This article has been written by Manpreet Kaur, from Lovely Professional University, Phagwara

Introduction

The principle of natural justice is one of the fundamental principles of law. The Principle of Natural Justice is derived from the word ‘Jus Natural’ of the Roman law and it is closely related to Common law and moral principles but is not codified. It is a law of nature which is not derived from any statute or constitution. it to ensure the Rights of the common people to get a ‘just and fair trial.’ ‘Equity’ and ‘equality’. The principles of natural justice have been adopted and followed by the judiciary to protect public rights against the arbitrary decision by the administrative authority. One can easily see that the rule of natural justice include the concept of fairness.

Natural justice simply means to make a sensible and reasonable decision making procedure on a particular issue.

The Natural Justice revolves around two principles:

Nemo judex in causa sua:

No one should be made a judge in own case or the rule against bias .

because it leads to rule of biases. Bias means an act which leads to unfair activity whether in a conscious or unconscious stage in relation to the party or a particular case. “Bias rule” generally expresses that panel of expert should be biased free while taking the decision. The decision should be given in a free and fair manner which can fulfil the rule of natural justice.Therefore, the necessity of this rule is to make the judge impartial and given judgement on the basis of evidence recorded as per the case. The judicial body exercises their power to perform their respective duties, they must act impartially. They should not have any interest in the matter. They should be impartial and neutral in adjudicating every matter and dispute which appears before them. Whenever any authority is suspected to be biased in determining any case before them, that decision will not have any effect and will be treated as void. Thus this principle plays a significant role to prevent the authorities from acting partially in any matter.

In Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. Vs State of Bihar, the petitioner held a mining lease for 99 years which was quashed by the government because of the violations committed by the petitioner under sections 10, 12 and 14 of Mines Act. The petitioner here convinced the court that there was personal bias by the minister who had quashed the license as he was opposed by the petitioner in general elections a few years before. The Supreme Court found the allegation to be true and the order was revoked.

Audi Alterum Partum:

“Hear the other party or the rule of fair hearing or the rule that no one should be condemned unheard. ”

The meaning of this principle in a simple sense is that both sides must be heard.

“Hearing rule” which states that the person or party who is affected by the decision made by the panel of expert members should be given a fair opportunity to express his point of view to defend himself.

It means no person can be punished by the court without having a fair opportunity of being heard. In many jurisdictions, a bulk of cases are left undecided without giving a fair opportunity of being heard.

The literal meaning of this rule is that both parties should be given a fair chance to present themselves with their relevant points and a fair trial should be conducted. This is an important rule of natural justice and its pure form is not to penalize anyone without any valid and reasonable ground.

No decision-making authority can decide any matter hearing only one side. No decision can be taken ex parte in the absence of the other party. Both parties must be judged with a fair hearing. This principle is applicable in both administrative and judicial actions. The main purpose of this principle is to give both parties an equal opportunity of being heard with a just and fair hearing and they both must have equal opportunity to defend themselves in any hearing. Thus this principle forms the very base of the ‘fundamental justice and equity’.

The principle was used in the famous 1978 Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India case.

Types of Bias

Personal bias – Personal bias arises from a relation between the party and deciding authority. Which lead the deciding authority in a doubtful situation to make an unfair activity and give judgement in favour of his person.

it is found that the decision-making authority has any personal relations with the parties involved in that case, the authority will not be able to act impartially. Thus, if any case, the judge who is hearing a case is a friend or relative of any of the parties involved in that case then he will not be impartial and he/she may have some biased or prejudiced decision in that particular case. This type of bias is called ‘Personal Bias’. Any judgment derived from any such cases will be null and void.

In the case Mineral Development Corporation limited vs. State of Bihar, “here the petitioner was granted mining lease for 99 years in 1947. In 1953, the Secretary of revenue board issued a notice to the petitioners to show cause within 15 days as to why the license should not be canceled for violation by the petitioner minister who had political rivalry canceled the licence. Court held minister was disqualify from taking any action.

The petitioner submitted a written reply denying the allegations. However, two years later, the Government quashed the license. The petitioner brought an action against the minister passing this order on the ground that, the petitioner in 1952 opposed the minister in a general election. Therefore, on the account of political rivalry, the minister passed such an order, and hence the order was suffered from personal bias. Supreme Court found the allegation to be true and thus quashed the said order.”

