INTRODUCTION

The principle of natural justice, also known as procedural fairness, is a fundamental legal
concept that ensures fairness and equity in administrative and judicial proceedings. It is
deeply rooted in the principles of due process and the rule of law. Natural justice seeks to
protect individuals' rights and interests by establishing procedural safeguards against
arbitrary or biased decision-making by authorities.
There are two main components of natural justice:
1. The Right to be Heard (Audi Alteram Partem): This principle asserts that all parties involved
in a legal or administrative proceeding have the right to present their case and respond to the
case against them. It requires decision-makers to give individuals an opportunity to express
their views, provide evidence, and make arguments before a decision is made. This ensures
that decisions are based on all relevant information and perspectives.
2. The Rule Against Bias (Nemo Judex in Causa Sua): This principle prohibits decision-makers
from being biased or having a conflict of interest that could compromise their impartiality. It
requires that decision-makers approach cases with an open mind and without any
preconceived notions or personal interests that could influence their judgment. Any
reasonable apprehension of bias, even if actual bias is absent, can undermine the integrity of
the decision-making process.
These principles are essential for upholding the principles of justice and ensuring that
decisions made by administrative bodies, tribunals, or courts are fair, transparent, and
consistent with the rule of law. They apply in a wide range of contexts, including disciplinary
proceedings, administrative hearings, immigration cases, employment disputes, and judicial
review.
While the specific application of natural justice may vary depending on the legal system and
the nature of the proceedings, its underlying principles serve as a safeguard against arbitrary
or unjust decisions, thereby promoting trust and confidence in the legal system.

BASIC PILLARS OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN INDIA

The natural justice mainly focuses on the following:

1. Nemo judex in causa sua – one cannot be a judge in his own cause also known as the
rule against bias.
2. Audi alteram partem – Hear the other side/party or an opportunity for fair hearing
must be given before passing any order.

• The social and economic justice seen in the Preamble of Constitution is based
on the principles of natural justice.

• Article 311 has many characteristics of natural justice without explicit mention
of it.

• According to Article 14 any violation of natural justice is equivalent to violation

of equality.

ORIGIN OF NATURAL JUSTICE

This principle of Natural Justice was originated in the case of Maclean vs. The Workers
Union and subsequently it has been stated as follows.
“The phrase is, of course, used only in a popular sense and must not be taken to mean
that there is any justice natural among men. Among most savages there is no such thing
as Justice in the modern sense. In ancient days a person wronged executed his own
justice. Amongst our own ancestors, down to the thirteenth century, manifest felony,
such as that of a manslayer taken with his weapon, or a thief with the stolen goods,
might be punished by summary execution without any form of trial. Again, every
student has heard of compurgation and of ordeal; and it is hardly necessary to observe
that (for example) a system of ordeal by water in which sinking was the sign of innocence
and floating the sign of guilt, a system which lasted in this country for hundreds of years,
has little to do with modern ideas of justice. It is unnecessary to give further illustrations.
The truth is that justice is a very elaborate conception, the growth of many centuries of
civilization; and even now the conception differs widely in countries usually described
as civilized”.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
The concept of Principle of natural justice is not a new concept. Natural justice has an
impressive history which has been recognized from the earliest times.The Greeks had
accepted the principle that ‘no man should be condemned unheard’. It was first applied in
 ‘Garden of Eden’ where opportunity to be heard was given to Adam and then providing him
punishment. Some of the evidences of natural justice is also found in Roman law. Principle
of natural justice has also been found in the Kautilya’s Arthsastra, Manusmriti and different
text. Aristotle, before the era of Christ, spoke of such principles calling it as universal law.
Justinian in the fifth and sixth Centuries A.D. called it "'juranaturalia" i.e. natural law. In
India the principle is prevalent from the ancient times. We find it Invoked in Kautllya's
Arthashastra. In this context, para 43 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court In the
case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner2, may be usefully quoted:
“Indeed, natural justice is a pervasive facet of secular law where a spiritual touch enlivens
legislation, administration and adjudication, to make fairness a creed of life. It has many
colours and shades, many forms and shapes and, save where valid law excludes, it applies
when people are affected by acts of authority. It is the bone of healthy government,
recognised from earliest times and not a mystic testament of judge-made law. Indeed from
the legendary days of Adam-and of Kautllya's Arthashastra-the rule of law has had this
stamp of natural justice, which makes it social justice. We need not go into these deeps for
the present except to indicate that the roots of natural justice and its foliage are noble and
not new fangled. Today its application must be sustained by current legislation, case law or
other

PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

ARTICLE 14 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Article 14 guarantees all citizens

equality before law and equal protection of law. It hinders any form of discrimination
and forbids both discriminatory laws and administrative action. Article 14 of
Constitution of India, establishes to be safeguard against any arbitrary or discriminatory
State action. The sphere of equality as embodied in Article 14 has been expanding as a
result of the judicial decisions. This Article laid down a general preposition that all
persons in similar circumstance shall be treated in a similar way both in privileges and
liabilities imposed.

Art 14 manifests in the form of following propositions:

➢ A law granting freehand and unhindered power on an authority is dreadful for being
arbitrary and discriminatory.
➢ Art. 14 illegalize prejudice in the definite exercise of any discretionary power.

➢ Art. 14, smacks at arbitrariness in administrative action and guarantees fairness and
equality of treatment.

In Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Union, the Apex Court held
that “the audi alteram parterm rule, in essence, enforce the equality clause in Article
14 of the Constitution, is applicable not only to quasi-judicial bodies but also to an
administrative order adversely affecting the party unless the rule has been excluded by
the Act in question.” Similarly in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India the Supreme Court
had opined that Article 14is an authority for the proposition that the principles of natural
justice are an integral part of the guarantee of equality assured by Article 14 an order
depriving a person of his civil right passed without affording him an opportunity of being
heard suffers from the vice of violation of natural justice.

There are several cases in which Article 14 of the Constitution of India is invoked in
order to protect the individuals from the violation of natural justice and similarly in
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd v. Brojo Nath, an order of termination
of service of an permanent employee merely by issuing a three months was held to be
invalid and unconstitutional as being depriving the employee of the right and Protection
under Art. 14. The Court ruled that it would strike down, any unfair and unreasonable
clause of a contract entered into between parties who were not equal in bargaining
power. And the Court furthrt held that such an action was in conformity with the
mandate of the “great equality clause in Art. 14.
In Cantonment Board, Dinapore v. Taramani Devi, in this case the Court
observed that the rule of Audi Alteram Parterm is an ingredient of Article 14 of the
Constitution. For the reason that Article 14 states “no order shall be passed at the back
of a person, prejudicial in nature to him, when it entails civil consequences” an in such
a manner Article 14 of the Constitution holds the element of Natural justice into it.
 ARTICLE 21 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA:

The most significant expression under this Article is „procedure established by

law‟ the issue arise whether the above mentioned expression can be read as principles
of natural justice. For which, the Supreme Court of India in majority ruled that the word
„law‟ under Art. 21 could not be read as rules of natural justice. Since, the rules of
natural justice are vague and imprecise and thus the Constitution could not be read as
laying down an indistinguishable standard.

Late Mr. Bhagawati J. stated, “the principle of reasonableness which legally as

well as philosophically is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades
art 14 like a brooding omnipresence”. Therefore, the procedure laid in Article 21 “must
be right, just and fair” and shall not be arbitrary, oppressive, otherwise, it would be no
procedure at all and the requirements under Art. 21 would not be fulfilled.

The Supreme Court has taken a massive inventive step forward in improving the
administration of criminal justice by suggesting that free legal support to poor prisoners
by the State undergoing imprisonment. When an accused is sentenced to imprisonment
by a Court and if the Accused is entitled to appeal against the order/judgment/decree, the
Accused has the right to claim legal aid and if he is unable to meet the expense, the State
shall make all such arrangements in order to provide legal aid. “Now, a procedure which
does not make available legal service to an accused person who is too poor to afford a
lawyer and who would, therefore, have to go through the trial without legal assistance,
cannot possibly be regarded as „reasonable, fair and just”. In India free-legal aid to
differently able persons are considered to be significant element of Natural Justice.

ARTICLE 22 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA:

This Article provides protection to arrested person from arrest and detention in certain
cases which within its sphere contains fundamental element of natural justice,

Article 22 (1) and (2) grants the following fundamental rights upon a arrested person:

i. Right to be informed, instantaneously the grounds for arrest.

ii. Right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.

iii. Right to be produced before the nearest magistrate within twenty-four hours from arrest
excluding of travel from the place of arrest to the Court of Magistrate.

iv. Right not to be detained in custody without the authority of the Magistrate beyond the
period of twenty four hours from arrest.

