1 | P a g e

PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN CONNECTION TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Final Project Administrative Law

Submitted to:
Mr. A.K. Tiwari & Mr. M. Paswan
Department of Legal Studies
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow

Submitted by:
Mayank Verma
Class of 2011-16
3
rd
year V
th
Semester
ROLL NO. 65
ENROLLMENT NO. - 110101064









Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National University, Lucknow



2 | P a g e

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work at hand is not the work of the researcher alone. A debt of gratitude goes to my
Administrative Law teachers Mr. A.K. Tiwari & Mr. M.S Paswan for guiding me whenever help
was required. Also, sincere thanks go to my colleagues for keeping the spirit of competition alive
in me. Lastly, I would also like to thank my seniors whose guidance helped me to complete this
research.



















3 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENT

1). Introduction4
2). Principle of Natural Justice.4
3). Situation in which principle of Natural Justice is attracted...5
4). Three rules of Natural Justice.5-11
NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA(RULE AGAINST BIAS)
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM
SPEAKING ORDER/ REASONED ORDER
5). Conclusion12
6). Bibliography.13















4 | P a g e

INTRODUCTION
The administrative agencies in India have been provided with various discretionary powers to
exercise in the course of their working. They use their discretionary powers to carry out the
functions assigned to them. But as usual where there is discretion there is a chance of
arbitrariness and biasness. To avoid such arbitrariness the administrative agencies are supposed
to follow the principles of natural justice. Natural justice is a concept of common law and
represents higher procedural principles developed by the courts, which every judicial, quasi-
judicial and administrative agency must follow while taking any decision adversely affecting the
rights of a private individual.
Natural justice implies fairness, equity and equality. In India, the principles of natural justice are
firmly grounded in Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution. With the introduction of concept of
substantive and procedural due process in Article 21, all that fairness which is included in the
principles of natural justice can be read into Art. 21. The violation of principles of natural justice
results in arbitrariness; therefore, violation of natural justice is a violation of Equality clause of
Art. 14.
PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE
Principle of natural justice which are judge made rules and still continue to be a classical
example of judicial activism, were developed by the court to prevent accidents in the exercise of
outsourced power of adjudication to the administrative authorities. These rules of natural justice
have developed with the growth of civilization and the content thereof is often considered as a
proper measure of the level of civilization and Rule of Law prevailing in the community.
The basic causes behind the development of this principle are that everyone should be protected
from the divine temporal laws, and it should be used in the welfare of the people. Natural Justice
is of the higher law of nature or natural law where the lion and lamb lie down together and of the
tiger frisks with the antelope.
1

Thus the natural Justice implies fairness, reasonableness, equity and equality. Natural Justice is a
concept common law and it is the common law world counterpart of the American procedural
due process.

1
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398
5 | P a g e

Natural Justice represents higher procedural principle developed by judges which every
administrative agency must follow in taking any decision adversely affecting the rights of a
private individual. It is another name for common sense justice.

Situation in which principle of Natural Justice is attracted
Principle of natural justice is attracted whenever a person suffers a civil consequences or a
prejudice is caused to him by any administrative action. Civil consequences means infraction of
personal or property rights, violation of civil liberties, material deprivation or sufferance of non-
pecuniary damages. Loss of legitimate expectation may also attract the principles of natural
justice. Thus where a person cannot justify his claim on the basis of any law but suffer a
prejudice or adverse consequences he is entitled to the benefit of the principle of natural justice.
In the case of TejshreeGhag v. Prakash P Patil
2
, the SC exemplified that where an employee
is transferred to a non equivalent post resulting in loss of pay he suffers a civil consequence as
his status and salary are adversely affected hence the principle of natural justice is attracted.
THREE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
Under this heading attempt shall be made to locate and define the rules of natural justice based
on the maxims. It shall be under the following two or three sub-head given below.
NEMO J UDEX I N CAUSA SUA(RULE AGAINST BIAS)
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM
SPEAKI NG ORDER/ REASONED ORDER

RULE AGAI NST BIAS (NEMO J UDEX CAUSA SUA)
This maxim nemo judex causa sua means No one should be made a judge in his own cause or
the rule against bias. So according to this principle it is meant that the justice is for every one
and everyone is equal in the eye of law. Bias means an operative prejudice whether conscious or
unconscious in relation to a party or issue. Such operative may be the result of a preconceived
opinion or a predisposition or a predetermination to decide a case in particular manner.

2
(2007) 6 SCC 220
6 | P a g e

It may be generally defined as partially or preference which is not founded on reason and is
actuated by self-interest- whether pecuniary or personal
3
.
It has been successfully held in the case of Crawford Bayley& Co. V. UOI
4
, that the doctrine of
Rule against bias comes into play if it is shown that the officer concerned has a personal
connection or personal interst in the matter concerned or has taken the decision one way or the
other which he may be interested in supporting.
In the case of J.Mohopatra& Co. Vs, State of OrissaSC quashed the decision of the Textbooks'
selection committee because some of itsmembers were also the authors of the books, which were
considered for selection. TheCourt concluded that withdrawal of person at the time of
consideration of his books is notsufficient as the element of quid pro quo with other members
cannot be eliminated.
Types of bias:
Bias manifests itself variously and affects a decision in a variety of ways. It can broadly be
classified into six categories:
Personal Bias
It arises out of the personal or professional relationship of friendship or hostility between the
authority and the parties. Its the human nature that we try to give favourable decision to our
friends or relatives, whereas use the same as a weapon against the enemies.
Apex courts decision in Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. V. State of Bihar
5
, serves as
a good illustration on the point. Here, the petitioners were granted a mining lease for 99 years in
1947. But in 1955, government quashed the license. The petitioners brought an action against the
minister passing this order on the behalf of government, on the ground that, the petitioner in
1952 opposed the minister in General election. Therefore, on the account of political rivalry, the
minister passed such an order, and hence the order was suffered from personal bias. Supreme
Court found the allegation to be true and thus quashed the said order.

3
H.R Wade: Administrative law
4
(2006) 6 SCC 25

5
AIR 1960 SC 468
7 | P a g e

Similarly in BaidyanathMohapatra v. state of Orissa
6
, the Supreme Court quashed the order of
the tribunal confirming premature retirement on the ground that the chairman of the tribunal was
also a member of the review committee which had recommended premature retirement.
In both the situations, the court sees whether there is reasonable ground for believing that the
deciding officer was likely to be biased, as it is very difficult to prove a persons state of mind.
The Mineral Development Corp. Ltd vs State of Bihar
7
which is a typical example of personal
bias. In this case the court quashed the order of the government, among other grounds of
personal bias.
In case of A.K kripak v. UOI
8
, a Naquishbund who was the acting chief Conservator of Forest
was a member of Selection Board and was also a candidate for selection of all India cadre of the
forests service. Though he didnt take part in the deliberation of the Board when his name was
considerd and approved, the SC held that there was a real likelihood of bias for the mere
presence of candidate on the selection board may adversely influence the judgement of the other
member.
Pecuniary Bias
Any financial interest howsoever small it may be is bound to vitiate the administrative action.
The judicial opinion is unanimous as to it.
In Jeejeebhoy vs. Astt.Collector,Thana
9
the CJ reconstituted the bench ,when it was found that
one of the members of the bench was the member of the cooperative society for which the land
has been acquired.
The Madras HC also quashed the decision of the collector who in his capacity as the chairman of
the Regional Transport Authority had granted a permit in favour of cooperative society of which
he was the Chairman
10
.


6
(1989)4 SCC 664
7
AIR 1960 SC 468

8
AIR 1970 SC 150
9
AIR 1965 SC 1096
10
Vishakapatnam Coop. Motor Transport Ltd. V. G. BangaruRaju AIR 1953 Mad 709
8 | P a g e

Subject Matter Bias
Those cases fall within this category where the deciding officer is directly, or otherwise involved
in the subject matter of the case. In the case of Murlidharv.Kadam Singh
11
the court refused to
quash the decision of Election Tribunal on the ground that the wife of the Chairman was a
member of the Congress Party whose candidate the petitioner defeated.
Departmental Bias
The problem of departmental bias is something which is inherent in the administrative process,
and if it is not effectively checked, it may negate the very concept of fairness in the
administrative proceeding.
In GullapalliNageswaraRao v. APSRTC
12
the order of the government nationalizing road
transport was challenged in this case. One of the grounds for challenge was that the Secretary of
the Transport Department who gave the hearing was biased, being the person who initiated the
scheme and also being the head of the department whose responsibility it was to execute it. The
court quashed the order on the ground that, under the circumstances, the Secretary was biased,
and hence no fair hearing could be expected.
The problem of departmental bias arises in different context- when the functions of judge and
prosecutor are combined in the same department. It is not uncommon to find that the same
department which initiates a matter also decides it, therefore, at times, departmental fraternity
and loyalty militates against the concept of fair hearing.
Again in the case of Krishna Bus Service v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court quashed the
notification of the government which had conferred powers of a Deputy Superintendent of Police
on the General Manager, Haryana Roadways in matters of inspection of vehicles on the ground
of departmental bias.



11
AIR 1954 MP 111

12
AIR 1959 SC 308
9 | P a g e

Preconceived Notion Bias
Bias arising out of preconceived notions is a very delicate problem of administrative law. On the
one hand, no judge as a human being is expected to sit as a blank sheet of paper, on the other
hand, preconceived notions would vitiate a fair trial.
In T. GovindarajaMudaliar v. State of T.N
13
, the government decided in principle to
nationalize road transport and appointed a committee to frame the scheme. The Home Secretary
was made a member of this committee. Later on, the scheme of nationalization was finalized,
published and objections were heard by the Home Secretary. It was contended that the hearing
was vitiated by the rule against bias because the Secretary had already made up his mind on the
question of nationalization as he was a member of the committee which took this policy decision.
The court rejected the challenge on the ground that the Secretary as a member of the committee
did not finally determine any issue as to foreclose his mind. He simply helped the government in
framing the scheme.
Bias On Account Of Obstinacy.
The SC has discovered a new category of bias arising from thoroughly unreasonable obstinacy.
Obstinacy implies unreasonable and unwavering persistence and the deciding officer would not
take no for an answer. This new category was discovered in a situation where a judge of the
Calcutta High Court upheld his own judgement while sitting against his own judgement.

AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM
The principle of audialterampartemis the basic concept of principle of natural justice. This
maxim audialterampartemmeans Hear the other party or the rule of fair hearing or the rule that
no one should be condemned unheard, This expression audialterampartemimplies that a person
must be given opportunity to defend himself. This principle is sine qua nonof every civilized
society. The idea of post decisional hearing has been developed by the SC in Maneka Gandhi Vs.
UOI to maintain the balance between administrative efficiency and fairness to the individual.

13
AIR 1973 SC 974
10 | P a g e

The SC held that though the impoundment of the passport was an administrative action yet the
rule of fair hearing is attracted by the necessary implication and it would not be fair to exclude
the application of this cardinal rule on the ground of administrativeconvenience.
The court did not outright quash the order and allowed the return of the passport because of the
special socio-political factors attending the case.
The technique of post decisional hearing was developed in order to balance these factors against
the requirements of law, justice and fairness.The court stressed that a fair opportunity of being
heard following immediately the order impounding the passport would satisfy the mandate of
natural justice.
In Mineral Development v. State of Bihar
14
, the apex court observed that the concept of fair
hearing is elastic and not susceptible of a precise and easy definition. The hearing procedures
vary from the tribunal, authority to authority and situation to situation. It is not necessary that the
procedures of hearing must be like that of the proceedings followed by the regular courts.
The objective of the giving the accused an opportunity of fair hearing is that an illegal action or
decision may not take place. Any wrong order may adversely affect a person. The maxim implies
that the person must be given an opportunity to defend himself.
In another landmark case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn.
15
, the court held that
even if the legislature authorises the administrative action, without any hearing, the law would be
violative of the principles of fair hearing and thus violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian
Constitution.
However Courts in India have held that in situation where the person is illiterate or the matter is
complicated and technical or expert evidence is on record or question of law is involved or the
person is facing a trained prosecutor, some professional assistance must be given to the party to
make his right to defend himself meaningful.
16




14
AIR 1960 SC 468
15
(1985) 3 SCC 545
16
NatyaRanjan v. State AIR 1962 Ori 78
11 | P a g e

SPEAKI NG ORDER/ REASONED ORDER
In India, unless there is specific requirement of giving reasons under the statute, it is not
mandatory for the administrative agencies to give reasons for their decisions. Reasons are the
link between the order and mind of the maker. Any decision of the administrative authority
affecting the rights of the people without assigning any reason tantamount to violation of
principles of natural justice. Thus it becomes very essential to have a speaking order, i.e the
order with a suitable reasoning.
Speaking orders means those orders which mentions the fact, reason, finding of the case and also
reasons on basis of which such final order is passed.
In the case of State of West Bengal v. Krishna Shaw
17
the SC stated that Reasoned decision is
not only for the purpose of showing that the citizen is receiving justice but also a valid discipline
for the tribunal itself. Therefore statement of reason is one of the essential elements of justice.
In the Maneka Gandhi V UOI, under the Passport Act 1963, the authority is required to record
its reason and furnish a copy of the same to the concerned individual on demand while
impounding the passport. The authority may refuse to give reason in public interest among the
other grounds. It was held that the authority is not the final authority in determining that question
that non- disclosure is in the interest of public or not in particular case.
In the case of Ram Chandra v. UOI
18
the SC has emphasized that after the amendment of Art.
311(2) through the 42
nd
Amendment, it is of utmost importance that the appellate authority must
not only give a hearing to the Government servant concerned but also pass a reasoned order
dealing with the contentions raised by him in appeal.






17
AIR 1990 SC 2205
18
AIR 1986 SC 1175
12 | P a g e

CONCLUSION
There has been a lot of cases came in the court of law where there has been a major issue that the
principle of natural justice has been violated by the administrative authority or others. And the
court has also successfully laid down the principle of natural justice and they have also defined
natural justice in their own way. For e.g in the case of In Re R.N. (An Infaot) (1967 (2) B. 617,
530P, Lord Parker, C.J., preferred to describe natural justice as a duty to act fairly while again
in the case of In Ridge v. Baldwin (1963 (1) WB 569, 578), Harman LJ, in the Court of appeal
countered natural justice with fair play in action a phrase favored by Bhagawati, J. in Meneka
Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978 92) SCR 621).
Thus the very purpose of natural justice is to do ones duty fairly have fair play in action
regarding the duties liabilities, working and functioning of the authority so that its action would
not hurt the common people.












13 | P a g e

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
1. Administrative Law By I.P Massey
2. Administrative Law By Avtar Singh
3. Administrative Law- S.P Sathe
Web sources
1. http://www.itatonline.org/articles_new/index.php/principles-of-natural-justice/
2. http://legalperspectives.blogspot.in/2010/10/principles-of-natural-justice-not.html
Cases

1. A.K.Kraipak Vs. UOI
2. J.Mohopatra& Co. Vs, State of Orissa
3. Mankea Gandhi Vs. UOI
4. Tarachand Vs. Municipal Corporation,