Pecuniary Bias: When the decision-making authority has any monetary or financial interest out of a matter which he/she is hearing, the authority is said to have ‘Pecuniary Bias’ in that particular matter. Thus if it is found in a judgment that the judge has passed judgment in favor of any of the parties involved in the case as that party has bribed him, the judgment will be treated as null and void. Similarly, if this bias is found in any case, the decision-making authority will be disqualified from acting in such cases.

In the landmark English case Dimes vs. Grand Junction Canal, a public limited company filed a suit against a landowner in matter largely involving the interest of the company. The Lord Chancellor who was a shareholder in the company decided the case and gave relief to the company. His decision was quashed by the House of Lords because there was a pecuniary interest of the Lord Chancellor in the Company.”

Bonham case , a Doctor of Cambridge University was fined by the College of Physicians for practicing in the city of London without the licence of the College. The statute under which College acted provided that the fines should go half to the King and half to the College. Adjudicating upon the claim. Coke C.J. Disallow the claim as the college had a finacial interest in its own judgment and was judge in his own cause.

Subject matter bias: If it is found in any case when directly or indirectly the deciding authority is himself involved in that same case which he/she is deciding, the authority will be partial and biased in deciding that matter, This type of bias is known as ‘Subject Matter Bias’ because the deciding authority has an interest with the Subject matter of the matter. The authority will also be disqualified from deciding that case.

Jeejeebhoy vs. Asst. Collector: – In this case, it was found that one of the members of the bench of the court was also a member of the cooperative society for which the disputed land was acquired.

In Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. A.P.S.R.T.C (AIR 1959 SC 308), the Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Andhra Pradesh Government to nationalize road transport. The decision was invalidated because the Secretary of APSRTC, who conducted the hearing, had an interest in the subject matter, leading to subject matter bias.

In ‘R v. deal Justices’, the magistrate was not declared dis1ualified to try acase of cruelty to an animal on the ground that he was a member of the royal societyfor the preention of cruelty to animals as this did not prove a real likelihood of bias.

Departmental bias; Departmental bias, also known as institutional bias or organizational bias, is a type of bias that occurs when an organization or department consistently favors or disfavors certain groups or individuals. This bias can be intentional or unintentional, and it can manifest itself in a variety of ways, such as in hiring decisions, promotions, performance evaluations, and disciplinary actions.

The problem or issue of departmental bias is very common in every administrative process and it is not checked effectively and on every small interval period it will lead to negative to a concept of fairness and it will get vanished in the proceeding.

Maha dayal Vs. CTO : According to the opinion of the Commercial Tax Officer, the Petitioner was not liable to pay tax. Even then he referred the matter to his superior officer. On receipt of instructions from him, he imposed tax. The Supreme Court quashed the decision.

Policy Bias:

Manak Lal vs Prem Chand

Compliant for profession misconduct was filed by Dr. Prem chand agaist Manak lal an Advocate of RHC. A disciplinary committee was appointed to make an enquiry. The Chairman had earlier represented Dr. Prem Chand in a case. The Supreme Court ruled that enquiry was vitiated even if it were assumed that the Chairman had no personal contact with his client and did not remember that he had appeared on his behalf at any time in the past.

Audi Alteram Partem: Essential Elements

In a civilised society it is assumed that a person against whom any action is sought to be taken or whose right or interest is being affected shall be given a reasonable opportunity of to defend himself.The rule simply signifies that no one should be condemned unheard.

This maxim includes two ingredients.

Notice
Hearing

Notice: Notice is the beginning of stage of any hearing. A notice must be given to the opposite party before taking any action against them to provide them an opportunity to defend themselves and present their contentions before the court of law. If any order is passed by any court without giving any notice to the other party, the order violates this principle and it will be treated as void.

Before initiating a hearing, the other party must not be deprived of their right to know about the facts, causes, or charges against him/her under which the proposed actions are going to be taken.

The Notice must contain

The time, date, place of hearing,
Matter of facts
the charges against him/her, and
also the jurisdiction under which the case is filed.

If anything is found to be absent in any notice, it will not be treated as valid.

In the case of Kanda vs. Government of Malaya, the court held that notice must directly and clearly specify on the matter of bias, facts and circumstances against which needs to be taken. It’s one of the rights of the individual to defend himself so he should be familiar with the relevant matter so he may contradict the statement and safeguard himself.

