Introduction

The primary aim of the principles of natural justice is to ensure equity in the economic
undertakings of society and people. It also defends individual liberty against any arbitrary
action. The idea of natural justice is not present in the Indian constitution. However,
authorities consider it an element mandatory for the management of justice. It is an idea of
usual law which originates from “jus natural”, which stands for the law of nature. In simple
terms, principles of natural justice establish the differences between right and wrong.
Principles of Natural justice are rooted in the concept of fair judgement. These natural justice
principles are considered fundamental because they were created keeping in mind a sense of
morality and heritage on which the society is based. The goal of natural justice is to ensure that any
judgements do not deviate from the principles of justice such as being fair, unbiased, etc.
Oftentimes, the concept of natural justice is confused with the justice derived from the laws that are
considered to be natural to human existence. This is a misconception. The principles of natural
justice refer to the collection of ideas that are directly connected with the concept of justice. These
ideas do not have to be derived directly from the law, their application is completely based on
administrative discretion. Natural justice principles are withheld to ensure that nobody is treated
unfairly.

What Are the Principles of Natural Justice?

‘Natural’ justice does not simply mean justice discovered in nature. It is a compilation of
ideas that should be naturally connected with justice, regardless of whether these ideas are
part of law. Natural justice applies comprehensively to administrative discretion. Its goal is
to prevent mischievousness and unfairness towards the resident with managing authorities.
The principles of natural justice in India are those regulations made by the courts as being
the least protection of the person’s rights against the arbitrary policy that judicial, quasi-
judicial principles of natural justice in administrative law power may adopt while making an
order working on those rights.
The committee on Minister’s Power or Frank Committee has laid down the following norms
of natural justice:
1. No one shall determine in his own cause
2. Making accessible a copy of the statutory report
3. No one should be convicted without a hearing
4. A party has the right to know all the causes of the decisions.

Justice should not only be done but seen to be done The dictum ‘Justice should be done’ is satisfied
by mere observance of the principles of natural justice. However, the principle does not end here. It
extends further. Justice should manifestly be seen to be done. If this is ignored, then the decision
would be affected, especially in cases where an allegation of bias or interest or favour is noticed and
affording proper hearing is not forthcoming from the decision.
Natural Justice
Natural Justice implies fairness, reasonableness, equity and equality. Natural Justice is a
concept of Common Law and it is the Common Law world counterpart of the American
concept of ‘procedural due process’.
Natural Justice represents higher procedural principles developed by judges which every
administrative agency must follow in taking any decision adversely affecting the rights of
a private individual.
Natural Justice meant many things to many writers, lawyers and systems of law. It is used
interchangeably with Divine Law, Jus Gentium and the Common Law of the Nations. It is
a concept of changing content. However, this does not mean that at a given time no fixed
principles of Natural Justice can be identified.
The principles of Natural Justice through various decisions of courts can be easily
ascertained, though their application in a given situation may depend on multifarious
factors. In a Welfare State like India, the role and jurisdiction of administrative agencies
is increasing at a rapid pace. The concept of Rule of Law would lose its validity if the
instrumentalities of the State are not charged with the duty of discharging these functions in
a fair and just manner.
The principles of natural justice are firmly grounded under various Article of the
Constitution. With the introduction of the concept of substantive and procedural due
process in Article – 21 of the Constitution all that fairness which is included in the
principles of natural justice can be read into Article – 21 when a person is deprived of his life
and personal liberty.
In other areas it is Article – 14 which incorporates the principles of natural justice. Article –
14 applies not only to discriminatory class legislation on but also to arbitrary or
discriminatory State action. Because violation of natural justice results in arbitrariness
therefore violation of natural justice is violation of Equality Clause of Article – 14.
Therefore, now the principle of natural justice cannot be wholly disregarded by law because
this would violate the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles – 14 and 21 of the
Constitution.
Three Natural Justice Principles

Natural justice has three major principles. These principles define the concept and rules of natural
justice. The first two principles are based on the ancient roman legal system while the third principle
is a modern addition which was added keeping in mind the changing nature of law and
administration in the modern world.

The three principles of natural justice are listed below.

1. Nemo judex in causa sua

2. Audi alteram partem

3. Speaking orders or reasoned decision.

Principles of Natural Justice
Rule Against Bias (or Nemo Judex in Causa Sua)
‘Bias’ means an operative prejudice whether conscious or unconscious in relation to a
party or issue. 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 requirement of this principle is that the judge must be impartial and must decide the
case objectively on the basis of the evidence on record. Therefore, if a person, for
whatever reason, cannot take an objective decision on the basis of evidence on record he
shall be said to be biased. A person cannot take an objective decision in a case in which
he/she has an interest for, as human psychology tells us, very rarely can people take
decisions against their own interests.
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 judge in his/her own cause” but
also “justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to
be done
Minimal requirement of natural justice is that the authority must be composed of
impartial persons acting fairly and without prejudice and bias.
A decision which is a result of bias is a nullity and the trial is “Coram non-judice”
(before a non-judge).
Inference of bias, therefore, can be drawn only on the basis of factual matrix and not merely
on the basis of insinuations, conjectures and surmises.
Element of bias

