PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL

JUSTICE

EXPECTATIONS
While dealing with employees, it is natural that instances
of indiscipline may come up.
Employees expect that management must be just and fair
on them.
Management also wants to be just and fair.
Principles of natural justice are generally followed while
dealing with the acts of indiscipline. Natural justice is
different from legal justice.
The basis of proof is preponderance of probability in
natural justice, while it is beyond reasonable doubt in legal
justice.

CARDINAL PRINCIPLES
The principles of natural justice are enshrined
in our constitution. But broadly, there are two
cardinal principles :
The accused person must have an adequate
opportunity to present his defence to prove his
innocence. The principle is based on the legal
maxim Audi alteram partem literally meaning
Hear the other side.
The proceedings must be free from prejudice
or bias of any kind. The principle is based on
the legal maxim Nemo judex in causa sua
literally meaning No one shall be a judge in
his own cause.
Lord Denning has summed up these two
principles as impartiality and Fairness.

IMPORTANT SUPREME COURT

DECISIONS
In AK Kraipak Case, the Supreme Court observed
that the horizon of Natural Justice is constantly
expanding. The aim of the rules of Natural Justice
is to prevent miscarriage of Justice
Kraipak has demolished the wall between
administrative and quassi judicial function for the
purpose of applicability of the rules of natural
justice

IMPORTANT SUPREME COURT

DECISIONS
In the Maneka Gandhis case, the concept
was further enlarged. It was considered that
Natural Justice is a flexible concept, and
may be changed to suit the circumstances.
The Court clearly stated that for the purpose
of applying Natural Justice, there can be no
distinction between quassi judicial function
and administrative function.

In the following situations, it was held that the

authority must decide after observing the
principles of Natural Justice
i.

Whether a student used

unfair means in an
examination
ii. Cancellation of result of a
student, on the ground of
inadequate attendance
iii. Deciding a correct date of
birth of an employee
iv. Dismissal of a vicechancellor
v. Selection of an officer by a
selecting committee

vi. Selection of a candidate by a

Public Service Commission
vii.Blacklisting of a contractor
viii.Impounding of a passport
ix. Cancellation of a License
x. Supersession of a Municipality
xi. Refusal of a License
xii.Cancellation of a Mining Lease
xiii.Discplinary Action against a
student or an employee

In the following Cases Natural

Justice May not be followed
1. In framing delegated Legislation ie. Rules,
regulations etc.
2. Where an administrative action affects a large
no. of persons . Eg. Bhopal disaster case
3. Where prompt action is required
4. Where national security is involved
5. Where case falls within the 2nd provisio of
Article 311 (2)
6. Where the principles of natural justice have been
excluded by an expressed provision of an Act

FAIR PLAY IN ACTION

In actual practice, the principles
of Natural Justice are nothing
but fair play in action. In Sawal
Singh v/s State of Rajasthan,
AIR 1985 SC 995, the Supreme
Court observed :
In a departmental inquiry
entailing consequences like loss of
job which now-a-days mean loss of
livelihood, there must be fair play
in action

FIRST MAXIM
Audi alterem partem Hear the other side
gives birth to some of the rules :
A notice to be given
A chargesheet should be given which is not
vague and details of hearing, including
venue date, time and the person who will
hear has to be indicated.

FIRST MAXIM FAIR HEARING

Disclosure of materials
Opportunity to adduce all relevant evidence
No evidence behind the back
Opportunity to cross examine
Opportunity to explain material
Undisclosed material
Oral hearing
Right to appear through an advocate
Speaking order

SECOND MAXIM
Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa
No one should be a judge in his own cause.
It means that the judge must be impartial
and act in good faith.
The ingredients of this maxim is bias
Interest in the cause
Personal bias
Pecuniary bias

THIRD MAXIM
Justice should not only be done,
but should manifestly and
undoubtedly seen to be done

EXCEPTION TO BIAS
Statutory Authority When an Act or Rule prescribes that a
department or organisation shall constiute a
Tribunal and may appoint any of its employee
to it

Agreement
Where parties mutually agree to appoint any of
its employee as arbitrator

EXCEPTION TO BIAS
Contempt Of Court
The inherent power of Court to punish for its
own contempt, is a well recognized exception.

Necessity
In certain cases, no other person may be able to
take the place of the adjudicator, and so out of
necessity he may be obliged to act.

EXCEPTION TO BIAS
Waiver
A party which is aware of the fact causing the
bias giving rise to disqualification should raise
the objection before the Tribunal.
If it does not object or otherwise acquiesces in
the proceedings, it cannot later move the court
to quash the proceedings.
The party is deemed to have waived the
objections.

Rules of Natural Justice vary

with the varying constitution
of statutory bodies and the
rules prescribed by the Act
under which they function

NATURE OF DEPARTMENTAL
PROCEEDINGS-1
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS ARE QUASI JIDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS.
QUASI MEANS NOT EXACTLY
A QUASI JUDICIAL DECISION IS THEREFORE ONE
WHICH HAS SOME OF THE ATTRIBUTES OF A
JUDICIAL DECISION BUT NOT ALL.
STATUTES LIKE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE CODE AND EVIDENCE ACT ARE NOT
APPLICABLE TO D.E.s

NATURE OF DEPARTMENTAL
PROCEEDINGS-2
HOWEVER, THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
EMBODIED IN THEM ARE APPLICABLE TO D.E.s IN SO
FAR AS SUCH FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES ARE
BASED ON PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.
THE PROCESS OF FINDING THE GUILT AND GIVING
THE PUNISHMENT ORDER ARE BOTH QUASI
JUDICIAL
DEGREE OF PROOF IN A D.E. IS BASED ON
PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY RATHER THAN
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
RULES OF D.E. ARE PROCEDURAL LAW BUT ARE
FLEXIBLE SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT CUT ACROSS
PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

THANK YOU