Natural Justice

• A quasi-judicial decision is, a decision by an executive which has

some judicial characteristics but not all. The term quasi-judicial is
used in the sense that the power of adjudication is entrusted to a
person or body outside the system of ordinary courts.
• The nature and character of a decision whether it is quasi-judicial or
only executive under a statute depends upon the terms of the
statute.
• A quasi-judicial decision should be objective, based on evidence, by
determinate authority who should not have the right to delegate
such a function of a judicial character.
• Principles of Natural Justice which are judge made rules and still
continue to be a classical example of Judicial Activism were
developed by the courts to prevent accidents in the exercise of
outsourced power of Adjudication entrusted to the administrative
authorities.
• In India there is no statute laying down the minimum procedure
which administrative agencies must follow while exercising the
decision making powers. Courts have always insisted that the
administrative agencies must follow minimum of fair procedure.
The Minimum fair procedure refers to the principles of natural
justice.
• Natural justice is a concept of common law, and it is the
common-law world counterpart of the American “Due
Process” and civil law “proportionality”.
• The Principles of natural justice are not fixed, but are
flexible and variable. These principles cannot be put in a
straight jacket. Their applicability depends upon the
context and the facts and circumstances of each case.
• Natural justice is another name for common sense justice
and is based on the natural sense of man of what is right
and what is wrong.
• Application of the principles of natural justice can improve
the quality of administrative decision, enforce rule of law
and accountability in the administration and show respect
for human dignity.
• They are principles ingrained in the conscience of man.
Justice is based at substantially on natural ideals and values
which are universal. Natural justice is not circumscribed by
linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties or logical
prevarication. The purpose of Principles of natural justice is
prevention of miscarriage of justice and hence observance
thereof is the pragmatic requirement of fair play in action.
• the Indian Constitution does not use the expression
natural justice, the concept of natural justice divested
of all its metaphysical and theological trappings
pervades the whole scheme of the Constitution.

PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE:

1)Nemo judex in re sua, i.e., the authority deciding the
matter should be free from bias- Rule against bias -No
one should be made judge in his own cause, or the rule
against bias- Nemo in propria causa judex, esse debet.
2) Audi alteram partem, i.e., a person affected by a
decision has a right to be heardHear the other party, or
the rule of fair hearing, or the rule that no one should
be condemned unheard.
These are the two principles now transparency and good
governance may be added as a new dimension which
includes the duty to pass a speaking order.
SITUATIONS IN WHICH PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ARE ATTRACTED
• Principles of natural justice are attracted whenever a person suffers a severe
consequence, or a prejudice is caused to him by any administrative action.
• Civil consequences mean in fraction of personal or property rights, violation of civil
liberties, material deprivation or sufferance of non-pecuniary damages.
• 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 principles of
natural justice. Therefore, in comprehensive connotation, every administrative action
that causes a rigidized or harm or adverse consequences in his civil life, inflicts civil
consequences.

In D.K Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. The Supreme Court further held that even where
statutory standing orders empowered the management to terminate the services of an
employee, who is denied of livelihood, without hearing, the termination of services
would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, as such a procedure established by
law which deprives a person of his livelihood cannot be said just, fair and reasonable
under Article 21 of the Constitution.

