Principles of Natural Justice

The principles of natural justice state that there should be fairness in the adjudicatory process. It stands against all forms of unreasonable, biased actions. The rule of natural justice is that a reasonable person should feel that justice has been done. Where no other rules of procedure are laid down, in all judicial or quasi-judicial matters, it is required that a minimum of the rules of natural justice are observed. These provide for the minimum of procedural safeguards to protect the interests of the society. The principle of natural justice states that even the party against whom the decision has been taken should feel that justice has been done.

The rule of natural justice is based upon two principles:

(1)    Rule against bias

(2)    Rule of fair hearing

(1)    Rule against bias

The rule against bias is based upon the principle of ‘nemo debet ease judex in propria causa’ that means that no man shall judge in his own case. The principle of rule against bias is formulated upon the basic tenet that justice should not only be done but seen to be done. It is not important whether there has been any bias or not. What matters is that any reasonable man should not feel that there are chances of bias. In deciding such matters, the court sees if there are any likely grounds that would make a reasonable man feel the presence of bias. Bias can be of following kinds:

(a)    Personal bias – when there is some relationship between one of the parties and the deciding authority that might incline him to decide in favour or against one of the parties.

(b)   Pecuniary bias – if there is any kind of financial interest, it would vitiate the administrative action.

(c)    Subject matter bias – if the deciding officer is involved in the subject matter concerned, it raises the apprehension of his being biased.

(d)   Departmental bias – it happens if the functions of the prosecutor and the deciding officer are combined in the same department. A manner of reducing it would be the instituting a different department of hearing officers.

(e)   Preconceived notion bias – it is an inherent problem of the administrative action, because no human being can sit and say that he has no prior opinion about a thing.

(f)     Bias on account of obstinacy – bias may accrue if the deciding officer does not like to take ‘no’ for an answer.

Doctrine of necessity

When there is no other judge available, the rule against bias may be ignored. In cases of emergency, requiring a quick action, even a biased judge can take the decision and in such cases, it would not vitiate the action.

(2)    Rule of fair hearing

Rule of fair hearing is based upon the maxim ‘audi alteram partem’ that means hear the other side. It means that no man shall be condemned unheard. The person accused should be given ample opportunity to present his side of the story. A man is ‘innocent until proved guilty’ and he has every right to prove himself ‘not guilty’.

The rule of fair hearing provides that opportunity is given to the accused person of presenting his case and rebutting adverse evidence. The essentials of this rule are as follows:

(a)    Right to notice – the notice of the time, place of hearing, the legal authorities and the charges levied has to be provided well in advance

(b)   Right to know the evidence against him – the party has a right to inspect the evidence against him. He may be allowed to inspect all files and take notes.

(c)    Right to present case and evidence – reasonable opportunity should be provided to the party to present his case.

(d)   Right to rebut adverse evidence – the party has got a full right to rebut the evidence used against him. He can do this by two means:

(i)                  Cross examination

(ii)                Legal representation

(e)   No evidence should be taken at the back of other party – ex parte evidence violates the principle of fair hearing as the party does not get a chance to know what is produced against him.

(f)     Report of the enquiry to be shown to the other party – any report of enquiry undertaken must be shown to the party.

(g)    Reasoned decisions or speaking orders – reasoned decisions are the most effective modes of dispensing the apprehension of bias.

(h)   Institutional decision or the one who decides must hear – the person adjudicating should be present at the time of taking evidence and cross examination. Otherwise it would vitiate the administrative action.

(i)      Rule against dictation – the authority deciding should not act according to the orders of his superiors.

(j)     Financial incapacity to attend the enquiry – the financial incapacity of a party in putting evidence should not come in way. Evidence and witnesses should be brought at the expense of the government to facilitate fair hearing.

(k)    Decision post haste – the decision should not be taken in haste. Reasonable time should be spent in hearing the evidence and coming to a conclusion.

Exceptions to the rule of natural justice

The rule of fair hearing can be ignored in certain cases like:

(a)    Emergency – if a prompt action has to be taken where it is not expedient to hear all evidence, the rule may be dispensed with.

(b)   Confidentiality – confidential documents need not be shown to a party.

(c)    Purely administrative matters – in purely administrative actions, it may be expedient to leave these rules to provide order.

(d)   Impracticability – the application of the rules are not feasible in cases of administrative impracticability.

(e)   Interim preventive action – if the order is an interim order and not the final decision, thr rule may be avoided.

(f)     Legislative action – legislative actions are not subject to the rules of natural justice.

(g)    Where no right of the person is infringed – when no statutory or common law right is infringed, the application of the principle is unnecessary.

(h)   Statutory exception or necessity – cases requiring a quick action, where only one judge is available, even a biased judge can take the decision and in such cases, it would not vitiate the administrative action.

(i)      Contractual agreement – termination of an agreement does not attract the principles of natural justice.

(j)     Useless formality theory – where there is an undisputed fact and only one consequence would flow from enquiry, the rule may be avoided.

Thus, the rules of natural justice state that an administrative action should be free from all forms of arbitrariness. It provides that there should be a sense of fairness and justice in all administrative actions.