UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE

OF LEGAL STUDIES,
PANJAB UNIVERSITY,
CHANDIGARH

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES OF
NATURAL JUSTICE

SUBMITTED TO: Ms. SHALLU

SUBMITTED BY: KANISHKA CHOPRA

B.A.L.L.B. (Hons.)
6th SEMESTER
SECTION – ‘B’
ROLL NO. 116/20

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my special thanks and gratitude to my subject teacher
Ms. Shallu for assigning me the project topic “Application of Natural Justice”
to work and broaden my knowledge and horizons. Her able guidance and
support lent me a great help in going through this wonderful journey of working
on this assignment. The completion of this task would not have been possible
without participation and assistance of many people and I highly appreciate and
acknowledge their contribution.

My appreciation for my teacher can be well fitted for her efforts as much equal
or even greater than mine. She has been kind enough to make us learn through
every aspect time and again on the assignments that me and my classmates have
worked on.

Thank you, ma’am.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Introduction 4

 Definition of Natural Justice 5

 Principles of Natural Justice 6

 Rule against bias 7

 Types of Bias 8

 Pecuniary Bias 9

 Personal Bias 10

 Subject-matter bias 11

 Departmental/Policy Bias 12

 Test for Bias 13

 Audi Alteram Partem: Rule of hearing 14

 Notice 15

 Hearing 17

 Reasoned Decision/ Speaking Order 23

 Bibliography 25

3
 INTRODUCTION

The concept of natural justice is considered a necessary element in the

administration of justice. It is envisaged in the administrative law for ensuring
fair exercise of powers by administrative authorities. Natural Justice is a
concept of common law which has its origin from the term “Jus Natural”
which means law of nature. The courts have always insisted that administrative
authorities must follow the norms of minimum fair procedure while exercising
their powers and discharging their functions. Minimum fair procedure refers to
natural justice. In layman language, natural justice means natural sense of what
is right and wrong and in its technical sense it is synonymous with fairness.
Natural justice has a very wide application in administrative discretion. It aims
to prevent arbitrariness and injustice towards the citizens with an act of
administrative authorities.

Natural Justice is the best instrument to promote the interests of individuals. It

ensures participation of the common man in administrative process and also
seeks to further legitimate state purpose by ensuring the government against
committing elementary blunders in administration due to ignorance which may
mar its good image as a just government.1

Court in order to prevent abuse of power and to check on their limits has
evolved the principles of natural justice as important safeguards against
injustice. The object of natural justice is to secure justice to the citizens and
prevent contempt of justice. Decisions which violate the natural justice shall
stand null and void.2

1Upadhyaya, J.J.R, Administrative Law, Central Law Agency, 6th Edition (2006)

2https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1549-concept-of-natural-justice.html

4
Natural Justice is also known as substantial justice or fundamental justice or
universal justice or fair play in action. The principles of natural justice are
not embodied rules and are not codified. They are judge made rules and are
regarded has counterpart of the American procedural due process. In the initial,
the concept of natural justice was confined to the Judicial proceedings only but
with the advent of welfare state, the powers of administrative authorities have
considerably increased as a result of which it becomes impossible for law to
determine the fair procedure to be followed by each authority while
adjudicating any disputes or any quasi-judicial proceedings.

DEFINITION OF NATURAL JUSTICE

There is no precise and scientific definition of natural justice. Different judges,

scholars, writers or lawyers define it in various ways. Natural Justice is an ideal
element in administrative law. In this sense, natural justice is known as “natural
law”, “universal law”, “divine law”, “universal justice”, or “fair play in action”.
Natural justice is the essence of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in tradition and
conscience, to be ranked as fundamental. The purpose of following the
principles of natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice.

Lord Reid in historic decision of Ridge v. Baldwin, (1964) AC 40, observed

that, in modern times opinions have sometimes been expressed to the effect that
natural justice is so vague as to be practically meaningless. But the regard to
these as tainted by the perennial fallacy that because something cannot be cut
and dried or nicely weighed or measured therefore it does not exist.

Justice Krishna Iyer in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election

Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851, natural justice is a pervasive facet of secular
law where a spiritual touch enlivens legislation, administration, and
adjudication to make fairness a creed of life. It has many colours and shades,

5
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 the earliest times and not a mystic testament of judge-made
law.3

The rules of natural justice do not supplant the law of the land but only
supplement it. It is now firmly established that in the absence of express
provisions in any statute dispensing with the observance of the principles of
natural justice, such principles will have to be observed in all judicial, quasi-
judicial and administrative proceedings which involve civil consequences to the
parties as laid in A.K Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150.4

PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

The principles of Natural Justice can be recognized as follows-

1. Nemo zudex in causa sua or Rule against bias (No man shall be a judge
in his own case)

2. Audi alteram partem or Rule of fair hearing (Hear the other side) or
both sides must be heard or no one should be condemned unheard

One more principle is Speaking orders or reasoned decisions which is a

recent innovation due to rapid development in administrative law.

The first one is “Bias rule” generally expresses that panel of expert should be
bias free while taking the decision. The decision should be given in a free and
fair manner which can fulfil the rule of natural justice.

3Upadhyaya, J.J.R, Administrative Law, Central Law Agency, 6th Edition (2006)

4https://nacin.gov.in/resources/file/e-books/Principles%20of%20natural%20justice.pdf

6
Second is “Hearing rule” which states that the person or party who is affected
by the decision made by the panel of expert members should be given a fair
opportunity to express his point of view to defend himself.
And thirdly, “Reasoned Decision” which states that order, decision or
judgement of the court should be given by the Presiding authorities with a valid
and reasonable ground.

In R.S. Dass v. Union of India,5 Hon’ble the Supreme Court stated, “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 facts and circumstances of each
case.”

RULE AGAINST BIAS

Nemo judex in causa sua means rule against bias. It is the first principles of
natural justice which says no man shall be judge in his own cause or a deciding
authority must be impartial and neutral while deciding any case. Thus, the
principle signifies that in circumstances where a judge or deciding authority is
suspected to be biased and partial then he/she shall be disqualified from
determining any case before them. Bias disqualifies an individual from acting
as Judge flows from two principles:

I. No one should be a Judge in his own cause; and

II. Justice should not only be done but seen to be done.

5AIR 1987 SC 593

7
It formulates that justice should not only be done but seen to be done. It
means that deciding authority must be impartial. Proceedings before any
adjudicating authority must be according to the principles of natural justice.

Where it is found that a judge who is deciding any dispute has its own interest
or some outcome derived from such case then the decision given by the
authority shall not execute or it remains void. It is said that impartiality is the
best characteristics for good administration. Human nature is such that a person
ordinarily cannot take an objective decision in a case when he himself found an
interest, as very rarely can person take decision against his own interest. A
person can apply his mind effectively when he follows impartiality. The rule
against bias thus avoids possibility of partial decisions. It also ensures public
confidence in legal system of a country.6

Justice can never be seen to be done if a man acts as a judge in his own cause or
is himself interested in its outcome. This principle is applicable not only to
judicial proceedings but also to quasi-judicial as well as administrative
proceedings.

It is the minimal requirement of natural justice that the authority must consist of
impartial persons who are to act fairly and without prejudice and bias. A
decision which is result of bias is a nullity and the trial is “coram non-judice”
which means before a judge not competent or without jurisdiction.

This principle is more popularly known as the Doctrine of Bias. To instil

confidence in the system, justice should not merely be done but seen to be done.

TYPES OF BIAS

6https://nios.ac.in/

8
Bias appears in various forms which may affect the decision in variety of ways.
The various types of bias are:

 Pecuniary bias

 Personal bias

 Subject-matter bias

 Departmental/policy bias

PECUNIARY BIAS

It is obvious that decision of the adjudicator would be affected if he is having

pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the proceedings. The judicial
approach is unanimous and decisive on the point that any financial interest,
howsoever small it may be, would vitiate administrative action. Pecuniary bias
arises when the adjudicator has monetary or financial interest in the subject
matter of the dispute. Least pecuniary interest in the subject matter of litigation
will disqualify any person from acting as a judge. The judge, while deciding a
case should not have any pecuniary or economic interest.

In Dr. Bonham Case7, Dr. Bonham, who was a Doctor of Cambridge

University, was fined for practicing in the city of London without license of the
college of Physicians. According to the statute, the college was entitled to half
of the amount of fine and the remaining half would go to the King. Coke, C.J.,
disallowed the claim (fine) on the ground that the college had a pecuniary
interest. Fine against Dr. Benham was dismissed.

The classical example of pecuniary bias is Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal 8, in

which a suit was filed by a public limited company against a land owner in
7(1610) 8 Co. Rep. 113 (b)
8(1852) 3 HLC 759

9
matter largely involving the interests of the Company. The Lord Chancellor
who decided the case was a shareholder in the company and gave relief to the
company which it had sought. His decision was quashed by the House of Lords
because of the pecuniary interest of Lord Chancellor in the company. Lord
Campbell observed that the judge was influenced by the interest that he had in
the concern.

In Annamalai v. State of Madras9, where one of the members of the Regional

Transport Authority issued a permit in his own favour. Later on, he transferred
the same permit in favour of his son-in-law. The Court quashed the order as it
was against principles of natural justice.

PERSONAL BIAS

Personal bias arises from a relation between the party and deciding authority
which leads the deciding authority in a doubtful situation to make an unfair
activity and give judgement in favour of his person. Such equations arise due to
various forms of personal and professional relations. In order to challenge the
administrative action successfully on the ground of personal bias, it is necessary
to give a reasonable reason for bias. Personal bias arises from near and dear i.e.,
from friendship, relationship, business or professional association. Such
relationship disqualifies a person from acting as a judge. This is a most
common bias that arises out of certain relationship between decision making
authority and the parties. There is likelihood that judge may be biased towards
one party or prejudiced toward other. Therefore, we have to see whether there is
reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have been biased.

In Mineral Development Corporation Limited v. State of Bihar 10, the

petitioners were granted mining lease for 99 years in 1947. The Minister who
9AIR 1957 AP 739
10AIR 1960 SC 468

10
had political rivalry with petitioners cancelled their licence and this action was
challenged on ground of personal bias which was accepted by the Court. The
Minister was disqualified from taking action against petitioners.

In Meengless Tea Estate v. Workmen11, the Manager of the factory conducted

inquiry against the workmen who were alleged to have assaulted him. The court
disqualified the Manager on the ground of personal bias and the inquiry was
vitiated.

In A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India 12, the Supreme Court quashed the selections
to the Indian Foreign Service made by the selection board on the ground that
one of the candidates appeared before selection committee was also a member
of the selection board.

SUBJECT-MATTER BIAS

When directly or indirectly the deciding authority is involved in the subject

matter of a particular case, any interest or prejudice will disqualify a judge from
hearing the case. When the adjudicator or the judge has general interest in the
subject matter in dispute on account of his association with the administration
or private body, he will be disqualified on the ground of bias if he has
intimately identified himself with the issues in dispute. To disqualify on the
ground there must be intimate and direct connection between the adjudicator
and the issues in dispute. Now the question is, whether this principle can be
extended to administrative adjudication also. Those cases fall within this
category where the deciding officer is directly, or otherwise, involved in the

11AIR 1963 SC 1719

12AIR 1970 SC 150

11
subject matter of the case. Here again mere involvement would not vitiate the
administrative action unless there is a real likelihood of bias.

In a case, the Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Andhra Pradesh
Government, nationalizing road transport on the ground that the Secretary of the
Transport Department who gave hearing was interested in the subject-matter.13

Subject matter simply means the “issue in question” or “the issue in

controversy” or “issue before the Judge”. Bias as to subject matter may arise
when the Judge has general interest in the subject matter in dispute. It may arise
also when the deciding authority is directly or otherwise involved in subject
matter of the case.

In Murlidhar v. Kadam Singh14, 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/POLICY BIAS

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. The problem of departmental bias also arises in a
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.

In the leading case of Gullapalli Nageshwar Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State

Road Transport Corporation15, the transport Ministry issued a direction to the

13AIR 1959 SC 308

14AIR 1964 MB 111
15AIR 1959 SC 309

12
Secretary to the Transport Department to hear objections under the Motor
Vehicles Act to the proposed scheme of Nationalization. The objections filed by
the petitioners were received and heard by the Secretary and thereafter the
scheme was approved by the Chief Minister. The Supreme Court accepted the
contentions of the petitioners that the official who heard the objections was ‘in
substance’ one of the parties to the dispute and this was against the principles of
natural justice.

In Krishna Bus Service (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Haryana 16, the legality of the
notification issued by the State Government conferring the powers of Deputy
Superintendent of Police on the General Manager, Haryana Roadways was
challenged by private operators of Motor Vehicles inter alia on the ground of
bias and interest. The Supreme Court upheld the contention and quashed the
notification.

TEST OF BIAS

In order to challenge administrative action successfully on the ground of

personal bias, it's necessary to prove that there is a "reasonable suspicion of
bias" or a "real likelihood of bias”. This is because of the maxim that justice is
not only to be done but seen to be done. The test as now formulated boils to the
"reasonable suspicion" test.

At present the reasonable suspicion test seems to be in favor with the Courts.
The result is that proof of actual bias on the part of adjudicator is not necessary.
What is essential is that in the opinion of reasonable men, there is real
likelihood of bias in the circumstances of the case.

16AIR 1985 SC 1651

13
In Halsbury's Laws of England, it is stated: "The test of bias is whether a
reasonable intelligent man, fully apprised of all the circumstances, would feel a
serious apprehension of bias."

The same principle is accepted in India.

In Manak Lal v. Prem Chand (Dr.)17, a complaint for professional misconduct

was filed by Dr. Prem Chand against Manak Lal, an Advocate of the Rajasthan
High Court. A Disciplinary Committee was appointed to make an enquiry
against Manak Lal. The Chairman had earlier represented Dr. Prem Chand in a
case. The Supreme Court ruled that enquiry was vitiated even if it were
assumed that the Chairman had no personal contact with his client and did not
remember that he had appeared on his behalf at any time in the past.

Reasonable apprehension in the mind of a reasonable man is necessary. Such

reasonable apprehension must be based on cogent materials. Moreover, there
must be reasonable evidence to satisfy that there was a real likelihood of bias.

AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM: RULE OF HEARING

The audi alteram partem rule means that no one should be condemned unheard.
The literal meaning of this rule is that both parties should be given a fair chance
to present themselves with their relevant points and a fair trial should be
conducted. This is an important rule of natural justice and its pure form is not to
penalize anyone without any valid and reasonable ground. Prior notice should
be given to a person so he can prepare to know what all charges are framed
against him. It is also known as a rule of fair hearing. The components of fair
hearing are not fixed or rigid in nature. It varies from case to case and authority
to authority.

17AIR 1957 SC 425

14
According to this principle, reasonable opportunity must be given to a person
before taking any action against him. This rule insists that the affected person
must be given an opportunity to produce evidence in support of his case. He
should be disclosed the evidence to be utilized against him and should be given
an opportunity to rebut the evidence produced by the other party. It means “hear
the other side” or “let the other side be heard as well”.
It gives right to the party to respond to the evidence against them and to choose
legal representative of their own choice. It is the duty of every person or body
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions to act in good faith and to listen
fairly both the sides before passing any order.

In Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India18, 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 the order was violative of principles of Natural justice.

In short, the principle is that before an order is passed against any person
reasonable opportunity of being heard must be afforded to him. Generally, the
maxim includes two ingredients- notice, and hearing.

NOTICE

‘Notice’ is the starting point of any hearing. Unless a person knows the
formulation of subjects and issues involved in the case, he/she cannot defend
himself/herself. It is not enough that the notice in a case be given, but it must be
adequate also. The adequacy of notice is a relative term and must be decided
with reference to each case. The basic principle of natural justice is that before
any action is taken, the affected person must be given notice to show cause
against the proposed action and seek his explanation. It is a sine qua non of fair

18AIR 1978 SC 597

15
hearing. Any order passed without giving notice is against the principles of
natural justice and is void ab initio.

Even if there is no provision in the statute about giving of notice, if the order
adversely affects the rights of an individual, the notice is required to be given.
Further it is necessary that the notice must be clear, specific and un-ambiguous
and the charges should not be vague and uncertain. Its two essentials are
discussed in the following-

a) Adequacy of notice- It is not enough that notice in a given case be

given, it must be adequate also. The question of adequacy of notice
depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, a
notice in order to be adequate must contain the following:

1) Time, place and nature of hearing.

2) Legal authority and jurisdiction under which hearing is to be held.

3) Matters of fact and Law as regards charges.

The test of adequacy of ‘Notice’ will be whether it gives sufficient information

and material so as to enable the person concerned to put up an effective
defence. Therefore, the contents of notice, persons who are entitled to ‘Notice’
and the time of giving ‘Notice’ are important matters to ascertain any violation
of the principles of natural justice. The adequacy of the notice may vary
according to the nature of the proceedings, but it is a question for the court to
determine. In a number of cases, proceedings have been quashed because of
inadequacy of notice.

In J. Vilangandan v. Executive Engineer19, the Executive Engineer proposed to

blacklist a contractor. He gave a notice to him. But the Supreme Court found
that notice was inadequate as it did not contain words to indicate clearly to the

19AIR 1978 SC 930

16
contractor that it was proposed to debar him as defaulter from taking any
contract in future under the Department.

The object of notice is to give an opportunity to the person concerned to present

his case and, therefore, if the party is conversant with the charges, a formal
defect would not invalidate the notice unless the prejudice is caused to the
individual.

b) Reasonable opportunity- Moreover, the notice must give a reasonable

opportunity to comply with the requirements mentioned in it. Thus, to
give 24-hour time to dismantle a structure alleged to be in a dilapidated
condition is not proper and the notice is not valid. Where a notice of one
charge has been given, the person cannot be punished for a separate
charge of which he had no notice, even though he may not have
appeared to defend himself against the original charge.

In a case of Punjab National Bank v. All India Bank Employees Federation 20,
the notice contained certain charges but the penalty was imposed on the charges
which were not mentioned in the notice. Therefore, the Court held notice was
improper, and eventually the imposition of penalty was held invalid.

A vague or imprecise notice does not afford the party the desired reasonable
opportunity. A notice would be vague if it is based on no material or if it is
vitiated by non-application of mind.

HEARING

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

20AIR 1960 SC 16

17
In Maneka Gandhi (supra) 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 the
order was violative the principles of natural justice.

In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation 21, under the statute the
Commissioner was empowered for removal of construction without notice.
However, the Court held that it was merely an enabling provision and not a
command not to issue notice before demolition of structure. The discretion was,
therefore, required to be exercised according to the principles of natural justice.

In O. P. Gupta v. Union of India22, the appellant had retired and he was

deprived of his increments after his retirement. The Supreme Court held that the
Government was bound to hear him before the impugned order was passed.

I. Oral hearing- Generally, hearing means oral hearing where the parties
have right to legal representation to produce witnesses who may be cross-
examined.

But in England and America, it is settled as a general rule that in absence of

statutory provisions, administrative authority is not, bound to afford to the
concerned person an oral hearing. In India also, the position is same and oral
hearing is not regarded as a sine qua non of natural justice. A person cannot
claim the right to oral or personal hearing, unless such right is conferred by the
statute.

In the absence of such statutory requirement, the general rule propounded by

the Supreme Court of India is that natural justice does not necessarily involve a
right to hearing.

21AIR 1986 SC 180

22AIR 1987 SC 2257

18
In the case of Union of India v. J.P. Mitter 23, it was held by the Supreme Court
that as the petitioner Judge had been afforded an opportunity to submit his case
in writing, denial of an opportunity of personal hearing, even after request, does
not violate the principles of natural justice.

Moreover, if there are contending parties before the adjudicating authority and
one of them is allowed to give oral hearing, the same facility must be afforded
to the other as well.

II. Fair Hearing- Natural justice is primarily identified with fair hearing.

Fair hearing is another arm of the principles of natural justice. It is established

that oral hearing is not a part of natural justice unless otherwise provided by the
statute. The Court held that the principles of natural justice cannot be put in
strait-jacket and their applicability would depend on the facts, situation and
context of each case. Therefore, where the officer was not orally heard but was
allowed to file written submissions against enhancement of punishment, the
Court observed that there is no violation of the rule of fair hearing.

Thus, a hearing to be fair must fulfil several requirements-

1) Reception of evidence produced by the person- The adjudicatory

authority must give full opportunity to the affected person to produce all
the relevant evidence in support of his case. For fair hearing, it is
necessary that the concerned party must be given right to present his case
and evidence. Where the adjudicating authority wrongly refuses to
receive evidence, the proceedings will be vitiated.

2) Disclosure of materials- The adjudicating authority must disclose all

material placed before it in course of proceedings. It cannot use any

material unless the opportunity is given to the party against whom it is

23AIR 1971 SC 1093

19
 sought to be used. Natural justice is infringed if the adjudicatory body
decides a matter on the basis of confidential inquiries unknown to the
party concerned.

3) Rebuttal of adverse evidence- For fair hearing, it is not enough that the

party should know the adverse material but it is further necessary that he
must be given an opportunity to rebut the evidence. The adjudicating
authority must give right to the party concerned to rebut the evidence and
material placed by the other side.

For making the opportunity to rebut evidence meaningful, it is necessary to

consider two factors: cross-examination and legal representation.

A. Cross-examination- Cross examination is one of the effective methods

of establishing truth and exposing falsehood. While in administrative

adjudications it is not necessary that the right of cross examination of
witness should be given to the person concerned. It depends upon the
facts and circumstances of each case and to the statutory provisions.

It was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Town Area Committee v. Jagdish

Parasd24, in which the department submitted the chargesheet, got explanation
and thereafter straight away passed the dismissal order. The Court set aside the
order holding that the rule of fair hearing includes an opportunity to cross-
examine witnesses and lead evidence.

In State of J and K v. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad 25, the Government of J and

K appointed a Commission of Inquiry to inquire into charges of corruption and
maladministration against the Ex-Chief Minister of the State. The request of
Bakshi Mohammed to cross-examine the witnesses who had filed affidavits
before the Commission supporting the allegations against him was denied. The

24AIR 1978 SC 1407

25AIR 1967 SC 122

20
decision of the Commission was challenged before the Supreme Court of India.
Disallowing the challenge, the Supreme Court observed that no oral hearing is
held and only when statements are called for from the affected party, there is no
right of cross-examining witnesses.

In U.S.A., the right to cross-examination is ensured under due process. In

England, the position is the same as in India and the Courts are seeking to work
out the details of the right to cross-examination.

B. Legal Representation- Ordinarily the right of representation by a lawyer

in any administrative proceeding is considered to be an indispensible part

of natural justice as oral hearing is not included in the minima of fair
hearing.

But speaking generally, it can be said that the right to be represented by counsel
has recognized in Administrative Law. Where there is a right to appear in
person or a technical matter of law and fact is involved, the denial of legal
representation by counsel is considered as an antithesis of fair hearing.

In M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra26, while importing the concept of fair

procedure in Article 21 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruled that the
right to personal liberty implies provision by the State of free legal service who
is indigent or disabled from securing legal assistance where the ends of justice
so demand.

In Khatri v. State of Bihar27, the Supreme Court held that the State is under
constitutional obligation to provide legal assistance to the poor accused not only
at the stage of trial but at the time of remand also.

III. Right to know evidence- The right to know the materials on which the
authority is going to make a decision is part of the right to defend oneself.
26AIR 1978 SC 1548
27AIR 1981 SC 928

21
No evidence can be taken into consideration which has not been known to the
party concerned and for which no opportunity has been afforded to rebut.
Therefore, evidence must not be given behind the back of the other party but in
his presence, so that if written evidence is given it must be made available to the
other party to contradict it. It would be violative of natural justice to take
evidence behind the back of the concerned person.

In Hiranath Misra v. Rajendra Medical College, an enquiry was held against

some male students on the charge of entering girls Hostel and indulging in
indecent behavior towards some girls. The Enquiry Committee recorded the
statements of the complainant girls but in the absence of the appellants. The
Committee found them guilty and therefore, an expulsion order was served on
them. The said order was challenged because evidence was taken their back.
The Court held that there was no denial of natural justice as the gist of the
evidence was brought to their notice and they were provided with an
opportunity to rebut it. The Court observed that the girls would not have
ventured to make the statements in presence of the appellants except at a great
risk of retaliation and harassment.

IV. Opportunity of being heard: Fair Trial- Any order passed by the
adjudicating authority without providing the opportunity of being heard
to the party concerned is bad and can be set aside.

Natural justice postulates that the opportunity of being heard should be

provided to the person who is affected by an administrative proceeding, even
though the statute under which such proceeding has been authorized, does not
provide for hearing. The opportunity to be heard requires two things-

(a) The opportunity must be given;

(b) The opportunity must be reasonable.

Ingredients of reasonable opportunity of being heard-

22
 A. Administrative agencies invested with the adjudicator must exercise such
power in exercise of its own judgment and not under dictation from
anybody.

B. It should not be done in haste. Administrative agencies must not make

decisions in haste.

REASONED DECISION OR SPEAKING ORDER

A reasoned decision means a decision which must contain reasons in support of

it. The value of reasoned decisions as a check upon the arbitrary use of
administrative power is quite clear. A party has right to know not only the result
inquiry but also the reasons in support of the decision. The obligation to give a
reasoned decision is a substantial check upon the abuse of power. A decision
supported by reasons is much less likely to rest on caprice or careless
consideration. The need publicly to articulate the reasoning process upon which
a decision is based, requires the administrative authority to work out all the
factors which are present in a case.

In England, the Common Law rule is that natural justice does not require
reasons to be given for decision. However, Franks Committee insisted that there
should be a general practice for adjudicatory bodies to give reasons for their
decision. This suggestion has been given statutory force. Section 12 of the
Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1971 imposes a duty upon a Tribunal or Minister
to give reasons for the decision. In USA, the requirement of giving reasons for
decision has been given statutory force. In India, natural justice postulates that
party has right to know not only the decision but also the reasons. But this is not
a universally established rule although, in certain situations it is rigidly

23
enforced. The duty to give reasons may be statutory or non-statutory. Where the
duty is required by the statute, the authority is bound to give reasoned decisions
in all cases to which that provision applies. But in the absence of statutory
requirement, the Courts have been emphatic to advise judicial or quasi-judicial
bodies to assign reasons in such a form as to justify the orders being called what
are described as speaking orders.

A speaking order means an order which speaks by itself. Thus, every order must
contain reasons for support of it. Speaking orders are necessary to make judicial
review effective. The affected party must know why and on what grounds an
order has been passed against him. This is a cardinal principle of natural justice.

24
BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Upadhyaya, Dr. J. J. R., Administrative Law, Central Law Agency, Sixth

Edition, 2006

WEBLIOGRAPHY

 https://blog.ipleaders.in/natural-justice/

 https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1659-principles-of-
natural-justice-in-the-light-of-administrative-law.html

 https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1549-concept-of-natural-
justice.html

 https://nios.ac.in/media/documents/SrSec338New/338_Introduction_To_
Law_Eng/338_Introduction_To_Law_Eng_L6.pdf

 https://nacin.gov.in/resources/file/e-books/Principles%20of%20natural
%20justice.pdf

25