In Dev Dutta v. UOI, Supreme Court held that do office rule provides for communication of
an adverse entry in the confidential report, yet even good entry is also to be
communicated if it eliminates a person from promotion. Natural justice which is a facet of
Article 14 of the Constitution overwrites all contrary rules. It is now settled that mere
breach of the principles of natural justice is not sufficient for judicial intervention unless
such breach also entails avoidable prejudice caused to the person. Nevertheless, the
applicability of the principles of natural justice is not dependent on any statutory
provisions. Wherever a prejudice is caused the principles or necessarily attracted.
 Nemo in propria causa judex, esse debet
• The first principle of natural justice consists of the rule against bias
or interest and is based on three maxims:
• ‘No man shall be the judge in his own case’
• ‘Justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly
be seen to be done.’
• ‘Judges, like Caesar’s wife, should be above suspicion.’
• A predisposition to decide for or against one party, without proper
regard to the true merits of the dispute is bias.
• The first requirement of natural justice is that the Judge should be
impartial and neutral and must be free from bias. He is supposed to
be indifferent to the parties to the controversy. He cannot act as
Judge of a cause in which he himself has some interest either
pecuniary or otherwise as it affords the strongest proof against
neutrality.
• If the Judge is subject to bias in favor of or against either party to
the dispute or is in a position that a bias can be assumed, he is
disqualified to act as a Judge, and the proceedings will be vitiated.
This rule applies to the judicial and administrative authorities
required to act judicially or quasi-judicially.
‘Bias’ means an operating prejudice, whether conscious or unconscious in relation to a
party or issue.
bias may be generally defined as partiality our preference which is not founded on
reason and is actuated by self-interest whether pecuniary or personal. Therefore,
the rule against bias strikes against those factors which may improperly influence a
judge in arriving at a decision in any particular case.
The Supreme Court in Crawford Bayley & Co. v. UOI, restated that the doctrine of rule
against bias comes into play if it's shown that the officer concerned has a personal
connection or personal interest or has personally acted in the matter concerned
and or has already taken a decision one way or the other which he may be
interested in supporting. This rule of disqualification is applied not only to avoid
the possibility of a partial decision but also to ensure public confidence in the
impartiality of the administrative adjudicatory process because not only must no
man be a judge in his own cause, but also “justice should be not only be done but
should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”.

Types of Bias:
• Bias manifests itself variously and may affect a decision in a variety of way.
1. Personal bias
1.1 Preconceived notion bias
2. Pecuniary bias
3. Official bias or bias as to subject-matter, and
3.1 Departmental or Institutional bias
3.2 Policy Notion bias
3.3 Acting under dictation
3.4 Bias on account of obstinacy
 Personal bias
Here a Judge may be a relative, friend or business associate of a party. He may have
some personal grudge, enmity or grievance or professional rivalry against such
party. In view of these factors, there is every likelihood that the Judge may be
biased towards one party or prejudiced towards the other. Personal bias arises
from a certain relationship equation between the deciding authority and the
parties which incline him unfavorably or otherwise on the side of one of the
parties before him. Such equation may develop out varied forms of personal other
professional hostility or friendship.

• Real likelihood of bias or reasonable suspicion of bias: However, in order to

challenge an administrative action successfully on the ground of personal bias, it is
essential to prove that there is a reasonable suspicion of bias or a real likelihood of
bias. The reasonable suspicion test looks mainly to outward appearance, and the
real likelihood test focuses on the court’s own evaluation of possibilities. In this
area of bias, the real question is not whether a person was bias. It is difficult to
prove the state of mind of a person. Therefore, what the court sees is whether
there are reasonable grounds for believing that the deciding officer was likely to
have been biased.
The real test of real likelihood poses whether reasonable man, in possession of
relevant information, would have thought that bias was likely and whether the
authority concerned was likely to be disposed to decide the matter in a particular
way. Therefore, the test is not what actually happened but the substantial
possibility of that which appeared to have happened.
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, one N was a candidate for selection to the Indian Foreign Service
and was also a member of the Selection Board. N did not sit on the Board when his own
name was considered. Name of N was recommended by the Board and he was selected by
the Public Service Commission. The candidates who were not selected filed a writ petition
for quashing the selection of N on the ground that the principles of natural justice were
violated. Supreme Court held that there was a real likelihood of bias, for the mere presence
of candidate on the selection board may adversely influence the judgment of the other
member.

In Manaklal v. Prem chand in order to decide a complaint for professional misconduct filed by
doctor Premchand against Manaklal, an advocate of the Rajasthan High Court, the High
Court appointed tribunal consisting of a senior advocate once Advocate General of
Rajasthan as chairman. The decision of the tribunal was challenged on the ground of
personal bias arising from the fact that chairman had represented him and in an earlier case.
The Supreme Court refused order to quash the action holding that the chairman had no
personal contact with his client and did not remember that he appeared on his behalf and
that therefore there seemed to be no real likelihood of bias. However, the high professional
standards led the court to quash the action in the final analysis on the ground that justice
should not only be done but must appear to have been done.

