PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
- Legal Journey
- Jun 3
- 7 min read
Updated: Jun 14
Even before the law was introduced, there were some principles that governed the behaviour and actions of the common man. These were called the principles of natural justice. These principles were not codified, nor were they written in any book or enforced by the higher authority. They were accepted widely by every person and understood as the norm. Back then, the common man knew that if a person made a mistake for any reason, he/she deserved a chance to state his/her side of things. The majority of people were honest and had no fraudulent intentions. The common man was driven by honesty hence these principles were heavily depended upon by everybody.
With the passage of time, these principles evolved into what we call the principles of natural justice. These principles are driven by the idea of justice, equity and fairness in all dealings. In the 21st Century, even though our legal system and courts have changed drastically, these principles remain the base for all. It is a reminder to us that justice should be focused on doing the right thing in the right way, not being biased or unfair to anybody.
Table of Content 💻
Origin and Development
The initial mention of the principles of natural justice is seen in the use of common law which was evident in the Roman jurisprudence. These principles surely have not evolved overnight. In fact, they have grown slowly over a long period of time and have been deeply influenced by human civilization. In terms of history, the idea of natural justice originated in ancient Greek and Roman cultures.
Audi alteram partem, or “Hear the other side”, is a legal concept that was derived from the Greeks' strong belief that "no man should be condemned unheard." Roman legal philosophy helped establish this basis, which had a significant impact on the evolution of English common law, where natural justice assumed a more precise legal structure. As English judges started applying these ideas to their rulings throughout time, two important guidelines were eventually recognized:
Nobody should decide a matter in which they have a personal stake, according to the principle “Nemo judex in causa Sua”.
A fair opportunity for each person to voice their opinions before a decision is made is known as “Audi alteram partem”
These rules have become a norm in the judiciary in the 21st century. They ensure that all decisions are made fairly and in an unbiased manner. In India, these values are reflected in our traditional system. The Indian emperor Ashoka was known by people for his fair acts and justice.
One of the leading cases revolving around the concept of justice was the case of A.K. Kraipak V/s Union of India (1969). Emphasis was put by the Supreme Court on the evolving concept of “justice”. It held that natural justice is the most integral part of all decision-making that affects the rights or expectations of parties.
All over the world, the idea of natural justice is accepted universally. Aristotle, a Greek Philosopher, also believed that natural justice was a part of living that was essential for constructing a harmonious society. Now, these archaic principles have become a part of daily life, guiding in decision-making and focusing on transparency and due-process.
Principles of Natural Justice
Rule against Bias:
"Nemo Judex in Causa Sua", The translation of this Latin dictum is "No one should be a judge in their own cause." It implies that those making decisions must be objective and devoid of any personal stake in how a case turns out. Given that even a perceived conflict of interest can erode public confidence in the process's impartiality, the concept protects against both real and perceived prejudice. Moreover, there are a few types of bias under this :-
A) Personal Bias: When the decision-making authority has a personal relationship—whether friendly or hostile—with one of the parties, it is known as personal bias. An employee's case cannot be appropriately decided by a member of the disciplinary committee who has a personal disagreement with them.
B) Pecuniary Bias: Occurs when the person making the choice has a small pecuniary stake in the outcome. Courts forbid such engagement, even where the interest has no direct bearing on the outcome.
When the adjudicator has a prior interest or participation in the subject matter being considered, it can lead to subject-matter bias, which can compromise impartiality.
When a government department's authority both investigates and renders a decision on the same topic, departmental bias arises, potentially distorting the results due to institutional allegiance.
C) Subject-matter bias: When an adjudicator has a prior interest or participation in the topic or problem being considered, this is known as subject-matter bias, and it may compromise their neutrality.
D) Departmental Bias: This problem arises when a government department's authority looks into and decides on the same topic, thereby distorting the results due to institutional allegiance.
E) Prejudice resulting from preconceived notions: A prejudiced mindset is produced by strongly held beliefs or preconceived notions about a person or policy. Unfortunately,every person does have some thought or prior knowledge in general. It is unavoidable. Disqualification only occurs when the assumptions are so strong that they impede the ability to make an objective decision.
Right to Fair Hearing:
The maxim “Audi Alteram Partem” states that every party/ individual has a right to be heard fairly and unbiasedly. This rule ensures that every person is given a fair opportunity to have their side presented before any decision is made. Through this rule, it is made sure that a decision is made hearing both sides and their merits-demerits and not only by one side.
