Application of Principles of Natural Justice under Indian Constitution
š Application of Principles of Natural Justice under the Indian Constitution
š What Are the Principles of Natural Justice?
Natural Justice is a foundational legal doctrine aimed at ensuring fairness, impartiality, and reasonableness in the decision-making process of administrative, quasi-judicial, or judicial authorities.
The two core rules are:
Nemo judex in causa sua ā No one shall be a judge in their own cause (Rule against bias)
Audi alteram partem ā Hear the other side (Right to a fair hearing)
These principles are not codified laws but have been recognized as essential elements of fair procedure under the Indian Constitution.
š Constitutional Basis
1. Article 14 ā Equality before law
Ensures non-arbitrary treatment and fairness in administrative action.
Natural justice flows from Article 14's guarantee against arbitrary state actions.
2. Article 21 ā Protection of life and personal liberty
Any action that impacts life or liberty must follow ājust, fair, and reasonable procedure.ā
This has been judicially interpreted to include natural justice.
š Importance in Administrative Law
Administrative authorities are not above the law. Their actions must comply with natural justice, especially when:
Penal consequences arise (e.g., dismissal, blacklisting)
Rights, duties, or privileges are affected
Discretionary powers are used
āļø Key Case Laws Applying Principles of Natural Justice
Letās explore more than four landmark cases where Indian courts have applied and elaborated the principles of natural justice:
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) AIR 597 SC
Facts:
The petitionerās passport was impounded without being informed of the reasons or being given an opportunity to be heard.
Issue:
Whether impounding the passport without hearing violated Article 21 and natural justice?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that fair procedure is part of Article 21, and natural justice must be followed. Right to be heard is essential even in administrative decisions affecting personal liberty.
Significance:
Expanded Article 21 to include procedural fairness
Laid the foundation for natural justice in administrative actions
2. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1970) AIR 150 SC
Facts:
A selection board member was also a candidate for promotion, raising questions of bias.
Issue:
Can a person be both judge and party in the same matter?
Held:
The Court quashed the selection and held that āadministrative actions with civil consequences must follow natural justiceā. Bias violates nemo judex in causa sua.
Significance:
Blurred the distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial functions
Ensured that fairness applies to all decision-making bodies
3. D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. (1993) AIR 95 SC
Facts:
An employee was dismissed without a notice or hearing.
Issue:
Is dismissal without hearing a violation of natural justice and Article 21?
Held:
Yes. Even in private employment, when rights are at stake, audi alteram partem must be followed. The employer violated due process.
Significance:
Applies natural justice to employment matters
Ties Article 21 to job-related civil consequences
4. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) AIR 1416 SC
Facts:
Certain government employees were dismissed without inquiry, invoking exceptions under Article 311(2).
Issue:
Can natural justice be excluded by administrative necessity?
Held:
Natural justice can be excluded only under exceptional circumstances (e.g., public interest, national security). But the reason must be compelling and recorded.
Significance:
Natural justice is the default rule, but limited exceptions exist
The burden lies on the state to justify the exclusion
5. Canara Bank v. Debasis Das (2003) AIR 2041 SC
Facts:
A bank officer was dismissed without being supplied the enquiry report.
Issue:
Is failure to provide enquiry report a denial of natural justice?
Held:
Yes. The right to receive material relied upon in proceedings is part of audi alteram partem.
Significance:
Extends natural justice to post-enquiry stages
Ensures access to evidence for a fair defence
6. Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) AIR 851 SC
Facts:
The Election Commission cancelled an election without giving the candidate an opportunity to be heard.
Issue:
Was the action arbitrary and violative of natural justice?
Held:
Yes. Even discretionary powers must be exercised fairly and transparently. Candidate should have been heard.
Significance:
Natural justice applies to constitutional authorities
Limits discretionary powers through fair procedure
š Summary Table
| Case | Principle Applied | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India | Audi alteram partem | Administrative actions must follow fair procedure under Art. 21 |
| A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India | Nemo judex in causa sua | Bias invalidates selection even if itās an administrative process |
| D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries | Audi alteram partem | Dismissal without hearing violates natural justice and Art. 21 |
| Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel | Exceptions to natural justice | Can be excluded only in extreme situations and must be justified |
| Canara Bank v. Debasis Das | Right to evidence and defence | Natural justice includes providing enquiry reports or material used |
| Mohinder Singh Gill v. CEC | Fairness in discretionary decisions | All public authorities must adhere to fairness, even if not mandated explicitly |
ā Conclusion
Natural justice is not a mere formalityāit is a constitutional necessity. Through its application in administrative, disciplinary, and quasi-judicial matters, courts have ensured that fairness, impartiality, and transparency are embedded in the governance process.
Even where the Constitution or statute is silent, courts have read natural justice into the law using Articles 14 and 21. Unless specifically and reasonably excluded, natural justice must be followed in all administrative actions that affect rights or interests.
RELATED Blog
0 comments