Natural Justice: Principles and Applications in the Indian Legal System, Slides of Administrative Law

Download Natural Justice: Principles and Applications in the Indian Legal System and more Slides Administrative Law in PDF only on Docsity!

RIGHT OF FAIR

HEARING

MINAL

TH

SEMESTER

ROLL No. 2514026

NATURAL JUSTICE

Natural justice is a term of art that denotes specific

procedural rights in the English Legal system and the

systems of other nations based on it.Thisis the second

main branch of natural justice which protect the little

man from arbitrary administrative actions whenever his

right to person or property is jeopardized. So, the one

of the aim of giving fair hearing in application of the

principle of natural justice is to see that an illegal action

or decision does not take place.

ROMAN LAW

In Roman law the concept of natural justice consists of

two essential rules:

Audi Alteram Partem ,- the person, who has to be

effected by a decision has a right to be heard; and

Nemo Judex in Re Sua – the authority deciding the

matter should be free from bias.

Here we will only concern with the maxim audi altrem partem Common

law. From the medieval era, the English Common Law consists of the

principles of natural justice. The rules requiring impartial adjudications and

fair hearings can be traced back to the medieval precedents and indeed

they were not unknown in the ancient world.

Dr. Bonham’s Case (1610) COKE J. held that an Act of the Parliament is

void if it makes a person judge in his own cause or was otherwise against

common right or reason. Coke then made the following general statement:

“And it appears in our books, that in many cases, the common law will

control acts of parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void:

for when an act of parliament is against common right and reason, or

repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it,

and adjudge such act to be void; and, therefore, in … Thomas Tregor’s case

[Judge] Herle said, some statutes are made against law and right, which

those who made them perceiving, would not put them in execution…”

RULE OF FAIR HEARING

The concept of the rule of fair hearing is purely based on the Latin

maxim audi alteram partem i.e., the rule of fair hearing. It lays down

that no one should be condemned unheard. It is the first principle of the

civilized jurisprudence that a person facing the charges must be given

an opportunity to be heard, before any decision is taken against him.

Hearing means ‘fair hearing’. The norms of reasonableness of

opportunity of hearing vary from body to body and even case to case

relating to the same body. The components of fair hearing are not fixed

but are variable and flexible. Their scope and applicability differ from

case to case and situation to situation.

In Mineral Development Corp. LTD v. State of Bihar , the apex

court observed that the concept of fair hearing is elastic and not

susceptible of a precise and easy definition. The hearing procedures

vary from the tribunal, authority to authority and situation to situation.

It is not necessary that the procedures of hearing must be like that of

the proceedings followed by the regular courts.

In the 1970 case of A. K. Karaipak v. Union of India , the Supreme

Court made a statement that the fine distinction between the quasi-

judicial and administrative function needs to be discarded for giving a

hearing to the affected party. Before the Karaipak’s case , the court

applied the natural justice to the quasi-judicial functions only. But after

the case, the natural justice could be applied to the administrative

functions as well.

Right to know the evidence against him: The either of the party

to the suit before the court of law has the right to know about the

evidences produced before the court of law against him by the

opponent. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT , held that the

assessed was not given a fair hearing as the Appellate Income Tax

tribunal did not disclose the information supplied to it by the

department. A person may be allowed to inspect the file and take

notes.

Right to present case and evidence: The authority who assigned

for look after a matter must provide an opportunity to the party to

present his case with indulging some evidences. Courts have

unanimously held that the oral hearing is not an integral part of the

fair hearing, unless the circumstances call for the oral hearing.

 Right to cross-examination- Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act,

1972, provides for the rights of the parties to cross-examine. The cross-

examination of the witnesses is not regarded as an obligatory part of

natural justice. Whether the opportunity of cross examination is to be give

or not depends upon the circumstances of the case and statute under

which hearing is held. Hira nath mishra v. Rajendra medical College ,

Ranchi, some male students of medical college entered the girls hostel and

misbehaved with the girls. An inquiry committee was set up against whom

the complaints were made. The complainants were examined but not in

presence of the boys. On the report of the committee, four students were

expelled from the college. They challenged the decision of the committee

on the ground of violation of the natural justice. The court rejected the plea

and held that in presence of the boys, the girls can not be cross-examined

that that may expose them to the harassment.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE OF NATURAL

JUSTICE

The rule of fair hearing can be ignored in certain cases like:

 Emergency – if a prompt action has to be taken where it is not expedient to hear all

evidence, the rule may be dispensed with.

 Confidentiality – confidential documents need not be shown to a party.

 Purely administrative matters – in purely administrative actions, it may be expedient to

leave these rules to provide order.

 Impracticability – the application of the rules are not feasible in cases of administrative

impracticability.

 Interim preventive action – if the order is an interim order and not the final decision, thr

rule may be avoided.

 Legislative action – legislative actions are not subject to the rules of natural

justice.

 Where no right of the person is infringed – when no statutory or common

law right is infringed, the application of the principle is unnecessary.

 Statutory exception or necessity – cases requiring a quick action, where

only one judge is available, even a biased judge can take the decision and

in such cases, it would not vitiate the administrative action.

 Contractual agreement – termination of an agreement does not attract the

principles of natural justice.

 Useless formality theory – where there is an undisputed fact and only one

consequence would flow from enquiry, the rule may be avoided.

THANK YOU