LEGAL IMPLICATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE:

RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE GROUNDS OF ARREST:

The primary object of this provision is that the arrested person shall be
communicated the ground for arrest. Since, on the knowledge of the grounds of arrest,
the arrested person shall make arrangements for necessary legal remedies and shall also
make an application before an appropriate court with Application for bail or also utilize
the remedy of approaching the High Court with a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Apex
Court observed that Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India represents a rule which
has at all times regarded as vital and fundamental for protection of personal liberty in all
legal systems where the Rule of Law prevails. Any such communicated grounds made to
the arrested person shall be precise, defined, clear and unambiguous, in any case if the
grounds are not wholly unveiled to accused than it shall amount to denial of „fair
hearing‟ and ultimately shall result into violation of Natural Justice. In re, Madhu
Limaye the facts being; Madhu Limaye, Member of the Lok Sabha along with several
other persons were arrested. Madhu Limaye, one of the arrested persons addressed a
petition in the form of a letter to the Apex Court by invoking Article 32 of the
Constitution and thereby pointing out that he along with several other members had
been arrested but no ground for such an arrest was communicated. The Supreme Court
observed that Article 22 (1) embodies a rule which has always been regarded as vital and
fundamental for safeguarding personal liberty in all legal systems where the Rule of Law
prevails. In Joginder Kumar V. State of U.P. The Supreme Court observed that no arrest
can be made because it is lawful for the Police officer to do so. The existence of the
power to arrest is one thing. Arrest and detention in lock-up of a person can cause
incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest should be
made byPolice Officer without reasonable satisfaction after some investigation as to the
genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person's
complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. If an Accused is sentenced to
imprisonment, it is nearly unable to exercise the constitutional or statutory right of
appeal of the Accused, inclusive of special leave to appeal for want of legal assistance.
The court may judge the situation and consider from all angles whether it is necessary
for the ends of justice to make available legal aid in the particular case. This is the present
position pertaining to legal representation to the arrested person under Article 22(1).

ARTICLE 32, 226 AND 227:

Article 32 and 226 of the constitution provides for remedies for violation of
fundamental Rights and as well as other statutory rights, Under Article 32 and Article
226 the remedies can be exercised by seeking for orders for issuance appropriate Writ,
Directions and Orders. In U.P.Warehousing Corporation V. Vinay Narayan Vajpayee,
the Court held that Writ of certiorari or prohibition usually goes to a body which is
bound to act fairly or according to natural justice and it fails to do so. In the same manner
where the decision is affected by bias, personal, or pecuniary, or subject matter as the
case may be considered as violation of principle of natural justice. In such circumstances
also writ of certiorari and prohibition can be issued both Under Art 32 and 226. In
Gullapalli Nageshwar Rao V. APSRTC the SC quashed the decision of the AP Govt.,
nationalizing Road transport on the ground that the Secretary of the Transport
Department who was given a hearing was interested in the subject matter. Any order
made in violation of principles of natural justice is void ab-initio and is liable to be
annulled and cancelled. The Supreme Court in Nawabkhan Abbaskhan V.State of
Gujarat held that an order which infringes a fundamental freedom passed in violation of
the audi alteram partem rule is a nullity. When a competent court holds such official act
or order invalid or sets it aside, it operates from nativity i.e. the impugned act or order was
never valid. Apart from Art.32 and 226, it is Art 227 which can be used by High Court as
another extraordinary weapon to prevent violation principles of natural justice in any of
the lower courts or tribunals.
ART. 311 AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE:

Art 311 deals with removal, Dismissal or reduction in rank of persons employed in
civil capacities under the Union or State, though Art. 310 of the constitution adapts
“doctrine of Pleasure”. The expression “reasonable opportunity of being heard” includes
all the aspects of the principles of natural justice and accordingly no dismissal, removal,
or reduction of rank of civil servant can be ordered without giving reasonable opportunity
of being heard. In Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Behari Misra, the following question
was raised: when the inquiry officer, during the course of the disciplinary proceedings,
comes to the conclusion that the charges of misconduct against an official are not
proved, then can the disciplinary authority differ from that view and give a contrary
finding without affording and opportunity to the delinquent officer The Court has ruled
that natural justice demands that the authority which proposes to hold the delinquent
officer guilty must give him a hearing. If the inquiry officer olds the charges to be proved
then the report has to be given to the delinquent officer who can make a representation
before the disciplinary authority takes further action prejudicial to the delinquent officer.
 CONCLUSION

