F A C U L T Y O F L A W, J M I N E W D E L H I - 2 5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I owe my deep sense of gratitude to my respected teacher Prof. Dr.
ASAD MALIK Sir, who rendered his constructive and valuable
guidance throughout my work, without his perspicacious comments and
scholarly guidance; I would never have been able to complete this
assignment. His patience to go through the draft meticulously was
incredible.
I would like to express my gratitude to the entire faculty members who
rendered their invaluable help.
I also acknowledge the help provided to me by the staff members of the
library of faculty of law, JamiaMilliaIslamia.
I extend my cordial gratitude to my parents for their kind appreciation
and help.
Last but not the least, I express my gratitude to all the persons who
helped me to complete this assignment.

Sahil Choudhury
B.A.LL.B (Hons)
3nd Year, 6th Semester

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. IDEA OF JUSTICE IN INDIA
3. NATURAL JUSTICE AND ITS ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
4. RULE OF FAIR HEARING

5. Situations and recent cases

6. THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT TODAY
7. THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL
COURT
8. Criticisms of the International Criminal Court
9. Conclusion

INTRODUCTION

In India, there is no particular statute, laying down the minimum standard, which
the administrative bodies must follow while exercising their decision making
powers. There is, therefore, a bewildering variety of administrative procedure. In
some cases, the administrative procedure is controlled by the statute under which
they exercise their powers1. But in some cases, the administrative agencies are left
free to device their own procedure 2. But the courts have several times reiterated
that the administrative agencies must follow a minimum of fair procedure, while
exercising their powers. This fair procedure is called the principles of natural
justice.
The principles of natural justice have been developed by the courts, in order to
secure fairness in the exercise of the powers by the administrative agencies. The
principles of natural justice are the Common Law counterpart of the due process
of law in the Constitution of the United States. However wide the powers of the
state and however extensive discretion they confer, the administrative agencies are
always under the obligation to follow a manner that is procedurally fair.
In a case before the United States Supreme Court, a JACKSON J. said: Procedural
fairness and regularity are of the indispensable essence of liberty. Severe
substantive laws can be endured if they are fairly and impartially applied3.
The doctrine of natural justice seeks not only to secure justice but also to prevent
miscarriage of justice4.
The norms of natural justice are based on two ideas:
1.

audi alteram partem,- the person, who has to be effected by a decision has a

right to be heard; and

2.
bias.

nemo judex in re sua the authority deciding the matter should be free from

However the applicability of the principles of natural justice depends upon the
facts and circumstances of each case5.
In India, the Supreme Court has reiterated that the principles of natural justice are
neither rigid nor they can be put in a straight jacket but are flexible. In the case
of R. S. Dass v. Union of India6 , the Supreme Court observed that:
It is well established that rules of natural justice are not rigid rules, they are
flexible and their application depends upon the setting and background of statutory
provisions, nature of the right which may be affected and the consequences which
may entail, its application depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
The reason for the flexibility of natural justice is that the concept is applied to a
wide spectrum of the decision-making bodies.
The project focuses on the rule of fair hearing, which is one of the essential rules of
the Natural Justice.

IDEA OF JUSTICE IN INDIA

The Constitution of India in its preamble gives us an idea of justice and this Idea
of Justice is very wide; it can be social, economic and political and has to be
coupled with equality of status and opportunity. The Legality may be different
from justice. Something which may be legal may not necessary be just, This is why
we have many laws being set aside or modified with the passage of time. So the
whole movement of the mankind is for justice, which in this movement itself is
changing with time. This actually gives the whole movement buoyancy and takes it
further high.
The Laws are meant for assisting in the process of justice and not to do the justice
themselves, because no one else but the mankind itself can do justice for itself. The
Legal Order of the day may not always be the Order for life and therefore the
legality is also ever changing. Legality may not be the standards of Justice.
Morality also changes with time. But from the two, morality has more to do with
Justice. In Ancient India when the Kings ruled the kingdoms they were guided by
the principals of DHARMA and this used to be their guiding force for deciding
what is just and what is not. The times changed and we had rulers from different
regions ruling the nation and molding the character of the nation of India. We then
had British ruling us for over 200 years and they gave us the modern legal system.
The codified laws at that time came as a solution, as it took away the discretion
from the ruler to decide what is just and what is not. Then came the freedom and
we went on with the same legal system with some modification and with new
aspirations and morals.

Then the laws which were meant to decide what is legal and illegal were found to
be ineffective tool for justice. The changes were therefore made in the laws. The
laws were made more rational with the times passing. Earlier the Secrecy was the
part of the LEGAL ORDER, then came in transparency, The democracy also
showed its dynamism, and therefore the definition of justice changed with times.
The Moral linen of the Society has a great impact on the Idea of Justice. The
thoughts of the society at large with regard to the politics, economy and society
itself changes with the time and this brings in the changes in the ideals of justice.
One thing which has never changed radically with the times is the principal of
FAIR HEARING this principal being part of fundamental human character, has
played an important role in the modern society. The principle of audi alteram
partem (hear the other side) which came to us as part of the laws of Natural
Justice have brought in the dynamism in the society. Think of the situation that if
we were not required to HEAR? What will be our situation then? Will we have
more ideas? The answer to that will be a sure NO. Unless we hear others, we
cannot have new ideas, our brains will not develop, our thoughts will be stagnant,
the brain will be useless. And by hearing others we try to understand the situations,
the times, the needs, and the reasons and thus we keep growing as a humanity and
this principal of justice is naturally coming from times unknown to the humanity.

NATURAL JUSTICE AND ITS ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS

The principles of natural justice have been developed and followed by the judiciary
to protect the right of the public against the arbitrariness of the administrative
authorities. Natural Justice implies fairness, reasonableness, equity and equality. It
is the concept of the Common Law, which stands on the same footing as the
concept of procedural due process of America. According to HEGDE J., the aim
of natural justice is to secure justice; to prevent miscarriage of justice and to give
protection to the public against the arbitrariness.

Roman law. In Roman law the concept of natural justice consists of two
essential rules:
1.

audi alteram partem,- the person, who has to be effected by a decision has a

right to be heard; and

2.

nemo judex in re sua the authority deciding the matter should be free from

bias.

Common law. From the medieval era, the English Common Law consists of
the principles of natural justice. The rules requiring impartial adjudications and fair
hearings can be traced back to the medieval precedents and indeed they were not
unknown in the ancient world. In Dr. Bonham's Case(1610)7, COKE J. held that
an Act of the Parliament is void if it makes a person judge in his own cause or was
otherwise against common right or reason. Coke then made the following general
statement:
And it appears in our books, that in many cases, the common law will control acts
of parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void: for when an act of

parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be

performed, the common law will control it, and adjudge such act to be void; and,
therefore, in ... Thomas Tregor's case [Judge] Herle said, some statutes are made
against law and right, which those who made them perceiving, would not put them
in execution
But the year 1963 proved to be watershed in the development of concept of natural
justice in common law world. With the expansion of the administrative process, the
wide abuse of the power of the administrative authorities became evident. In the
case of Ridge v. Baldwin8 , the applicability of natural justice to the quasi-judicial
bodies took place. Ridge v. Baldwin is regarded as the Magna Carta of natural
justice. The judgment of LORD REID widened the ambit of natural justice.

Position in India. Article 14, 19, 21 of the Indian Constitution lay down the
cornerstone of natural justice in India. In the case of E P Royappa v. State of
Tamilnadu9 , the apex court held that a properly expressed and authenticated order
can be challenged on the ground that condition precedent to the making of order
has not been fulfilled or the principles of natural justice have not been observed. In
another landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India10 , the apex court held
that law which allows any administrative authority to take a decision affecting the
rights of the people, without assigning the reason for such action, can not be
accepted as a procedure, which is just, fair and reasonable, hence violative of
Articles 14 and 21.

RULE OF FAIR HEARING

The maxim audi alteram partem accentuates the rule of fair hearing. It lays down
that no one should be condemned unheard. It is the first principle of the civilised
jurisprudence that a person facing the charges must be given an opportunity to be
heard, before any decision is taken against him. Hearing means fair hearing.
The norms of reasonableness of opportunity of hearing vary from body to body and
even case to case relating to the same body. The courts, in order to look into the
reasonableness of the opportunity, must keep in mind the nature of the functions
imposed by the statute in context of the right affected 11. The civil courts, in India,
are governed in the matter of proceedings, through the Civil Procedure Code and
the criminal courts, by the Criminal Procedure Code as well as the Evidence Act.
But the adjudicatory bodies functioning outside the purview of the regular court
hierarchy are not subject to a uniform statute governing their proceedings.
The components of fair hearing are not fixed but are variable and flexible. Their
scope and applicability differ from case to case and situation to situation 12.
In Mineral Development v. State of Bihar 13,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. LORD HEWART rightly observed that it is merely of some

importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done,
but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seem to be done14. In this regard
the Dr. Bentley case15 needs to be elaborately discussed. In this case the Court of
Kings Bench condemned the decision of the Cambridge University, of canceling
the degree of the scholar, without giving him the opportunity to be reasonably
heard.
In another landmark case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn.16, 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. In Cooper v.
Wandsworth Board of Works17, BYLES J. observed that the laws of God and man
both give the party an opportunity to defend himself. Even God did not pass a
sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence.
Law envisages that in the cases classified as quasi-judicial, the duty to follow
completely the principles of natural law exists. But the cases which are classified
as the administrative, the duty on the administrative authority is to act justly and
fairly and not arbitrarily. In the 1970 case of A. K. Karaipak v. Union of India18, the
Supreme Court made a statement that the fine distinction between the quasijudicial and administrative function needs to be discarded for giving a hearing to
the affected party. Before the Karaipaks case, the court applied the natural justice
to the quasi-judicial functions only. But after the case, the natural justice could be
applied to the administrative functions as well.

AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM : HEAR THE OTHER SIDE

Audi alteram partem means that no one should be condemned unheard. In a
civilized society it is assumed that a person against action is sought to be taken or
whose right or interest is being affected, shall be given a reasonable opportunity to
defend himself. This principle is a sine qua non of every civilized society.
INGREDIENTS: Generally the maxim includes two components namely
1. Notice and
2. Hearing.
1.1 NOTICE: The term notice originated from the Latin word notitia which
means being known. In its popular sense it is equivalent to information or
knowledge. In legal sense it embraces knowledge of circumstances that ought to
induce suspicion or belief, as well as direct information of that fact.

1.2 ADEQUACY OF NOTICE: Notice should be adequate; a notice in order to be

adequate must contain the following things
(i) Time, place and nature of hearing.
(ii) Legal authority and jurisdiction under which hearing is to be held.
(iii) Matters of facts and law as regard the charges.

1.3 SERVICE OF NOTICE: When a statute prescribes a particular mode to serve a

notice, the prescribed mode has to be followed. Normally, a statutory rule
prescribes the following modes to serve a notice
(i) By delivering it to the person.
(ii) Sending it to him by registered post.
(iii) By affixing it on the outer door of the residence [when service can not
be made by the above two modes].

2. HEARING: The second requirement of the maxim audi alteram partem is that
the party concerned must be given an opportunity of being heard before any
adverse action is taken against him.

Ridge v. Baldwin, [1964] AC 40

In this case, under Section 191(4) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1882, Watch
Committee had power to dismiss any constable whom it thought to be negligent in
his duty or otherwise unfit for the same. The appellant was dismissed without an
opportunity of hearing. The House of Lords held that the power of dismissal cannot
be exercised without giving an opportunity to the person concerned of being heard.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597

In this case, the passport of the petitioner was impounded by the Government of
India in public interest. No opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before

taking the impugned action. The Supreme Court held that it was violation of audi
alteram partem.

Swadeshi Cotton Mills V. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 818

In this case the Government of India by exercising its power conferred on it by
Section 18-A of the Industries [Development and Regulation] Act, 1951 took over
the management of the petitioner company. The company challenged the action on
ground of non-observance of the principle of audi alteram partem. The High Court
of Delhi held that the requirement of prior notice and hearing were excluded by the
statute.

COMPONENTS OF RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING

1.

Right to notice. The term Notice originated from the Latin word

Notitia which means being known. Thus it connotes the sense of information,
intelligence or knowledge. Notice embodies the rule of fairness and must precede
an adverse order. It should be clear enough to give the party enough information of
the case he has to meet. There should be adequate time for the party, so that he can
prepare for his defence. It is the sine qua non of the right of hearing. If the notice is
a statutory requirement, then it must be given in a manner provided by law. Thus
notice is the starting point in the hearing. Unless a person knows about the subjects
and issues involved in the case, he cannot be in the position to defend himself.

The notice must be adequate also. Its adequacy depends upon the case. But
generally, a notice, in order to be adequate must contain following elements:

Time, place and nature of hearing.

Legal authority under which hearing is to be held.

Statements of specific charges which the person has to meet.

The test of the adequacy of the notice will be whether it gives the sufficient
information and material so as to enable the person concerned to prepare for his
defence. There should also be sufficient time to comply with the requirements of a
notice. Where a notice contains only one charge, the person cannot be punished for
the charges which were not mentioned in the notice19.
The requirement of notice can be dispensed with, where the party concerned
clearly knows the case against it and thus avails the opportunity of his defence.

Thus in the case of Keshav mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India20, the court upheld the
government order of taking over the mill for a period of 5 years. It quashed the
argument of the appellants that they were not issued notice before this action was
taken, as there was the opportunity of full-scale hearing and the appellant did not
want to know anything more.
1.

Right to know the evidence against him. Every person before an

administrative authority, exercising adjudicatory powers has right to know the

evidence to be used against him. The court in case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills
Ltd. v. CIT21, held that the assessee was not given a fair hearing as the Appellate
Income Tax tribunal did not disclose the information supplied to it by the
department. A person may be allowed to inspect the file and take notes.
1.

Right to present case and evidence. The adjudicatory authority must

provide the party a reasonable opportunity to present his case. This can be done
either orally or in written. The requirement of natural justice is not met if the party
is not given the opportunity to represent in view of the proposed action.
Courts have unanimously held that the oral hearing is not an integral part of the fair
hearing, unless the circumstances call for the oral hearing. In Union of India v. J P
Mitter22, the court refused to quash the order of the President of India in respect of
the dispute relating to the age of a High Court judge. It was held that where the
written submission is allowed, there is no violation of natural justice, if the oral
hearing is not granted.
1.

Right to cross-examination. The right to rebut adverse evidence

presupposes that the person has been informed about the evidence against him.
Rebuttal can be done either orally or in written, provided that the statute does not
provide otherwise. Cross examination is a very important weapon to bring out the
truth. Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972, provides for the rights of the

parties to cross-examin. The cross-examination of the witnesses is not regarded as

an obligatory part of natural justice. Whether the oppoetunity of cross examination
is to be give or not depends upon the circumstances of the case and statute under
which hearing is held. State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Bakshii Ghulam Mohd.23 ,
the Government of Jammu and Kashmir appointed a Commissioner of Inquiry to
inquire into the charges of corruption and maladministration against the ex-Chief
Minister of the state. He claimed the right to cross-examin the witnesses on the
ground of natural justice. The Court interpreted the statute and held that only those
witnesses who deposed orally against the chief Minister can be cross-examined and
not of those who merely filed affidavits.
Similarly, in Hira nath mishra v. Rajendra medical College, Ranchi24, some male
students of medical college entered the girls hostel and misbehaved with the girls.
An enquiry committee was set up against whom the complaints were made. The
complainants were examined but not in presence of the boys. On the report of the
committee, four students were expelled from the college. They challenged the
decision of the committee on the ground of violation of the natural justice. The
court rejected the plea and held that in presence of the boys, the girls can not be
cross-examined that that may expose them to the harassment.
1.

Right to counsel. For sometime the thinking had been that the lawyers

should be kept away from the administrative adjudication, as it saves time and
expense. But the right to be heard would be of little avail if the counsel were not
allowed to appear, as everyone is not articulate enough to present his case. In India
few statutes like the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, specifically bar the legal
practitioners from appearing before the administrative bodies.
Till recently the view was that the right to counsel was not inevitable part of the
natural justice. But this view has been almost done away with.

A Fair Hearing means Hearing through Counsel..

We all know how 'confessions' are obtained in our country--- often by third degree
methods. Under torture one will confess to anything. One does not doubt the
heinous nature of the offence, but the main question will be of identity. Whoever
has done the crime undoubtedly deserves harsh punishment. But the question is
whether the persons in custody are the real culprits. This has to be established by
the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused must be allowed a
proper defence, including the right to cross examine the prosecution witnesses
through their counsel. Unless a lawyer is permitted to represent the accused there
will be no fair trial, because a layman does not know the art of cross examination,
he does not know the rules in the Criminal Procedure Code or in the Evidence Act,
he cannot determine whether the charge against him is valid in law, whether the
evidence being led against him is inadmissible or irrelevant, etc That is why in
serious cases a hearing to be fair means a hearing through counsel.

CONCLUSION
The natural justice forms the cornerstone of every civilized legal system. It is not
found in the codified statutes. But it is inherent in the nature. Being uncodified, the
natural justice does not have a uniform definition. However, it lays down the

minimum standard that an administrative agency has to follow in its procedure.

Where the legal justice fails, the role of natural justice becomes evident in
preventing the miscarriage of justice. Even God never denied the natural justice to
the human beings. So the human laws also need to be in conformity with the rules
of natural justice.
The rule of fair hearing must be followed to prevent the miscarriage of justice. If
an accused is punished unheard, the purpose of law is defeated. The adjudicatory
authority does not know whether the accused is innocent or not. What if the
accused is punished unheard and later he turns out to be an innocent? Before taking
any action the adjudicatory authority has to keep in mind the several
considerations.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. CK Takwani, Lecturers on Administrative Law' 3rd Edn. Reprint 2004,
Published by Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, India

2. MP Jain and SN Jain, Principles of Administrative Law', 5th Edn. Revised

2007, Published by Wadhwa and Company, Nagpur, India
3. JJR Upadhyaya, Administrative Law, 7th Edn. 2009. Published by Central
Law Agency, Allahabad, India