Natural Justice

Introduction:

The concept of natural justice is considered as an essential element for the administration of justice. It is a technical term for the rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua) and the right to fair hearing (audi alteram partem). Natural justice is a concept of common law. It is derived from the word ‘Jus Natural’ from the Roman law.

Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice.

History

The principles of natural justice is a very ancient concept. Its history dates back to Arthashastra by Kautilya. The Greeks and the Romans were also familiar with these concepts. According to the Bible, when Adam and Eve ate the fruit of knowledge, they were forbidden by God. Before doing so, they both were given a fair opportunity to defend themselves.

Later, the concept of natural justice was acknowledged by the English jusrist. The word ‘natural justice’ was derived from the Roman word ‘jus-naturale’ and ‘lex-naturale’.

In India, this concept was introduced quite before. In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner[1], the court held that the concept of fairness should be in every action whether it be judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative, or quasi-administrative work.

Principles of Natural Justice

Natural Justice recognizes three principles:

1. Nemo debet essc judex in propria causa.
2.  Audi alterem partem, and
3. Speaking orders or reasoned decisions.

1. Nemo debet essc judex in propria causa

‘Nemo debet essc judex in propia causa’ roughly translated into English means nobody shall be a judge in his cause or in a cause in which he is interested. This principle is more popularly known as the Doctrine ofBias. It means that the authority sitting in judgment should be impartial and act without bias.

Bias:

1. Pecuniary Bias

The decision of the adjudicator would be affected if he is having a pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the proceedings.

 In Mohapatra vs. State of Orissa [2], it was held that when the author of a book was a member of the committee set up for the selection of books, and his book was also under consideration by that committee, the possibility of bias could not be ruled out and the selection by that committee cannot be upheld.

The probability of bias is sufficient to invalidate the right to sit in judgment and there is no need to have the proof of actual bias.

2. Personal Bias

Personal biasmay arise out of friendship, relationship, professional grievance, or even enmity. The likelihood of bias is to be given more credence than for the actual bias.

For example, in the Tata Motor Challenge vs. Government of West Bengal, on the constitutional validity of the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, Justice Saumitra Pal recused himself from the case, citing that he knew some of the people in relation with the case personally.

3. Official Bias

 The third type of bias, namely, official biasmay arise in cases where an administrator who enunciates, and then has to carry out an official policy, is entrusted with the duty of hearing objections from the concerned persons as to the implementation of the policy. Here the general rule is that the bias that may be said to be likely to arise because the adjudicator has a general interest in the subject matter and administration of the policy in his official capacity, would not operate as a disqualification.

2. Audi alterem partem

Audi alteram partem means to hear the other side.

This is necessary for providing a fair hearing and no doubt the rule against bias would also be a part of the procedure. he application of this principle is not confined to the judicial process strictly so-called but it takes within its sweep all quasi-judicial functions and to a certain extent even administrative acts. To give every citizen a fair hearing is just as much a canon of good legal procedure.

In the case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works[3], the principle was thus stated:-

“Even God did not pass a sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defense. “Adam,” says God, “where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat.””

3. Issuance of Speaking Orders or Reasoned Decision

The third aspect of natural justice requires speaking orders or intellectual decisions.

It is now universally recognized that giving reasons for a certain decision is one of the fundamentals of good administration and a safeguard against arbitrariness. The refusal to give reasons may excite the suspicion that there are probably no good reasons to support the decision. Hence reasons are useful as they may reveal an error of law, the grounds for an appeal, or simply remove what might otherwise be a lingering sense of injustice on the part of the unsuccessful party. When the order to be passed is an appealable order, the requirement of giving reasons would be a real requirement. Thus, reasons are also required to be given when the appellate or revisionary authority affirms the order of the lower authority.

Importance of Principles of Natural justice

Principles of natural justice can be said to be the rules for equality and justice. It is a common law concept which every judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative body must follow. Natural justice equates with fairness, equality, and equity.

The concept also extends to a general duty to act fairly and to ensure that a fair decision is taken by the decision-maker.  The chance to be heard by an impartial judge is the actual motive of natural justice.  Ensuring procedural fairness protects individual rights and enhances public trust in the process.

Conclusion

The principle of natural justice is important for a society, which is ruled by the rule of law. The principles of natural justice promote the notion of the rule of law and ensure fair justice and equality for all.

---

References:

[1] Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner 1978 AIR 851, 1978 SCR (3) 272

[2] Mohapatra vs. State of Orissa (AIR 1984 S.C. 1572)

[3] Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works[(1863) 143 ER 414]