In essence, the principle of natural justice forms the cornerstone of fair and just legal systems
globally. It guarantees individuals the right to a fair hearing and prohibits decision-makers from
acting with bias or conflicts of interest. By adhering to these principles, legal proceedings maintain
their integrity, ensuring that outcomes are reached through transparent and impartial processes.
This not only upholds the rule of law but also safeguards individual rights, fostering public trust in
the legitimacy of the judicial system.
Moreover, natural justice serves as a vital safeguard against arbitrary or unjust decisions, promoting
accountability and fairness in administrative and judicial proceedings. By providing individuals
with the opportunity to present their case and addressing any potential biases or conflicts of interest,
natural justice reinforces the principles of equality and due process. In doing so, it contributes to
the preservation of democratic values and the protection of fundamental rights within societies,
ultimately promoting a more just and equitable legal framework for all individuals.

In a welfare state like India, the responsibility of administrative agencies is escalating at a rapid pace
and with rapid growth of state liability and civic needs of the people. Under Article 14 & Article 21
of the Constitution of India, the articles firmly deal with the principles of natural justice. The
violation of principles of natural justice shall results in arbitrariness; therefore, violation of natural
justice is also a violation of Right to Equality under Article 14. Natural Justice has its foundation on
good conscience and human values that follows a fair procedure. If the state doesn‟t discharge its
function in a just and fair manner the Rule of Law would lose its validity.
 REFERENCES

BOOKS

1. Prof. M.P.Jain, “Indian Constitutional Law”, 6th Ed, Lexis Nexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2010.
2. Durga Das Basu, “Case Book on Indain Constitutional Law”, 2nd Ed, Kamal
Law House, Kolkata, 2007.
3. Dr.J.N.Pandey, “The Constitutional Law of India”, 49th Ed, Central Law
Agency, Allahabad, 2012.
4. P.M.Bakshi, “The Constitution of India”, 11th Ed, Universal Law Publishing
Co., New Delhi, 2011.
CASES

5. Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chief Election on 2 December, 1977 1978
AIR 851, 1978 SCR (3) 272.
6. Builders Supply Corporation vs The Union Of India on 30 November, 1964 1965
AIR 1061, 1965 SCR (1) 289
7. A.K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1969 SC 150

8. Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

9. lapointe vs association 1906 AC 535 (539).

10. Srikrishna vs state of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1977 SC 1691

11. State Of U.P. & Ors.Etc vs Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti on 24 March, 1995
AIR 1512, 1995 SCC Supl. (2) 305
12. State Of U.P vs Vijay Kumar Tripathi

ARTICLES

13. Allan ,T (revor) R.S (1998), “procedural Fairness and the duty of respect”,
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 18(3):497-515
14. Binmore,Ken (neth George)(2005), natural Justice,New York ,Oxford University Press.
15. Gaig,paul(p)(2005) natural Justice hearing ;natural justice; Bais and
independence (ch3.12- 13),administration law (6th edition).,
16. David Shapiro in defence of judicial condor (1987) 100 Harvard law review 731-737

17. Dr.Lakshmi T and Rajeshkumar S “In Vitro Evaluation of Anticariogenic

Activity of Acacia Catechu against Selected Microbes”, International Research
Journal of Multidisciplinary Science & Technology, Volume No. 3 , Issue No. 3,
P.No 20-25, March 2018.

18. Trishala A , Lakshmi T and Rajeshkumar S,“ Physicochemical profile of

Acacia catechu bark extract –An In vitro study”, International Research Journal of
Multidisciplinary Science & Technology, Volume No. 3 , Issue No. 4, P.No 26-
30, April 2018.

WEBSITES

17. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/administrative-law-643-1.html

18. http://www.lawnotes.in/Principles_of_Natural_Justice

19. http://www.lawvedic.com/article/principles-of-natural-justice-in-indian-constitution-177

20. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/principles-of-natural-justice-
in-indian- constitution-1519-1.ht