Key components :-
Notice - Both parties must be given notice of the proceedings in advance. The notice must be clear, mentioning the issue involved and must be sent promptly.
Presentation of Case - The parties must be given a fair chance of representing their case, explaining their position in written or oral manner.
Right of cross-examination - This should be provided in case oral evidence influences any testimony.
Legal Aid - Even though this is not mandatory, access to legal aid is one of the most important tools that must be available for every party.
Speaking Orders/ Reasoned Decisions:
One of the evolved aspects of principles of natural justice is the doctrine of Speaking Orders or Reasoned Decisions. It mandates that any decision affecting the rights of a person must state the reasons behind it. This developed principle of natural justice requires that the rationale for each action that impacts an individual's rights or interests be disclosed. The reasoning goes that when justifications are given: -
1. The ruling is subject to review or appeal and seems clear.
2. The decision's rationale can be understood by the impacted party.
3. It lessens the possibility that authorities may take capricious or unfair acts.
The courts have stressed that the justifications must demonstrate a critical thinking process and a rational foundation for the conclusion, even if they are not very long. Reasonless orders are frequently referred to be "non-speaking" and may be revoked for that reason.
NOTE - There are Exceptions to principles of Natural justice. That means, these principles do not apply in the following cases/ situations :-
Emergency situations
Statutory exclusion
Evaluation by academic/ administrative bodies.
Impracticality in exact application in cases of large numbers of people.
Case Laws
1. A. K. Kraipak v/s Union of India
A committee was constituted for the selection of officers in the AIFS. The Chief conservator had applied to be selected for the same and was also on the said committee. He also got selected for the post and other fellow candidates were agitated by this. Clear abuse of the principles of natural justice was evident. Principles of natural justice should be applied in judicial, administrative and quasi-judicial matters.
2. Maneka Gandhi v/s Union of India
This is a well-known case that revolves around Articles 14, 19, and 21. A major part of the right to personal liberty includes the freedom to travel abroad, which was also reiterated by SC. This expanded the meaning of Article 21.
Maneka Gandhi was made to submit her passport to the Regional Passport Officer situated in New Delhi without giving her a hearing opportunity or an explanation. In her defense, she contested the violations of Article 14, 19 and 21.
The Court ruled that reasonable restrictions are valid but they must not limit an individual’s freedom. It also ruled that the any regulation restricting a person’s personal liberty must pass the tests of Articles 14,19 and 21 and the authority’s action of impounding her passport without giving her a reasonable opportunity of explanation was violative of the principle of natural justice i.e. Audi Alteram Partem.
Conclusion
Principles of natural justice form the bedrock of our legal system. This has also been seen through various cases as mentioned. These principles have been emphasized by the judiciary time and again. Its importance is seen in every statute or enactment by promoting equity among citizens. That signifies equal treatment and equal opportunity. The main principles of natural justice- “Nemo Judex in causa Sua” and “Audi Alteram Partem”- are used extensively even in daily life. They are more than just the basis of law but a part of living righteously.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q) What are the principles of natural justice? A) Some of the most important principles of Natural Justice are :-
“Nemo Judex in causa Sua”;
“Audi Alteram Partem”; and
Doctrine of Speaking order or reasoned decisions.
Q) What is the Latin maxim of the doctrine of Right to fair hearing?
A) The Latin maxim associated with the doctrine of the Right to Fair Hearing is "Audi alteram partem"
Q) How do the principles of Natural justice exist in modern legal practice?
A) In modern legal practice, the principles of Natural Justice act as the foundation of fairness, justice and equity, ensuring that all parties are heard. This is also seen in cases like A.K Kraipak and Maneka Gandhi.
Q) What is the difference between personal bias and departmental bias under the Rule against Bias?
A) Under the Rule against Bias, personal bias is when the decision-maker has interest in the case personally or his interest vests with the party. Departmental bias is when the same department/organization acts as both the adjudicator and the investigator.
Q) Are the principles of natural justice absolute in nature? A) No, the principles of natural justice are NOT absolute.
They have exceptions like- emergencies, statutory exclusion, evaluation by academic bodies or when it is simply impractical to apply them due to a large number of people being involved.
This Article is written by Tanaya Moholkar, a final year law student at Yashwantrao Chavan Law College, Pune.
Follow our legal journey on our social media and keep learning.
Komentar