Introduction

This article talks about “Principles of Natural Justice”. Fair exercise of powers and fair decision making are very crucial for a healthy society. This is achieved when powers are exercised as per fair procedures.

Meaning of natural justice: Natural justice is the fundamental doctrine of law for ensuring fairness, justice and equity in the decision making.

There are 2 main principles of natural justice – Audi Alteram Partem and Rule Against Bias.

Objectives of Principles of Natural Justice :-

• To ensure fairness
• To ensure impartiality
• To ensure unbiased decisions
• To impart justice

Principles of Natural Justice :-

2 main principles of Natural Justice are namely :-

1. Rule Against Bias – Which means no one can be judge in his own case. The maxim is “Nemo judex in causa sua.”

2. Audi Alteram Partem – Which means ‘hear the other party as well’ and no one should be condemned unheard.

*There is no requirement of express provision in any statute to give effect to Natural Justice. This principle is implied one that while deciding rights of parties, Natural justice principles should be obeyed. Otherwise, a decision with disregard to Natural Justice is in bad eyes of law.

1. Rue Against Bias

Meaning – It means the decision making must be unbiased and impartial.

Maxim governing this principle – It is ‘Nemo judex in causa sua’. Which means no one shall be judge in his own case. That means the deciding authority has to be impartial and unbiased.

2 Key Principles behind this Rule –

1. First key principle is that no one should be judge in his own case.
2. Second one says that justice should be actually done and not merely seem to be done.

Meaning of Bias –

Bias means a partial point if view to decide in favour of a certain party, thus disregarding the actual merits if the case.

Kinds of Bias –

It may be

1. Personal bias
2. Subject matter bias
3. Pecuniary bias
4. Departmental bias
5. Policy bias

1. Personal Bias –

It arises due to existence of a certain relationship between the judge and any of the parties eg. the judge being a friend or family member or relative if any party or the judge having a feeling of grudge, enmity, rivalry towards any party. These instances give birth to likelihood of bias or partiality in the decision making.

Case – Mineral Development Ltd. v/s State of Bihar AIR 1960 SC 468. The petitioner has got a mining license for 99 years in the year 1947. But this license was cancelled by a minister due to personal rivalry, The court held that it was personal bias of the minister and therefore the rule of NJ was disregarded by him.

2. Pecuniary bias

pecuniary means ‘money related’. This principle says that even a minimal amount of pecuniary or monetary interest will disqualify the person from giving decision.

Case: In Bonham’s case (1610 )8 Co Rep 113 (b), there was a doctor Bonham that belonged to Cambridge University. He was imposed with a fine by the college of physicians for practising without the college licence.

There was a rule that the fine amount would be distributed half between the king and the college. The act of college i.e. imposing fine was held against natural justice as the college had pecuniary interest in the decision.

3. Subject matter bias

For this disqualification, there must be an interest of the judge in the subject matter of the litigation. Such interest shall have a direct connection with the case. A mere interest in the general object is not enough for the disqualification.

Case: R v. Deal Justice exparte Curling (1881) 45 LT 439, the magistrate who was a member of the Royal Society for Prevention of cruelty to animals was not disqualified from hearing a matter on the cruelty of animals.

4. Departmental bias: This stems from the department or administrative relations and processes.

Case: In the case of Kondala Rao v. AP Transport corporation AIR 1961 Supreme court 82

There was a minister of transport who presided over a meeting of an official committee favoring nationalization of bus services. Later objections were invited on the same which were again heard by him. The court rejected the bias as it was not in the form of any decision but merely discussions.

5. Policy bias: This means that when some official of the minister makes an announcement of policy to be made, the would be disqualified later from deciding matters on it or not? The answer to this question as general rule is no.

Case: In T. Govindraj Mudaliar v. state of Tamil Nadu AIR 1973 SC 974 , the home secretary was a member of committee to nationalize the road transport. Later on, the contention was raised that he can’t hear objections due to policy bias. The court rejected it as that person had merely helped in preparing the policy.

2. Audi Alteram Partem:

This means that an opportunity of hearing must be given to both the parties and no one shall be condemned unheard. This principle has two aspects: (i) notice, (ii) hearing

(i) Notice: When some action is to be taken against a person, he has to be provided with a prior notice. That notice should have the following qualities.

• It must be clear
• It must be unambiguous
• It must be certain
• It must be specific and not vague
• It must contain time and place of hearing
• It must specify the nature of hearing
• It must specify the jurisdiction of hearing
• It must specify the context on which hearing is to be held
• It must give a reasonable opportunity to appear

(ii) Hearing: No one should be condemned unheard. The opportunity given to such a person to be heard must be reasonable. There are two important points to be noted in this regard.

• The judge should exercise the power independently and not under dictation.
• He should not make decisions in haste.

Case: In the case of Mahadayal Premchandra v. Commercial tax officer AIR 1958 SC 667

the CTO examined the appellant’s case and came to the conclusion that he is not liable to pay sales tax. He asked another senior officer to give his opinion on this matter and on the basis of opinion of the senior officer that person was imposed with tax. The SC held that the natural justice principle was violated in this case.

Also read:

1. https://kanoonnotes.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=1655&action=edit : the golden rule of interpretation
2. https://kanoonnotes.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=1615&action=edit : doctrine of severability, eclipse and waiver