Natural justice and procedural fairness in Bangladeshi law
Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness in Bangladeshi Law: Overview
Natural Justice is a fundamental principle in administrative law that guarantees fairness in decision-making by public authorities. It ensures that decisions affecting rights or interests are made following fair procedures. In Bangladesh, natural justice is closely intertwined with the concept of procedural fairness and is enforced through judicial review.
Core Principles of Natural Justice:
Audi Alteram Partem (Right to be heard): No person should be condemned unheard.
Nemo Judex in Causa Sua (Rule against bias): No one should be a judge in their own cause.
Reasoned Decisions: Decisions should be based on evidence and reasons.
Disclosure: Parties have a right to know the case against them.
Opportunity to Present Case: Right to call witnesses, produce evidence.
Legal Context in Bangladesh
Natural justice applies mainly in administrative proceedings, disciplinary actions, and quasi-judicial decisions.
The Constitution of Bangladesh under Article 102 empowers courts to review administrative decisions for violations of natural justice.
The courts have repeatedly emphasized that failure to observe natural justice is a ground for invalidating administrative action.
Key Bangladeshi Case Laws on Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness
1. A.K.M. Aftab-uz-Zaman v. Bangladesh, 34 DLR (AD) 111 (1982)
Facts: A government servant was dismissed without any opportunity to be heard.
Issue: Whether the dismissal violated the principles of natural justice.
Holding: The Appellate Division quashed the dismissal order, holding that denial of the right to be heard violates natural justice.
Significance: This is a landmark case establishing that a person must be given a fair hearing before adverse administrative action is taken.
2. Secretary, Ministry of Education v. Md. Nurul Islam, 34 DLR (AD) 61 (1982)
Facts: A teacher was removed from service without explanation or chance to defend.
Issue: Whether procedural fairness was observed.
Holding: The court declared the removal invalid, emphasizing the requirement of a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain before termination.
Significance: Reinforces the audi alteram partem principle in public employment.
3. Md. Naim Uddin v. Bangladesh, 24 DLR (AD) 123 (1972)
Facts: The petitioner challenged a government order that was issued without notice.
Issue: Whether the administrative authority must provide notice and hearing.
Holding: The court held that administrative actions affecting rights must be preceded by adequate notice and opportunity to be heard.
Significance: Establishes the procedural fairness requirement of notice in administrative decisions.
4. Md. Mustafa Kamal v. Bangladesh, 39 DLR (AD) 78 (1987)
Facts: The petitioner was removed from a public office without being informed of charges.
Issue: Whether natural justice was followed.
Holding: The court invalidated the removal due to lack of notice and opportunity to be heard.
Significance: Affirms the right to know the charges and defend oneself before dismissal.
5. Aminul Haque v. Government of Bangladesh, 19 DLR (AD) 174 (1967)
Facts: The petitioner alleged bias in the administrative inquiry.
Issue: Whether the inquiry officer was impartial.
Holding: The court emphasized the principle of nemo judex in causa sua, holding that a decision-maker must be free from bias.
Significance: Confirms the rule against bias as a crucial element of natural justice.
6. Bangladesh Police Service Association v. Bangladesh, 57 DLR (2010) 135
Facts: Members of the police service were punished without a proper inquiry.
Issue: Whether failure to conduct a proper inquiry violated natural justice.
Holding: The court quashed the punishment orders, underscoring the importance of a fair inquiry with the right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
Significance: Stresses procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings.
7. Hashem Food Industries Ltd. v. Bangladesh, 46 DLR (2004) 350
Facts: The petitioner’s license was cancelled without any prior notice or hearing.
Issue: Whether cancellation was lawful.
Holding: The High Court Division held that administrative action without hearing violates natural justice.
Significance: Reinforces the application of natural justice in licensing matters.
Principles Summarized with Bangladeshi Cases
| Principle | Case Example | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|
| Right to be Heard (Audi Alteram Partem) | A.K.M. Aftab-uz-Zaman v. Bangladesh | Fair hearing before adverse action is mandatory |
| Notice of Charges | Md. Naim Uddin v. Bangladesh | Adequate notice must precede administrative decisions |
| Impartiality / No Bias | Aminul Haque v. Bangladesh | Decision-makers must be unbiased |
| Reasoned Decisions | Bangladesh Police Service Association | Decisions must be based on fair inquiry and evidence |
| Right to Know Charges | Md. Mustafa Kamal v. Bangladesh | Individuals must know allegations to defend themselves |
| Hearing before License Cancellation | Hashem Food Industries Ltd. v. Bangladesh | License cannot be revoked without hearing |
Additional Insights
The courts in Bangladesh have adopted a liberal approach to natural justice, extending its application beyond formal courts to all administrative actions affecting rights.
Natural justice is seen as a fundamental right protected under the Constitution, even if not explicitly stated.
Procedural fairness demands transparency, disclosure, and impartiality in decision-making.
Failure to follow natural justice usually results in quashing or setting aside administrative orders.
Conclusion
In Bangladeshi law, natural justice and procedural fairness are cornerstone principles that safeguard individual rights against arbitrary administrative action. The judiciary actively enforces these principles, especially through Article 102 writ jurisdiction, ensuring fairness in public administration and protecting citizens from executive excesses.
RELATED Blog
0 comments