Meaning and Purpose of Natural Justice

Concept of Natural Justice

Natural Justice is a fundamental concept in administrative law that embodies the principles of procedural fairness. It is not a codified body of law but rather a set of common law principles that have evolved over centuries to ensure that decisions are made in a fair and just manner. The principles of natural justice are not rules of evidence or substantive law; they are rules of fair procedure. They are concerned not with the correctness of the decision itself, but with the manner in which the decision is made.

The core idea is that even an authority with the power to make a decision that affects the rights of an individual must act fairly. As the saying goes, "Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." Natural justice provides the procedural framework for ensuring this visibility of justice.

Justice according to natural law

The term "natural justice" derives its philosophical roots from the concept of Natural Law. Natural Law is a school of thought which posits that there are certain universal, inherent, and unchangeable moral principles that are the basis of all just laws. These principles are not made by humans but are discovered through reason and are considered to be "natural" or divine in origin.

From this philosophical standpoint, the principles of natural justice are seen as so fundamental and so essential to a just legal system that they are considered to be inherent in the very nature of justice itself. They are the minimal procedural requirements that any civilized legal system must adhere to. The courts have often described them as "fair play in action."

In the landmark case of A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969), the Supreme Court observed that "The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it."

Procedural fairness

In modern administrative law, natural justice is best understood as a synonym for procedural fairness. It imposes a duty on any decision-making authority, whether judicial, quasi-judicial, or even purely administrative, to follow a fair procedure when making a decision that affects the rights, interests, or legitimate expectations of an individual.

The principles of natural justice are not a rigid or fixed set of rules. They are flexible and can be adapted to the specific circumstances of a case. As the Supreme Court has often stated, the extent of their application depends on the nature of the power being exercised, the context of the decision, and the consequences of the decision for the individual.

At its core, procedural fairness is distilled into two primary rules, often referred to as the "twin pillars" of natural justice:

Audi Alteram Partem: The rule of fair hearing, which means "hear the other side."
Nemo Judex in Causa Sua: The rule against bias, which means "no one should be a judge in their own cause."

A third principle sometimes included is that of a Reasoned Decision, which requires an authority to provide reasons for its decision.

Purpose of Natural Justice

The principles of natural justice are not mere procedural formalities. They serve profound and practical purposes in any system of governance. They are essential for upholding the Rule of Law and ensuring that state power is exercised justly.

To prevent miscarriage of justice

The foremost purpose of natural justice is to prevent a miscarriage of justice. By ensuring a fair process, these principles reduce the likelihood of erroneous decisions. When a decision-maker is required to hear both sides of a story and to be free from bias, they are more likely to arrive at a correct and well-informed conclusion.

Accuracy of Decision: Giving a person a chance to explain their side of the story, present their evidence, and rebut the case against them provides the decision-maker with all the relevant information, leading to a more accurate factual determination.
Check on Arbitrariness: The requirement to follow a fair procedure acts as a powerful check on arbitrary and impulsive decision-making. It forces the authority to apply its mind to the facts and the law, rather than acting on prejudice or whim.

Example 1. A university decides to expel a student for alleged cheating in an exam based solely on a report from an invigilator, without giving the student a chance to see the report or explain their conduct.

Answer:

This would be a clear violation of natural justice. The student might have a valid explanation—perhaps they were not cheating but looking at their watch, or maybe the invigilator's report was mistaken. By not giving the student a fair hearing, the university runs a high risk of making a wrong decision and unjustly ruining the student's career. The purpose of natural justice here is to prevent this potential miscarriage of justice by ensuring all sides are heard before a decision is made.

To ensure fairness and impartiality

Beyond preventing wrong decisions, natural justice serves the broader purpose of ensuring that the entire decision-making process is, and is perceived to be, fair and impartial. This is crucial for maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice and the legitimacy of government institutions.

Legitimacy and Acceptance: An individual is more likely to accept an adverse decision if they feel they have been treated fairly and have had a proper chance to state their case. A fair process lends legitimacy to the outcome, even if the outcome is unfavourable.
Upholding Human Dignity: Treating a person fairly and giving them a voice in a decision that affects them is a fundamental aspect of respecting their human dignity. It acknowledges their intrinsic worth as an individual.
Transparency and Accountability: The principles of natural justice promote transparency in decision-making. The need to give notice, disclose information, and provide reasons makes the process open to scrutiny and makes the decision-maker accountable for their actions.

In the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court elevated the status of natural justice by holding that it is an essential component of the "procedure established by law" under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court ruled that any procedure that takes away life or personal liberty must be "fair, just, and reasonable," and a procedure that does not incorporate the principles of natural justice cannot be considered fair, just, or reasonable. This judgment firmly established that natural justice is a constitutional imperative in India.

Rules of Natural Justice

Audi Alteram Partem (Right to be Heard)

Audi alteram partem is a Latin maxim that means "hear the other side" or "let the other side be heard as well." It is the first and most fundamental principle of natural justice. It mandates that no person shall be condemned, punished, or have a decision made against them affecting their rights or interests without being given a fair opportunity to be heard.

This principle ensures that a decision is not one-sided and that the decision-maker has all the relevant facts and arguments before them. The components of a fair hearing are not fixed and can vary depending on the nature of the case, but they generally include the following elements.

Right to notice

A fair hearing cannot begin without a proper notice. Notice is the first limb of a fair hearing. The notice must be clear, specific, and adequate to inform the person of the case against them. It must contain:

The charges or allegations in sufficient detail.
The proposed action to be taken.
The time, date, and place of the hearing.
The authority under which the action is being taken.

A vague or insufficient notice is considered a violation of natural justice, as it prevents the person from effectively preparing their defence.

Right to a fair hearing

This is the core of the rule. After receiving notice, the person must be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case. What constitutes a "fair hearing" is flexible and depends on the circumstances. It does not always mean a formal, oral hearing like in a courtroom.

Right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses

Presenting Evidence: The person must be given the opportunity to present their own evidence and arguments to rebut the allegations. This is a crucial part of stating their case.
Cross-Examination: The right to cross-examine witnesses who have given evidence against the person is an important tool for testing the truthfulness of their testimony. While it is a vital part of a formal judicial proceeding, it may not be considered an essential element of natural justice in all administrative proceedings, especially in purely administrative inquiries. However, if the decision depends heavily on the testimony of a particular witness, denying the right to cross-examine may be held to be a violation of natural justice.

Right to legal representation

The right to be represented by a lawyer is not considered an absolute or mandatory part of a fair hearing in all administrative proceedings. However, the courts have held that in certain situations, denying legal representation would amount to a violation of natural justice. This is likely to be the case where:

The matter is complex and involves intricate questions of law.
The person is illiterate or unable to effectively present their own case.
The case involves high stakes, such as the loss of a livelihood or liberty.
The other side (the department) is being represented by a legal expert.

The decision to allow legal representation is usually at the discretion of the adjudicating authority, but this discretion must be exercised reasonably.

Nemo Judex in Causa Sua (Rule against Bias)

Nemo judex in causa sua is a Latin maxim meaning "no one should be a judge in their own cause." This is the second pillar of natural justice and is known as the rule against bias. It is essential for ensuring the impartiality and integrity of the decision-making process. The principle is that a decision-maker must be, and must appear to be, impartial and disinterested in the outcome of the case.

The test for bias is not necessarily whether the decision-maker was actually biased, but whether there was a "real likelihood of bias" or a "reasonable suspicion of bias" from the perspective of a reasonable person. Bias can be of several types.

Pecuniary bias

This is the most direct form of bias. Any financial or monetary interest in the subject matter of the dispute, no matter how small, will disqualify a person from acting as a judge or adjudicator. The law has a strict and uncompromising view on pecuniary bias. If a decision-maker has a financial stake in the outcome, the law presumes bias, and the decision will be set aside without any further inquiry into whether the decision was actually affected.

Example 1. In Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal (1852), the Lord Chancellor of England affirmed a decree in a case involving a company in which he was a shareholder. The House of Lords set aside the decision, not because the Chancellor was actually influenced, but simply because of his financial interest. The principle established was that a direct pecuniary interest, however small, disqualifies a judge.

Personal bias

Personal bias arises from a personal relationship between the decision-maker and one of the parties. This relationship can be one of friendship, kinship, professional rivalry, or animosity. If there is a close personal connection, it can create a reasonable suspicion that the decision-maker might not be impartial.

Example 2. A university selection committee is interviewing candidates for a teaching position. The chairman of the committee is the father of one of the candidates. The father-in-law of another candidate is also on the committee.

Answer:

In the case of A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969), a similar situation arose in the selection for the Forest Service. The Supreme Court quashed the entire selection list, holding that the presence of a candidate on the selection board created a real likelihood of bias. The Court stated that it was difficult to prove actual bias, but the reasonable likelihood of it was enough to vitiate the decision.

Subject-matter bias

This type of bias, also known as official bias, arises when the decision-maker has a strong interest or involvement in the subject matter of the dispute. This often happens in administrative law where officials who are part of a department are given the power to decide cases in which the department's policy or actions are challenged. For example, the head of a department sitting in judgment over a disciplinary inquiry against one of their own employees.

The courts are generally more tolerant of this type of bias, as it is often an unavoidable consequence of the administrative structure. However, the decision will be quashed if the official has shown an overly zealous or partisan interest in the outcome.

Policy bias

A decision-maker is not considered biased simply because they have a pre-existing view or a commitment to a particular government policy. Ministers and government officials are expected to have and to implement policies. However, policy bias can become a problem if the decision-maker has a "closed mind" and is not willing to genuinely consider the merits of the individual case before them. They must be open to persuasion and not simply act as a rubber stamp for a pre-determined policy.

Speaking Orders (Requirement of Reasoned Decisions)

A "speaking order" is an order that speaks for itself, meaning it is an order that contains the reasons for the decision. The requirement to provide reasons is a relatively recent but increasingly important dimension of natural justice. While not one of the two classical principles, the courts have recognized it as the "third pillar" of natural justice.

A reasoned decision is one that explains the logic and the basis for the conclusion reached by the authority. It should set out the facts considered, the law applied, and the reasoning that connects the facts and law to the final decision.

Importance of reasoned decisions

The duty to give reasons serves several crucial purposes:

Ensures Application of Mind: When a decision-maker knows they have to provide reasons, it forces them to apply their mind to the case and to think through the issues carefully. It acts as a powerful check against arbitrary or capricious decision-making.
Promotes Fairness to the Individual: The person affected by the decision has a right to know why the decision was made against them. It shows respect for the individual and helps them to accept the outcome, even if it is unfavourable.
Facilitates Judicial Review: The requirement of reasons is essential for effective judicial review. If an order is unreasoned, it is very difficult for a higher court to determine whether the authority acted lawfully. A reasoned order allows the court to see the authority's logic and to check for errors of law, irrelevant considerations, or other flaws.
Ensures Consistency and Predictability: Reasoned decisions create a body of precedent that can guide future decisions in similar cases, promoting consistency and predictability in administration.

Example 3. In S. N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (1990), the Supreme Court firmly established that the requirement to record reasons is a principle of natural justice. The Court held that except in cases where the requirement is expressly or by necessary implication excluded, an administrative authority making an order that affects the rights of an individual must record its reasons.

Exceptions and Limitations

When principles of natural justice may be excluded

While the principles of natural justice are fundamental rules of fair procedure, they are not absolute or universally applicable in every situation. The courts have recognized that in certain exceptional circumstances, the requirement to follow the full course of natural justice may be excluded, either expressly by a statute or by necessary implication from the context of the administrative action. The underlying principle is that the law does not compel the impossible and that procedural fairness must be balanced against other public interests like national security, administrative efficiency, and public safety.

Statutory exclusion

The legislature has the power to exclude the principles of natural justice, in whole or in part, through a specific provision in a statute. However, the courts scrutinize such exclusions very carefully.

Express Exclusion: A statute may explicitly state that a particular action can be taken without giving a hearing. For example, a law might allow for the immediate suspension of a license pending a full inquiry. The courts will generally uphold such an express exclusion, provided the law itself is constitutional.
Implied Exclusion: The requirement of natural justice can also be excluded by necessary implication. If the scheme of the act, the nature of the power, and the purpose it is meant to serve are such that requiring a full hearing would frustrate the object of the act, the courts may infer that the legislature intended to exclude it. For example, a law aimed at preventing large-scale economic fraud might be interpreted to allow for the freezing of bank accounts without a prior hearing to prevent the fraudsters from moving the money.

It is important to note that even where a statute excludes a pre-decisional hearing, the courts often insist on a post-decisional hearing (a hearing after the action has been taken) to ensure a minimum level of fairness.

Example 1. The second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Indian Constitution is a classic example of statutory (in this case, constitutional) exclusion. Article 311(2) grants a civil servant the right to a fair inquiry before being dismissed. However, the second proviso lists exceptions, stating that this right will not apply:

where a person is dismissed on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or
where the authority is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or
where the President or the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.

Administrative necessity

The principles of natural justice may be modified or excluded in situations where it is administratively necessary to act urgently or where applying them would be impractical or would defeat the purpose of the action.

Grounds for Exclusion based on Necessity:

Emergency or Public Safety: In situations of grave emergency, such as an epidemic, a natural disaster, or a major law and order problem, an authority may need to take immediate action without a prior hearing. For example, ordering the demolition of a dangerously dilapidated building that is about to collapse, or imposing a curfew.
Impracticability: If a decision affects a very large number of people, it may be impractical to give each and every one of them an individual oral hearing. In such cases, a more general form of consultation, like a public notice inviting written representations, may be considered sufficient.
Purely Administrative Matters: Traditionally, natural justice was not applied to decisions that were considered purely administrative, academic, or policy-related. However, this distinction has been significantly diluted by the courts. Today, fairness is required in most administrative actions that affect individual rights or interests, but the level of fairness required may be minimal in some cases.

Excluding disclosure of information in public interest

A key component of a fair hearing (audi alteram partem) is the right of the individual to know the case against them, which includes access to the evidence and reports being considered by the decision-making authority. However, this right is not absolute.

The disclosure of certain information may be excluded if it is against the public interest. This is often claimed by the state through the doctrine of "Crown privilege" or "public interest immunity." The state can refuse to disclose documents or information if their disclosure would harm:

National security or defence.
International relations.
The confidentiality of high-level policy discussions.
The effectiveness of criminal investigations (e.g., the identity of an informant).

When such a claim is made, the court must perform a balancing act. It must weigh the public interest in non-disclosure against the public interest in ensuring a fair trial and the administration of justice. The court has the power to inspect the documents itself to decide whether the claim of privilege is justified.

Waiver of the right to natural justice

The principles of natural justice are designed for the protection of the individual. Therefore, like most rights, the right to natural justice can be waived by the person for whose benefit it exists.

A waiver means that a person voluntarily and knowingly gives up their right to a fair hearing or objects to a biased decision-maker. A waiver can be express or implied.

Express Waiver: A person may explicitly state that they do not wish to have a hearing or do not want to cross-examine a witness.
Implied Waiver: A waiver can be implied from a person's conduct. For example:
- If a person is given proper notice of a hearing but fails to appear without a valid reason, they are deemed to have waived their right to be heard.
- If a person is aware of a potential bias on the part of the decision-maker but participates in the proceedings without raising an objection, they may be prevented from challenging the decision on the ground of bias later on. They are considered to have acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the biased authority.

Limitations on Waiver

The waiver must be clear and unambiguous. A court will not lightly infer that a person has given up their right to a fair procedure. Furthermore, a waiver is not possible if:

It would be contrary to a specific statutory provision that mandates a hearing.
It would be against public policy.

For instance, an individual cannot waive the requirement of jurisdiction; if a tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear a case, the parties cannot confer it by consent or waiver.