The notice should be with regard to the charges framed against the accused person and proceeding to be held. He can only be punished on the charges which are mentioned in the notice, not for any other charges.

“In the case of Punjab National Bank vs. All India Bank Employees Federation, the notice which was given to the party contain certain charges but it was not mentioned anywhere that penalty was imposed on the charges. Hence, the charges on which penalty was imposed were not served as a notice to the parties concerned. The notice was not proper and thus, the penalty which was imposed was invalid.”

Maneka Gandhi vs.U.O.I. : The case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that established the principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side) as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.This principle requires that no person can be deprived of their life or liberty except according to the procedure established by law.

In the Maneka Gandhi case, the Court was considering a challenge to the Passports Act, 1967, which empowered the government to impound or cancel a passport without giving the passport holder a hearing. The Court held that this was a violation of the audi alteram partem principle and that the passport holder must be given an opportunity to be heard before their passport is impounded or cancelled.

In the context of the Maneka Gandhi case, the audi alteram partem principle is related to the notice requirement. The Court held that the passport holder must be given notice of the government’s intention to impound or cancel their passport. This notice must be in writing and must specify the reasons for the government’s action. The passport holder must then be given an opportunity to respond to the notice and to present their case. Only after this process has been completed can the government decide whether or not to impound or cancel the passport.

The notice requirement is an essential part of the audi alteram partem principle. It ensures that the person concerned is aware of the government’s action and has an opportunity to make representations in response. This helps to ensure that the decision-making process is fair and just, and that the person concerned is not deprived of their rights without being given a chance to be heard

Hearing: Both sides must be given the opportunity of fair hearing. The decision passed by a deciding authority without given reasonable opportunity of fair hearing to both parties, the decision will be treated invalid. This is considered to be one of the most essential components of this principle.

“In the case Fateh Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, it was held that if a person gets a reasonable opportunity of being heard or fair hearing it is an essential ingredient of the principle of ‘audi alteram partem’. This condition is accompanied by the authority providing written or oral hearing which is the discretion of the authority unless the statute under which action is taken by the authority provides otherwise. It is the duty of the authority to ensure that affected parties should get a chance of oral or personal hearing or not.”

Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works (1963)

Plaintiff, builder, was employed to build a house within the Wandsworth district.
He had already reached the second storey, when the defendants, without giving him any notice, sent their surveyor and a number of workmen, at a late hour in the evening.
Building razed to the ground.
Conflicting evidence as to whether or not the plaintiff had given the notice required by the 76th section of the Metropolis Local Management Act, of his intention to bild.
Admitted by the plaintiff that he had commenced digging out the foundations within five days of the day on which he alleged he had sent notice.

The Court held the demolition was unlawful because the Board had not given Cooper a hearing.

No one is to be deprived of property by an administrative authority, without an opportunity of being heard.

Two types of hearing :

Oral Hearing:

An oral hearing is a type of legal proceeding in which the parties to a case present their arguments and evidence orally to a judge or jury. Oral hearings are often used in cases where the facts are complex or where there is a need for expert testimony.

Oral hearing is not a sine qua non, which means that it is not an essential requirement for natural justice. A person cannot claim the right to an oral hearing unless it is specifically provided for in the relevant statute or regulation.

The principle of natural justice requires that a person be given a fair hearing before any decision is made that could affect their rights or interests. However, this does not necessarily mean that the hearing must be oral. In some cases, it may be sufficient for the person to be given written notice of the decision and an opportunity to make written representations. The decision of whether or not to hold an oral hearing will depend on the specific circumstances of the case.

Fair Hearing:

A fair hearing is a legal proceeding in which a person is given an opportunity to present their case to an impartial decision-maker. Fair hearings are often used in administrative proceedings, such as those involving the denial of a license or the imposition of a fine.