In G.N Nayak v. Goa University, a senior officer expresses appreciation of the work of a junior
officer in his confidential report. He was also a member of the Departmental promotion
committee to consider such a junior officer along with others for promotion. The committee
recommended this junior officer for promotion which was challenged on the ground of
personal bias actuated by an element of personal interest. The Supreme Court held that
unless preferences unreasonable and is based on self-interest, it will not vitiate an
administrative decision.
J. mohapatra and Co. V. state of Orissa
Mohd. Yunus Khan V State of U.P.
 PECUNIARY BIAS
• It is well-settled that as regards pecuniary interest ‘the least pecuniary
interest in the subjectmatter of the litigation will disqualify any person
from acting as a Judge.’
• The disqualification will not be avoided by non-participation of the biased
member in the proceedings if he was present when the decision was
reached.

• Dimes v. Grant Junction Canal, is considered to be the classic example of

the application of the rule against pecuniary interest. In this case, the suits
were decreed by the Vice Chancellor and the appeals against those
decrees were filed in the Court of Lord Chancellor Cottenham. The appeals
were dismissed by him and decrees were confirmed in favor of a canal
company in which he was a substantial shareholder. The House of Lords
agreed with the Vice-Chancellor and affirmed the decrees on merits. In
fact, Lord Cottenham’ s decision was not in any way affected by his
interest as a shareholder; and yet the House of Lords quashed the decision
of Lord Cottenham.

• Dr. Benham's case- Dr. Benham was fined for practicing in the city of
London without license of the college of Physicians. According to the
statute, the college is entitled to half of the amount and the remaining
goes to the King. Coke CJ. Dis- allowed the claim (fine) on the ground that
the college had a pecuniary interest. (Fine against Dr. Benham was
dismissed).
• R. v. Hendon Rural District Council, Ex parte
charley [5].
In this case, one of the members of the planning
commission was an estate agent and he was acting for
the applicant to whom permission was granted by the
planning commission. The decision of the planning
commission granting the permission was quashed on
the ground of pecuniary bias.
Jeejeebhoy v. Asst. Collector [6]. In this case, it was
found that one of the members of the bench of the
court was also a member of the co-operative society
for which the disputed land had been acquired.
 SUBJECT MATTER BIAS
This may arise when the Judge has a general interest in the subject-matter.
Those cases fall within this category where the deciding officer is directly, or
otherwise, involved in the subject matter of the case. Here again mere
involvement would not vitiate the administrative action unless there is a
real likelihood of bias.
A mere general interest in the general object to be pursued would not
disqualify a Judge from deciding the matter. There must be some direct
connection with the litigation.
In Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. A.P.S.R.T.C. the petitioners were carrying on a
motor transport business. The Andhra State Transport Undertaking
published a scheme for nationalization of motor transport in the State and
invited objections. 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 upheld the contention of the petitioners
that the official who heard the objections was ‘in substance’ one of the
parties to the dispute and hence the principles of natural justice were
violated.
In the case of Muralidhar vs. Kadam Singh, the court refused to quash the
Election tribunal's decision, despite the chairman's wife being a member of
the Congress party, whom the petitioner defeated. In this instance, the
court did not find sufficient grounds to prove subject matter bias.
 DEPARTMENTAL OR INSTITUTIONAL BIAS
The problem of departmental bias is something which is inherent in the administrative process,
and if not effectively checked, it may negate the very concept of fairness in administrative
proceedings.
Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. A.P.S.R.T.C AIR 1959, In this case, the petitioner challenged the
order of the government nationalizing road transport. One of the grounds for challenge was
that the secretary of the transport Department who gave the hearing was bias, being the
person who initiated the scheme and also being the head of the Department, whose
responsibility 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.
In Krishna Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, In this case, private bus operators had
alleged that the general manager of Haryana roadways who was a rival in business in the
state could not be expected to discharge his duties in a fair and reasonable Manner and
would be too lenient in inspecting the vehicles belonging to his own Department. The
reason for quashing the notification according to the Supreme Court was the conflict
between their duty and the interest of the Department and the consequential erosion of
public confidence in administrative justice.
Hari K. Gawali v Dy. Commr. of Police, In this case, an externment order was challenged on the
ground that since the police department which initiated the proceedings and the
department which heard and decided the case were the same , the element of
departmental bias vitiated administrative action. The court rejected the challenge on the
ground that so long as the two separate officers, though they were affiliated to the same
department, there was no bias.
 POLICY NOTION BIAS
Bias arising out of preconceived policy notions is a very delicate problem of administrative law.
On one hand no judge as a human being is expected to sit as a blank sheet of paper and on
the other preconceived policy notions may vitiate may fair trial.
In Franklin v. Minister of Town and Country planning Also known as the Stevenage case, in this
case the appellant challenged the Stevenage Newtown designation order 1946, on the
ground that no fair hearing was given because the minister had entertained by us in his
determination which was clear from his speech at Stevenage when he said are you want to
carry out a dating exercise in town planning. Additional function but the problem still
remains that the bias arising from strong policy convictions may I put it as a more serious
threat to fair action than any other single factor. Kondala Rao v. A.P.SRTC, 28 the court did
not crash the order of minister, who had heard the objections of private operators
nationalizing road transport on the ground that the same minister had presided over a
meeting only a few days earlier in which nationalization was favored. The court rejected the
contention on the ground that the decision of the committee was not final and irrevocable
but merely a policy decision.
In the case of T. Govindaraja Mudaliar v. State of T.N. (AIR 1973 SC 974), the Tamil Nadu
government made a policy decision in principle to nationalize road transport and formed a
committee to devise the scheme. The Home Secretary was appointed as a member of this
committee. Subsequently, the nationalization scheme was finalized, and published, and the
Home Secretary heard objections.
The petitioner argued that the Home Secretary’s hearing was tainted by policy notion bias
because he had already made up his mind on the question of nationalization while serving
as a member of the committee that formulated the policy. However, the Supreme Court
rejected the challenge, stating that as a committee member, the Secretary did not finally
determine any issue that could have foreclosed his mind.
 Pre-Conceived Notion Bias
• This type of bias is also called as Unconscious bias. All persons exercising
adjudicatory powers are human with human prejudices no matter some persons
are more humans than others. This may include class bias and personality bias.
• Every person is a product of your class and inherits some characteristics of that
class which may also reflect in his decision-making process. In the same manner
every person’s personality is a combination of his biological and social heredity
which determine his values and attitudes in a way that may condition his decision-
making process. The problem of unconscious by us is which is inherent in any
adjudication and cannot be eliminated unless detected by some overt action of
the authority, and if so, detected can vitiate an administrative hearing if it has a
direct relation with the decision. This may include a situation with the deciding
officer openly expresses his prejudice. The problem of bias arising from
preconceived notions may have to be disposed of us an inherent limitation of the
administrative process. It is useless to accuse a public officer of bias merely
because he is predisposed in favor of some policy in the public interest.
• In the case of Kondala Rao v. APSRTC (AIR 1961 SC 82), the Supreme Court did not
quash the order of the Minister who heard objections from private operators
regarding the nationalization of road transport. It was argued that the Minister had
previously presided over a meeting where nationalization was favoured,
suggesting a preconceived notion on the matter.
• However, the Court rejected this contention, emphasizing that the decision of the
committee was not final and irrevocable but merely a policy decision. In this
context, the Court implied that the Minister’s prior involvement did not necessarily
imply bias in the hearing process, as the decision was still open to discussion and
modification.
 Bias on Account of Obstinacy

• The Supreme Court 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 of bias was discovered in a situation where a
judge of the Calcutta High Court upheld his own judgment
while sitting in appeal against his own judgment. of course,
a direct violation of the rule that no George can sit in
appeal against his own judgement is not possible, therefore
this rule can only be violated indirectly. In this case in a
fresh reputation the judge validated his own order in an
earlier arithmetician which had been overruled by the
division bench. What applies to judicial process can be
applied to administrative process as well.