sanctions |
| Shamsher Singh | Right to be heard in service matters | No punishment without opportunity to defend |
Conclusion
Local Government Board v. Arlidge is a landmark case that entrenched the requirement of natural justice in administrative law — especially the audi alteram partem rule (right to be heard). It underscores that administrative authorities cannot arbitrarily affect an individual’s rights without following fair procedures.
Subsequent Indian and English cases have further developed these principles, extending natural justice to various administrative and quasi-judicial actions, ensuring fairness, transparency, and accountability in governance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments