Ridge v. Baldwin as Magna Carta of Natural Justice

Introduction:

“Written laws are the formulas in which we endeavor to express as concisely as possible that which, under such or such determined circumstances, natural justice demands.” – Victor Cousin[1].

Each of us like you and me go to the court with the expectation of getting natural justice. On the other hand, courts are also set forth for giving equal justice to all the people.

Natural justice has become a common element which we expect to be followed by the court of law. Natural justice in simple terms can be said as the principle which is formed as rule against which may create bias in the court of laws, equal and fair hearing by the courts. Each one of us has the right to be heard in the court and it is the duty of the court to hear on both (appellant and defendant) the sides of the case, analyze it, and give fair justice to the people without inequality.

Natural justice means in simple terms is the principle laid down by the court of law for fair justice among the appellant and the respondent exempting quasi-judicial.

Ridge v. Baldwin is one such case of England that widened the scope of natural justice. This case is a landmark case of England since it introduced the new rule “Principle of Natural Justice”.

In India, natural justice is supported by constitutional and administrative provisions. If the breach of justice is found then it is treated as void under the Indian law structure.

Ridge v. Baldwin[2] as Magna Carta of Natural Justice

 Facts:

• The person Rigid is the plaintiff/appellant who was removed from his job without any prior notice. As this case roles around two topics that are labor law the Municipal Corporation act 1882, Section 191 (4) of England which says
• “(4) The watch committee, or any two justices having jurisdiction in the Borough, may at any time suspend, and the watch committee may at any time dismiss, any Borough constable whom they think negligent in the discharge of his duty, or otherwise unfit for the same.”
• Charles Rigid was a government employee who was in a position of constable in the United Kingdom in joining the force with the due established law of appointment of Municipal Corporation Act, (1882) in the year 1956.
• On 25 October 1957, he was arrested along with other two persons in the case of conspiracy against the government.
• On 28 October 1957, he was dismissed from the duty by the watch committee which was set up by Municipal Corporation Act, 1882 without giving him prior notice by the watch committee.

Rule of law in issue

The issue of the case was the plaintiff was not allowed to be heard in the court of law and was dismissed from his job without any notification given to him. The question that arises here is:

1. Whether under Section 4(1) of the Police Act, 1919 authorizes the secretary of the state of regulation,
2. Whether these regulations applied to this case,
3. Whether dismissing the appellant without notifying him and not giving him a chance of hearing is declared as injustice or unlawful.

Plaintiff argument

Plaintiff Mr. Charls Rigid said that the Brighton watch committee did not give him a fair opportunity to defend himself when he was accused and the Brighton watch committee was acting unlawfully in the suspension of him from his chief constable position. And made him non-eligible for the pension which he must have to receive.

Respondent argument

 The respondent argues referring to the case of Terrell v. Secretary of state for the colonial and other[3], 1953 says that the person who is working under the authority does not have the right to be heard as in this above-mentioned case it was held that officers working under authority do not have any privilege to be heard and also in case of Rex v. Mayor of Stratford[4], 1670 (It was held in the case that the person who has the authority aflower of dismissing the officers do not need to mention the reason of the suspension from the position.

In Another case Darlington School Case[5],1844 (in this judgment it was held that the dismissal would not disclose the cause for dismissal.

Also, the respondent added with the precedent saying that he was acted according to the regulation aided by Municipal Corporation Act, 1882 under Section 191(4).  

Judgment

The learned honourable bench on 28 February 1958

Informing that Brighton watch committee established by Municipal corporation Act violated the principle of natural justice Magna Carta by not giving the chief constable the fair opportunity to defend himself at least once and it was said that the rule of Municipal Corporation Act, under Section 191(4) is not an administrative act in nature it feels like a strong authoritative administration.

Art 11(1) of the European Convention on Human rights enables the authority to dismiss the person only on certain conditions which say that the person should be suspended once the report was founded out Faust the officers but in this case, there were no reports found against the appellant Charles Rigid.

The changes brought by the judgment in natural justice

This landmark judgment has been a stuck question on England natural justice principles this case is widely celebrated in the legal field when any question arises regarding principles of natural justice when this case been on the table of England courts there were many queries which have had to be solved by the respected honorable bench.

Here in this established case law Ridge was the applicant who did not get an equal and fair slot of window opportunity to justify himself in defense and the natural justice which is having an equal opportunity of getting heard by defendants and plaintiff’s fundamental right of anyone ignoring his stand in the case. And the violation of natural justice happens when the case will not go according to procedure laws as will be some laid down procedures for both expected parties any matter and the principal which say “Audi alteram partem” which means of equal being heard opportunity where no person should not be unheard and thus applying this principle to this case there was no ingredients was found in this case so the word Magna Carta refers to the fundamental rights of guarantees and other rights.

Rule of Natural justice in India

Many Indian cases have referred to Ridge v. Baldwin and widened the scope of natural justice to promote fair and true justice for all the people.

A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India[6] (1970)

In this case, it was held referring to Ridge v. Baldwin case as that natural justice is not only to secure justice but to prevent miscarriage of justice. The doctrine of natural justice is a golden rule of law that firmly establishes fair justice to the people. Hence, the petition was allowed and respondents were liable to pay the fine to the appellant.

G.J. Kanga and anr. v. S.S. Basha[7] (1992)

The learned judge, in this case, held that the plaintiff to be granted interim relief claimed in the suit regarding the case Ridge v. Baldwin that the principle of natural justice to be followed and judicial and administrative officers to make any order which is not quasi-judicial and whenever the adverse decision is taken on any person first should inform about the same and give a fair justice considering the background facts and evidence.

Conclusion

By Examining this case we can remember the famous quote by Martin Luther King – “Injustice is anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere[8]”

I can say that both the parties on their hand were correct as the plaintiff was needed a justified notification and proper opportunity of expressing himself to the authority which was not given to him prior because he was acquainted by the conspiracy against the government and on the other hand the watch committee was performing their duty sincerely. The only issue concerned was that there was missing the important principle i.e “Audi alteram partem” which means the opportunity of equal hearing by the plaintiff but in actuality seeing in the present context the natural justice will be controlled by ministers and other authorities established by law. As the law is fixed, the procedure should also be followed according to the law which is problematic for the individual rights of being heard or crashing down the privilege of being heard as the fixed law affects adverse sometimes.

In the 20 century, it is necessary to have a principle like natural justice since there is a lot of illegal activities going on around the globe. The true people should be able to get fair justice and the principle provides the same. If at all this case would not be, then there would be a lot of issues arising on injustice and unfair decisions by the court since natural justice would be seen in a narrow scope. This case has opened the eyes of the law and the law provides justice depending on the facts and applying the principle of natural justice to it. This may also reduce the number of injustices given to the people.

---

References:

[1] “Victor Cousin.” AZQuotes.com. https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1101631. (last visited: 26 August 2021).

[2] Ridge v. Baldwin and others, 2 AII ER 66, (1964), A.C.40, (1964).

[3] Terrell v. Secretary of State for the Colonies, 2 AII ER 490, 1953.

[4] Rex v. Mayor of Stratford, 1 Lev 291, 1670

[5] Darlington school case, 6 Q.B. 682, 1844.

[6] A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150, 2 SCC 262 (1969).

[7] G.J. Kanga and anr. v. S.S. Basha, 1992 (3) BcomCR 582, 95 BOMLR 632 (1993).

[8]Martin Luther King, 15 powerful Martin Luther King Quotes, https://www.amnestyusa.org/15-powerful-martin-luther-king-jr-quotes/ (last visited: 26 Aug, 2021).