Natural Justice

Introduction 1. Initially, the term Natural Justice referred to certain procedural rights in the English Legal System. Over a period of time, the content of the term has expanded and presently it connotes some basic principles relating to judicial, quasi judicial and administrative decision making. These principles are believed and practiced by all civilized societies for millennia. The view that Natural Justice can be traced back to over thousand years is not an exaggeration. The following observation of Justice V Krishna Iyer in Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner [1978 AIR 851, (1978) 3 SCC 405, 1978 SCR (3) 272] is adequate proof of this statement: It has many colours and shades, many forms and shapes and, save where valid law excludes, it applies when people are affected by acts of Authority. It is the bone of healthy government, recognised from earliest times and not a mystic testament of judge-made law. Indeed, from the legendary days of Adam-and of Kautilya's Arthasastra-the rule of law has had this stamp of natural justice which makes it social justice. We need not go into these deeps for the present except to indicate that the, roots of natural justice and its foliage are noble and not newfangled. Today its application must be sustained by current legislation, case- law or other extant principle, not the hoary chords of legend and history. Our jurisprudence has sanctioned its prevalence even like the Anglo-American system. The dichotomy between administrative and quasi-judicial functions vis a vis the doctrine of natural justice is presumably obsolescent after Kraipak(1) in India and Schmit(2) in England. 2. Traditionally English Law recognized two principles of natural justice viz. (i) Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa i.e No man shall be a judge in his own cause, or a suitor or the deciding authority must be impartial and without bias and (ii) Audi alteram Partem i.e. hear the other side, or no one can be condemned unheard. Over a period of time, a third principle has also emerged to the effect that Final orders must be speaking orders (Reasoned orders). The first and the third principles mentioned above may be perceived as the corollary of the basic principle that Justice should not only be done but manifestly appear to have been done The Principles and general conditions 3. Based on the above, the following four may be stated as the Principles of Natural Justice: (a) No one can be condemned unheard (b) No one can be a judge in his own case (c) Justice should not only be done but should manifestly appear to have been done (d) Final order must be speaking order 18 4. The nature, aim and scope of these principles, the extent of their applicability, etc. have been eloquently articulated by Justice K S Hegde in the case of A K Kraipak Vs Union of India[(1969) 2 SCC 262] (1) The rules of natural justice operate in areas not covered by any law validly made, that is, they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it. They are not embodied rules and their aim is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. If that is their purpose, there is no reason why they should not be made applicable to administrative proceeding also, …. (2) The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. 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 framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or the 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. The rule that enquiries must be held in good faith and without bias, and not arbitrarily or unreasonably, is now included among the principles of natural justice.