Origin of the Concept of the Natural Justice

Roman jurists expressed rules and principles for conduct of man – Jus Naturale

Use interchangeability with divine law. Even Adam called upon to explain why the forbidden fruit was eaten.

Principles of Natural Justice

(i) Rule of fair hearing for Audi Alteram Partem –

A person must be given an opportunity to defend himself. Nobody should be condemned unheard.

Constitutional base under Article-311

Case Law

R.K.Vasistha vs UoI – Receipt of Documents {1993 SCC (L&S) 153}
Joseph Vilangandan vs Executive Engineer {1968 (3 SCC) 36}
Errington vs Ministry of Health – Order for demolition of buildings
P.K.Sharma vs UoI – Mandatory to give copy of enquiry {1988 (6 ATC) 904}
Mohd. Ramzan Case {1990 SCC (L&S) 612}
ECIL Case {1993 (4 SCC) 727}

(ii) Rule against Bias

No person should be a judge in his own cause.

Meaning of bias – It means operative prejudice whether conscious or unconscious in relation to a party or an issue.

Types of Bias

a. Personal bias
b. Pecuniary bias
c. Departmental bias
d. Test of bias
e. The real question is not whether a person was biased
f. The test is not what actually happened but the substantial possibilities for the real likelihood of bias

Justice must be rooted in confidence

Case Law

Chanda Case
G.Nageshwara Rao vs APS RTC {1959 SC 1376}
Justice should not only be done but appear to be done

Maneklal vs Premchand {202 (9 SCC) 732}

Demonstration in Ordnance Factory

Penalty Order Case

Exceptions to Natural Justice

Cases of emergency

Exceptions on account of confidentiality

Malaksingh vs State of Punjab {1981 (1 SCC) 420}

Exceptions based on impracticability

Radhakrishnan vs Usmania University {1970 (1 SCC) 648)

Exceptions on purely administratie matters

Jawaharlal University vs V.S.Narwal {1980 (4 SCC) 480}

Rule regarding Speaking Orders

Post hearing

Maneka Gandhi vs UoI {1978 (1 SCC) 248}

Railway Locomen's Strike

The Effects of non-following of Natural Justice

Whether void or avoidable

Case Law

Nawab Khan vs State of Gujarat {1974 (2 SCC) 121}

Maneka Gandhi vs UoI

State Bank of Patiala vs S.K.Sharma – Introduced the concept of Substantive vs Procedural violation of Natural Justice

(i) An order passed imposing a punishment on an employee consequent upon a disciplinary/departmental enquiry in violation of the rules/regulations/statutory provision governing such enquiries should not be set aside automatically. The court or the Tribunal should enquire whether (a) the provision violated is of a substantive nature or (b) whether it is procedural in character.
(ii) A substantive provision has normally to be complied with as explained hereinbefore and the theory of substantial compliance or the test of prejudice would not be applicable in such a case.
(iii) Procedural provisions are generally meant for affording reasonable and adequate opportunity to the delinquent employee. They are, generally speaking, conceived in his interest. Violation of any and every procedural provision cannot be said to automatically vitiate the enquiry held or Order passed. Except cases falling under "no notice", "no opportunity" and "no hearing categories", the compliant of violation of procedural provision should be examined from the point of view of prejudice, namely, whether such violation has prejudiced the delinquent officer/employee in defending himself properly and effectively.
(iv) In the case of a procedural provision not of a mandatory character, the complaint of violation has to be examined from the standpoint of substantial compliance.
(v) The Court/Tribunal should make a distinction between "no opportunity" and "no adequate opportunity". In the first case, the order passed would undoubtedly be invalid. In the other case, the effect of violation has to be examined from the standpoint of prejudice.

Rules of Natural Justice operate only in areas not covered by statutory rules and they do not supplant the law but only supplement it.

(B) Principles of natural justice — bias

There must be a reasonable likelihood of bias. Mere suspicion of bias is not sufficient. Association of the official with the selection for which he was also a candidate was violative of the principle that a person should not be a judge in his own cause.

A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150 The petitioners were senior officers of the Forest Department of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. They were aggrieved on the ground that they had been superseded in the matter of selection for All India Forest Service and that a candidate seeking selection to the Service, Sri Naqishbund, was a member of the Selection Board and his name was placed at the top of the list of officers finally selected. The respondents contended that when his own case was considered by the Selection Board. Sri Naqishbund dissociated himself from the proceedings of the Board, but admitted that he participated in the proceedings when the cases of other officers, who were his rivals in the matter of selection were being considered and he was a party to the preparation of list of selected candidates in order of merit. It was against this background that the question whether the selection was violative of natural justice and was vitiated on account of bias against the petitioners was considered.

The Supreme Court observed that “the aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively, to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it” and “what particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the frame-work of the law under which the inquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a court that some principle of natural justice had been contravened the Court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case.” On the question of bias, they felt that “a mere suspicion of bias is not sufficient. There must be a reasonable likelihood of bias. In deciding the question of bias we have to take into consideration human probabilities and ordinary course of human conduct.”

After cautioning themselves as above, the Supreme Court felt that in this case the association of Sri Naqishbund with the selection for which he was also a candidate was not proper. At every stage of his participation in the deliberations of the Selection Board, there was a conflict between his interest and duty. It was in his interest to keep out his rivals in order to secure his position and he was also interested in safeguarding his position while preparing the select list. Under such circumstances it is difficult to believe that he could have been impartial. The well-established principle of natural justice that a person should not be a judge in his own cause was violated in this case.