Bias is an impediment in the way of fair decision making process. The presence of bias swings the
judgment one way or other. According to Ramanatha Aiyar’s Judicial Dictionary ‘bias’ is a “leaning of
mind, prepossession, inclination, propensity towards an object, bent of mind, a mental power which
sways the judgment… It is a predisposition to decide for or against one party without proper regard
to true merits of the dispute.” A decision which not based on evidence is biased. Broadly, bias may
take the form of pecuniary bias, personal bias and official bias. Pecuniary bias may be direct or even
remote. Even a slight inkling of pecuniary interest in a case would disqualify a person from
adjudicating. When pecuniary interest is present, the decision is a nullity. Official bias or bias as to
the subject matter relates to behavioural attitude of a judge. This means a predisposition or
inclination towards a particular issue. It may affect a fair decision. Interest of a judge in the outcome
of a proceeding may vitiate the order. Personal bias means one of the affected parties is a relation of
the judge. In such a case, the judge is likely to be biased in favour of his relative. Also where the
judge has personal grudge or enmity or professional rivalry, the judge is likely to display prejudice in
the decision-making process. Where a person acts as an accuser and judge, the same may give rise
to bias. A judge sitting in appeal from his earlier decision may give rise to bias. A judge deciding a
case in which he was earlier a counsel gives rise to bias. Cases of contempt against the decisions
decided by the court may give rise to bias on some occasions. In the above situations, the judge may
act fairly and decide on merits. But still the party affected by even a fair decision would look at the
same with some amount of suspicion. Therefore, the need for the judges, like the Caesar’s wife, to
be above suspicion.

Type of Bias:
Personal Bias
Personal bias originates from a relation between a deciding authority and the party. This can
place the deciding administration in a questionable situation to undertake an unfair act and
deliver judgement in his person’s favour.
Pecuniary Bias
In case there is any kind of financial interest on the judicial body’s part, notwithstanding the
amount, it will lead to biases for the administrative authority.
Subject Matter Bias
This bias is applicable when the deciding administration falls under the subject matter of a
specific case, directly or indirectly.

Rule of Fair Hearing (Audi Alteram Partem)

The “Rule of Fair Hearing” is a fundamental principle that ensures justice and due
process in administrative proceedings. It emphasizes that a person must be given an
opportunity to be heard and defend themselves. This principle is a ‘sine qua non’ of every
civilized society.
Corollary deduced from this rule is – “qui aliquid statuerit, parte inaudita altera aeuquum
licet dixerit, haud aequum facerit” (he who shall decide anything without the other side
having been heard although he may have said what is right will not have done what is
right).
The same principle was expressed by Lord Hewart when he said, “ It is not 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 done’’.
Administrative difficulty in giving notice and hearing to a person cannot provide any
justification for depriving the person of opportunity of being heard. Furthermore,
observance of the rules of natural justice has no relevance to the fatness of the stake but is
essentially related to the demands of a given situation.
Even if the legislature specifically authorizes an administrative action without hearing,
except in cases of recognised exceptions, then the law would be violative of the
principles of fair hearing as per Articles – 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
However, refusal to participate in enquiry without valid reason cannot be pleaded as
violation of natural justice at a later stage.
Reasoned Decisions or Speaking Orders
The third principle of Natural Justice which has developed in course of time is that the order
which is passed affecting the rights of an individual must be a “speaking order “.
This is necessary with a view to exclude the possibility of arbitrariness in the action. A
bald order requiring no reason to support it may be passed in an arbitrary and irresponsible
manner. It is a step in furtherance of achieving the end where society is governed by Rule of
Law.
The other aspect of the matter is that the party, against whom an order is passed, in fair
play, must know the reasons of passing such order. It has a right to know the reasons. The
orders against which appeals are provided must be speaking orders.
Otherwise, the aggrieved party will not be in a position to demonstrate before the appellate
authority as to in which manner, the order passed by the initial authorities is bad or suffers
from illegality. To a very great extent, in such matters bald orders render the remedy of
appeal nugatory.
However, it is true that administrative authorities or Tribunals are not supposed to pass
detailed orders as passed by the courts of law. They may not be very detailed and lengthy
orders but they must at least show that the mind was applied and for the reasons,
howsoever briefly they may be stated, the order by which a party aggrieved is passed.
There cannot be any prescribed form in which the order may be passed but the minimum
requirement as indicated above has to be complied with.
The Supreme Court has many times taken the view that non-speaking order amounts to
depriving a party of a right of appeal. It has also been held in some of the decisions that the
appellate authority, while reversing the order must assign reasons for reversal of the
findings.
Case Laws:
In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1977), the Supreme Court held that
the concept of natural justice should be in every action whether it is judicial, quasi-judicial,
administrative and or quasi-administrative work which involve civil consequences to the
parties.
In Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India (1981), the Supreme Court held that the Principles
of Natural Justice are considered as fundamental and are therefore implicit in every
decision-making functions.
In the Union of India v. W.N Chadha (1992), the Supreme Court observed that since the
purpose of the Principles of Natural Justice is to ensure justice and prevent and prevent
miscarriage of justice, these rules do not extend to those areas where their application may
lead to injustice.
In the Maa Vindhya Stone Crusher Company v. State of U.P. and Anr., the Allahabad High
Court has held that in a civilized society, principles of natural justice ought to be followed in
order to maintain rule of law.