Principles of Natural Justice and Constitution of India
Principles of Natural Justice and the Constitution of India
1. Introduction
Natural justice refers to fundamental procedural fairness principles ensuring that administrative decisions affecting rights or interests are made fairly. The principles have been incorporated and expanded under the Constitution of India, particularly under the Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21) and the rule of law concept.
The two core rules of natural justice are:
Audi Alteram Partem (Hear the other side)
Nemo Judex in Causa Sua (No one should be a judge in his own cause)
2. Incorporation of Natural Justice in the Indian Constitution
Article 14 (Equality before the law) and Article 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) imply the application of natural justice.
Article 311 specifically protects civil servants from dismissal without proper inquiry, embedding audi alteram partem.
The Supreme Court has expanded the scope of natural justice to cover various administrative and quasi-judicial actions.
3. Detailed Explanation of the Principles
A. Audi Alteram Partem
Every person affected by a decision has the right to be heard.
Includes notice of the charges or grounds, adequate time to prepare a defense, and the right to present evidence.
Failure to provide this hearing can invalidate the administrative action.
B. Nemo Judex in Causa Sua
Decision-maker must be impartial and free from bias.
Even the appearance of bias violates this principle.
It guarantees fairness in adjudication.
4. Important Indian Case Laws on Natural Justice
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
Facts:
The government revoked Maneka Gandhi’s passport without giving her an opportunity to be heard.
Issue:
Whether the procedure followed violated Article 21’s guarantee of life and personal liberty.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that the right to personal liberty includes the right to fair procedure, meaning natural justice applies to administrative action.
Reasoning:
The court widened the scope of Article 21, ruling that any procedure depriving life or liberty must be “just, fair, and reasonable.”
Reinforced the principle of audi alteram partem.
Significance:
Landmark ruling establishing that natural justice is implicit in constitutional due process.
Prevents arbitrary administrative action.
2. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262
Facts:
The selection committee for the appointment of university teachers included persons with vested interests.
Issue:
Whether the appointment process violated the principle of impartiality (nemo judex).
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that the involvement of biased members in selection violated natural justice.
Reasoning:
Emphasized the need for unbiased decision-makers in administrative and quasi-judicial processes.
Any hint of bias vitiates the decision.
Significance:
Established that natural justice requires impartiality.
Broadened the application of nemo judex in cause sua in administrative actions.
3. R.V. Dhanalakshmi v. Joint Director of Collegiate Education (1971) 1 SCC 431
Facts:
A teacher was dismissed without being given an opportunity to explain allegations.
Issue:
Whether denial of hearing violated natural justice.
Holding:
The court held that dismissal without a hearing was illegal.
Reasoning:
Due process requires the affected person to be heard.
The principle of audi alteram partem is essential in disciplinary proceedings.
Significance:
Affirmed the importance of the hearing rule in administrative discipline.
4. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398
Facts:
A government employee was dismissed without holding a proper departmental inquiry.
Issue:
Whether natural justice principles apply to disciplinary proceedings against public servants.
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled that failure to conduct a proper inquiry and provide a chance to defend violates natural justice.
Reasoning:
Article 311(2) mandates a fair inquiry before dismissal.
Hearing and impartiality are integral to disciplinary actions.
Significance:
Reinforced constitutional protection for government employees under natural justice.
5. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831
Facts:
A disciplinary proceeding was conducted without giving the employee an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
Issue:
Whether denial of cross-examination violated natural justice.
Holding:
The court held that cross-examination is part of the hearing and essential for fairness.
Reasoning:
Audi alteram partem means a full opportunity to defend, including cross-examination.
Denial amounts to breach of natural justice.
Significance:
Established procedural safeguards in disciplinary and administrative hearings.
5. Practical Implications and Scope
Natural justice applies to all quasi-judicial and administrative decisions affecting rights or interests.
Exceptions exist for purely legislative or executive decisions where no rights are affected.
The degree of procedural fairness required depends on the nature of the interest at stake.
Courts can quash administrative decisions violating natural justice.
6. Conclusion
The Principles of Natural Justice are deeply embedded in the Constitution of India and are essential to safeguarding fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21. The Indian judiciary has developed an extensive body of case law ensuring administrative authorities act fairly, impartially, and transparently, thus preventing arbitrary use of power.
RELATED Blog
0 comments