History of Natural Justice
The Natural justice as of the beginning of this concept as from the beginning of the laws and customs from the past history when justice started developing , taking its shape in justice.
The Principle of natural justice is to ensure equility to individual liberty and justice against any arbitrary action by the authority or by any individual. So therefore to maintain the public trust in justice, confidence in the legal system.
There are some bifercation in the Natural justice as Audi alterm partem and rule of Law. There are several cases which talk about the natural justice as:-
Natural justice Case: Vionett v/s Barrett, 1985
In this case it was held that the natural sense of what is right and what is wrong was envisaged under this case law, by lord esher.
Case: Hopkins v/s Smethwick local board of health 1890
The reference of the above case the further statement in this case was that queen’s bench the natural justice was defined and co-related with fundamental justice.
According to Wade and Foreyth natural justice is the natural sense of what is right or what is wrong.
Lord porker natural justice as duty to act fairly. Justice Bhagwati natural justice is as fair play in actions.
Scope of Natural justice
Case: union of India v/s Pk roy, 1968 AIR.
In this case it was held that exteranal and scope of natural justice i.e Doctrine – straight jacket formula.
Reasonable suspicion of bias
Tribunals are bound to follow the rules, there is no specific case for natural justice, but is any case instituted, then court will require a reasonable suspicion of bias, if any rights are infringing the natural justice or natural rights.
Case: Jeevan k lohia v/s durga dutta lohia ,1992 SC. One of the arbitrator was terminated because he was not able to pronounce the judgement. But the court has to check that the delevering of judgement should be universal and not according to the peopl’s mind.
Supreme court observes that with regard to the bias the test to be applied is not weather, infact biased has affected the judgment but weather a litigate put reasonablly apprehent that a bias attributable might have operated aginst him in the final.
There are some case important such as
- Maink lal v/s Dr. premchand AIR 1957
- A.K kraipak v/s union of India, 1969, Supreme court.
- J.Mohan patra and company v/s state of Orissa 1984.
- A.k gopalan v/s state of madras, 1950
- Justice Fazal Ali acepted of pronounced 4 essentials of the concept of natural justice
- Notice
- opportunity to heared
- An impartial tribunal
- orderly course of justice.
- Justice Fazal Ali acepted of pronounced 4 essentials of the concept of natural justice
Types of Natural justice
Personal biasness
Personal Biasness arises from the certain relationships equation between the decideing authority and the parties which inclined him unfavourably or other, on the side of one of the parties before him. It include the Family, Friends, hostility etc which may realtionship to the party.
- Case: Mineral development corporation limited v/s state of bihar 1960 AIR
- Licence for mining not for the land for the period of 99 years.
- There are famous maxim that relate to its definition of the personal biasness such as
Aliguis non- debet esse judex in propria causa quia non- potest esse judex, at pass meaning
No man ought to be a judge in his own case because he can not act as judge and at the same time be a party.
Nepo potest esse simul actor et judex meaning
No one can be at once judge as well as jurist and a suiter at the same time.
Pecunary bias
pecunary bias is the bias which is realted to financial or the money related in performing justice to the person. Case : Jeejeebhoy v/s assistant collector, thana 1965
Subject matter bias
Case: R v/s deal justice exp curling 1881, Fortune and cruetly on the animals, the person was the head of the tribunal he was hearing officer so he cannot be biased for the judgement.
Departmental or institution biased
Case: Hari v/s deputy commissioner of police, AIR 1956, This was inquiry was aginst the constable the person from the committee given the judgement in favour of the constable.
Pre-conceived notion biased
Example: If the judge listen the case, so it does not means that he does not known anything from prior.
Doctrine of Necessity
Case: In reference vijay chandra mishra concept of court has been done, in this case.
Doctrine of Audi Alteram partem
Maxim: Qui alquid statuerit parte inauguun licet direrit, hard aeguum jacerit meaning
The person who shall decide anything, without the outsider from heard, although he, may have set what is right and wrong is the meaning of the above mentioned maxima.
Rule of procedure in the court Natural justice
- Notice : some are the basic element of notice
- time
- place
- nature of hearing
- legal authority under which hearing is to be held.
- statement of specific charges which the person has to o through or the person has to meet.
- He should be given time to know and colect the evidence against him.
- He will be provided with the chance of fair rebuttal.
- In case of reburtation/ rebuttal , the legal representation parties have to present their case in the court with the documentary face.
- Both the parties can have option of cross examination.
- He wil get the right to present the case and give evidence .
- No evidence should be taken at the back of the other party.
- Report of the enquiry to be shown to the other party.
Reasoned decision and speaking order
Case: MJ siwani v/s state of karnataka. In this case the court pronounced that, when the rules direct recording of reasons it is assigned to and the condition precedent for a valid order.
Institutional decision
- Case: local government board case of UK in this case the uk government is very liberal in this, it says says that it is tribunal and hearing officer can be change.
Finanicial incapacity to attend the inquiry
Case: Ghanshyam das shrivastava v/s state of madhya pradesh.
Decision post haste
Case: city corner v/s p.A. collector and additional district magistrate 1976, by declaring the haste(fast) decision so again decision was given and he got the license which was dismissed.
Third party to the dispute
case: Antonio SC pereneia v/s richardina 2006, in this caser the third party will be also is dispute because there is his interest also.
Exception of natural justice
Exclusion in emergency
The principle of natural justice is excluded in case of any emergency.
Purely administrative matter
No natural justice plea will be not applicable in the case of administrative matter.
In case of cofidentiality
case: malak singh v/s state of punjab and haryana this case related to confidentiality.
Case: jawahar la nehru university v/s BS narwal in this case it was held that the question can not be held on the administrative mechanism of 75% attendence because the rule are made of not for one but for all.
Based on Imparcticality
Case: r radha krishanan v/s osmania university 1974, In this case some student were claiming that their natural justice is being infringed because they were not the part of the mass copy in Exam centre.
Certain Interim preventive actions
When case is not decided yet so no student is allowed to study in college until the decision is out. It was held in the case of Abhay kumar v/s sriniwasan 1981.
Legislative action
No person can claim for any law that this is not in my favour so change it, In case: L.N.M institute of economic, development nad social change v/s state of Bihar 1988.
Statutary exception necessity
case: Chandan lal sahu v/s union of India 1990 in this case government were bounded to pay the compensation. In case of the other party if the government share involment then it makes government liable to pay as necessity.
Here the Doctrine of necessity applies.
Contractual agreement
If you are contracting in any sense then he cannot claim natural justice.
Case: state of gujrat v/s m.p sahu charitable trust 1994.
Government policy decision
You can not question any government policies on the case of natural justice.
On the basis of personal ground for government policy no one can claim voilation of natural justice plea, example of mid day meal.
Case: BALCO employees union v/s union of India 2002 , in this case workers said that there are some policies which has to be change because it is a detrimental in nature but, court said that if there is circumstance of that policies being arbitrory and illegal in nature then only it may be changed.