Statutory exclusion of natural justice
I. Meaning and Concept
Natural Justice refers to the principles of fairness and reasonableness in administrative and judicial procedures. The two fundamental rules are:
Audi Alteram Partem – the right to be heard.
Nemo Judex in Causa Sua – no one should be a judge in their own cause (rule against bias).
Statutory Exclusion of Natural Justice means that a statute (law) explicitly excludes or limits the application of natural justice in certain administrative or quasi-judicial actions. In other words, the statute may provide that:
No hearing is necessary before action is taken.
No opportunity is given to the affected party to present their case.
The administrative authority may act without observing natural justice.
II. When is Statutory Exclusion Valid?
Clear and Explicit Provision: The exclusion must be clearly and expressly stated in the statute.
Reasonable Interpretation: Courts avoid interpreting statutes to exclude natural justice unless it is explicit.
Constitutional Validity: Such exclusion cannot violate fundamental rights like Article 14 (equality) and Article 21 (life and liberty).
Limited Scope: The courts try to balance between efficiency in administration and fairness to the individual.
III. Important Case Laws Explaining Statutory Exclusion of Natural Justice
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 AIR 597, SCR (2) 621)
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded without any prior hearing under the Passport Act. The government argued that the Act did not require a hearing before such an action.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that even if the statute does not expressly provide for a hearing, fundamental rights under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and Article 14 (right to equality) require that a person must be given a fair opportunity before such an action.
Thus, natural justice principles cannot be excluded unless explicitly stated and consistent with fundamental rights.
Significance:
This case curtailed the statutory exclusion of natural justice by emphasizing constitutional protections.
2. Bimala Biswas v. Union of India (1953 AIR 266)
Facts:
Under the Sea Customs Act, the government confiscated goods without hearing the party. The Act did not expressly provide for a hearing.
Held:
The Court held that the right to be heard can be excluded if the statute expressly excludes it. Since the Customs Act had an express clause allowing confiscation without hearing, the exclusion of natural justice was valid.
Significance:
This case established the principle that statutory exclusion of natural justice is valid only when expressly stated.
3. V.C. Rangadurai v. State of Tamil Nadu (1967 AIR 1124)
Facts:
The Tamil Nadu Government suspended the petitioner without a prior hearing under a rule which expressly excluded the right to be heard.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that where the statute expressly excludes natural justice, the authorities can act without hearing the affected party.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle that express statutory exclusion is effective and binding.
4. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992 AIR 1985, SCR (1) 686)
Facts:
The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution (anti-defection law) provided that decisions of the Speaker regarding disqualification shall not be questioned in any court.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that statutory bars on judicial review are valid if clearly provided, but the principles of natural justice still apply in the process unless explicitly excluded.
Significance:
Shows limitations on exclusion of natural justice when constitutional provisions are involved.
5. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974 AIR 555)
Facts:
The case dealt with the exercise of administrative discretion which was alleged to be arbitrary and without hearing.
Held:
Although not directly about statutory exclusion, the Supreme Court emphasized that any exercise of power must be free from arbitrariness and mala fide intentions and natural justice is a part of due process.
Significance:
Reiterated that statutory exclusion must not lead to arbitrary actions.
IV. Summary Table
| Case | Statutory Exclusion Valid? | Key Point |
|---|---|---|
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India | No (not without explicit provision) | Natural justice linked with fundamental rights |
| Bimala Biswas v. Union of India | Yes | Statutory exclusion valid if expressly stated |
| V.C. Rangadurai v. State of Tamil Nadu | Yes | Express exclusion binds |
| Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu | Partly | Judicial review limited by statute, but natural justice important |
| E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu | No (indirectly) | Exercise of power must be fair, no arbitrariness |
V. Conclusion
Natural justice is a fundamental principle in administrative law, but it can be excluded by explicit statutory provisions.
Courts strictly construe such exclusions and protect individual rights where fundamental rights are involved.
Administrative efficiency cannot be a reason for denial of fairness unless the law clearly permits it.
Statutory exclusion is a delicate balance between public interest and individual rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments