The two limbs of principles of Natural Justice - the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing
🌿 Principles of Natural Justice
Natural justice is a fundamental aspect of fair procedure in both judicial and administrative proceedings. It ensures that decisions are made impartially, and individuals have a fair opportunity to present their case.
✅ The Two Main Limbs:
Nemo judex in causa sua – Rule against bias: No one should be a judge in their own cause.
Audi alteram partem – Right to a fair hearing: Hear the other side; no one should be condemned unheard.
These principles are not codified laws but are recognized as essential components of fairness and procedural due process.
⚖️ I. Rule Against Bias (Nemo Judex in Causa Sua)
🧭 Meaning:
No decision-maker should have a personal interest, prejudice, or bias in the outcome.
Even the appearance of bias is sufficient to invalidate a decision.
🔑 Types of Bias:
Pecuniary Bias – Financial interest in the outcome.
Personal Bias – Relationship with one of the parties.
Official Bias – Preconceived policy or view on the issue.
📚 Key Case Laws on Rule Against Bias:
1. Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal (1852) – UK
Facts: The Lord Chancellor (judge) was a shareholder in the canal company that benefited from his ruling.
Held: Even though he may not have acted improperly, appearance of pecuniary bias was sufficient to vitiate the decision.
Significance: Introduced strict standard on pecuniary bias—actual bias not required; appearance alone is enough.
2. R v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2) (1999) – UK
Facts: One of the Lords sitting on the case was linked to Amnesty International, which was involved in the case.
Held: The decision was set aside due to non-disclosure of interest, even though there was no personal gain.
Significance: Extended bias to institutional association, emphasizing neutrality and transparency.
3. Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand (1957) – India
Facts: A member of the disciplinary committee had earlier appeared as a lawyer for the complainant.
Held: The presence of personal bias invalidated the proceedings.
Significance: Clarified that even a possibility of bias is enough to render proceedings unfair.
4. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) – India
Facts: One of the members of the selection board was also a candidate.
Held: The presence of official bias violated principles of natural justice.
Significance: Merged administrative and quasi-judicial functions under natural justice and invalidated the selection.
🗣️ II. Right to a Fair Hearing (Audi Alteram Partem)
🧭 Meaning:
No one should be condemned or punished without being given a chance to present their case, know the charges, and rebut evidence.
This includes:
Right to notice.
Right to representation.
Right to cross-examine witnesses.
Right to access evidence and reasoning.
📚 Key Case Laws on Right to Fair Hearing:
5. Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) – UK
Facts: A police officer was dismissed without being given a chance to defend himself.
Held: The dismissal was void for violation of the right to a fair hearing.
Significance: Restored the importance of natural justice even in administrative actions.
6. Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) – India
Facts: Election Commission canceled an election without hearing the affected candidate.
Held: The decision violated audi alteram partem and was declared void.
Significance: Reinforced that fair hearing is mandatory, even in discretionary powers.
7. State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei (1967) – India
Facts: The government changed the date of birth of a government servant without hearing her.
Held: Even administrative orders affecting rights require prior hearing.
Significance: Confirmed that no decision affecting rights can be taken unilaterally.
8. Canara Bank v. Debasis Das (2003) – India
Facts: Employee was dismissed without being given a proper opportunity to respond to charges.
Held: Dismissal violated natural justice; emphasized notice and opportunity to respond.
Significance: Reiterated the importance of a structured and meaningful hearing.
🧾 Summary Table of Case Laws
| Principle | Case Name | Jurisdiction | Key Holding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule Against Bias | Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal | UK | Pecuniary bias invalidates judgment |
| Rule Against Bias | Pinochet Case (1999) | UK | Association-based bias is enough |
| Rule Against Bias | Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand | India | Personal bias invalidates decision |
| Rule Against Bias | A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India | India | Official bias renders selection void |
| Fair Hearing | Ridge v. Baldwin | UK | Dismissal without hearing is invalid |
| Fair Hearing | Mohinder Singh Gill v. CEC | India | Hearing mandatory even in discretionary power |
| Fair Hearing | Binapani Dei Case | India | Even administrative decisions require hearing |
| Fair Hearing | Canara Bank v. Debasis Das | India | Proper notice and response opportunity essential |
🔍 Conclusion
The two limbs of natural justice—the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing—are indispensable components of due process in any civilised legal system. Courts in the UK, USA, and India have consistently enforced these principles to ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done.
Even if the law does not specifically require a hearing, fairness in action is presumed unless clearly excluded. The evolution of case law shows the increasing commitment of the judiciary to uphold these timeless principles.
RELATED Blog
0 comments