The Principles of Fairness include the following:

The person must be given adequate notice of the hearing and the issues that will be considered.
The person must be given access to all relevant information, including the evidence that will be relied upon and the legal arguments that will be made.
The person must be given an opportunity to present their case, including the opportunity to call witnesses, cross-examine opposing witnesses, and make submissions.
The decision-maker must be impartial and must not have any conflict of interest.
The decision-maker must consider all relevant evidence and arguments before making a decision.
Disclosure of evidence: The affected individual must be given access to all relevant evidence that will be used to make the decision, including the evidence presented by the opposing party. This allows them to understand the basis for the decision and respond accordingly.
Opportunity to rebut: The affected individual must be given an opportunity to respond to the evidence against them and present their own evidence in support of their position. This includes the right to cross-examine witnesses and challenge the evidence presented by the opposing party. Opportunity to rebut evidence meaningful, it is necessary to consider two factors

Cross Examination
Legal Representation

Right to Cross Examination–The right to a fair hearing includes the opportunity to cross-examine the parties’ statements. If tribunals are denied the opportunity to cross-examination, they will be violating natural justice norms. And all relevant copies of documents must be provided; failing to do so will also violate the principle. Officers participating in the investigation and cross-examination should be made available by the department. Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (amended) defines cross-examination. The right to cross-examination may be refused or dismissed in unusual circumstances.

In Hari Nath Mishra vs. Rajendra Medical College, a male student was charged with improper behavior against a female student. So, in this case, the right to cross-examination was denied to the male student since it would result in embracement for the female student and would be a violation of natural justice.

Representation by legal professionals: In order to conduct a just and fair hearing, both the parties should be allowed to be represented by legal professionals of their own choice to present their contentions suitably before the deciding authorities.

“In M.H Hoskot vs. State of Maharashtra, the apex court ruled that right to free legal aid at the cost of the state to an accused, who could not afford legal services by reasons of poverty, indigence or inability to communicate the situation, was part of fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21. Free legal aid to the poor person has been declared to be a statutory duty and not governmental charity. This right not only arises at the commencement of trial but also attaches when he is for the first time produced before the Magistrate.”

Pett v. Grehound Racing Assn.

In 1971 Lord Denning observed : “When a man’s reputation or livelihood is at stake, he not only has a right to speak by his own mouth. He has also a right to speak by counsel or solicitor.

Exceptions to the rules of Natural Justice

1. Statutory Exclusion:

It is an exception to the principles of natural justice that allows a statute to expressly exclude the application of those principles. This means that, if a statute provides that a decision of a particular administrative body is final and cannot be challenged on the grounds of natural justice, then the courts will not review the decision on those grounds.

The rationale for statutory exclusion is that the legislature is free to decide how administrative power should be exercised. If the legislature has decided that a particular decision should be made without following the principles of natural justice, then the courts will respect that decision.

Case Law: In the case of Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India held that the principles of natural justice did not apply to the government’s decision to impose restrictions on the circulation of newspapers during a period of internal security unrest. The Court reasoned that the government’s actions were necessary to maintain public order, and that following the principles of natural justice would have undermined the government’s authority.

The Court also held that the government’s decision was protected by statutory exclusion. The Defence of India Act, 1971 provided that the government’s actions under the Act were not subject to judicial review. This meant that the Court could not review the government’s decision on the grounds of natural justice, even though the government had not given the newspapers notice of the decision or an opportunity to be heard

2.Legislative Actions:

Principles of natural justice do not apply to legislative actions. This means that legislatures are not bound by the same procedural requirements as administrative bodies when making laws. The rationale behind this exclusion is that legislatures are considered to be the ultimate representatives of the people and are accountable to the public.

This is so because these rules lay down a policy without reference to particular individual.

A legislative action, for example, price fixing, is a direction of general character, not directed against a particular person or individual manufacturer or trader. There is no question of invoking principles of natural justice in such cases.

Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (1990): In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of a law enacted by Parliament that allowed the government to impose restrictions on the sale and distribution of essential commodities without providing an opportunity for affected parties to be heard. The Court held that the law was a legislative action and, therefore, not subject to the principles of natural justice.

3.Emergency Exclusion:

The emergency exclusion holds that the principles of natural justice may be overridden in situations where there is an immediate threat to public safety, health, or security. In such cases, the need to take prompt action to protect the public interest may outweigh the need to comply with the procedural requirements of natural justice. The emergency exclusion is based on the principle of necessity. In situations of emergency, it may be impractical or even impossible to follow the principles of natural justice before taking action.

For example, if a fire breaks out in a public building, the authorities may need to evacuate the building without giving prior notice to the occupants.

Similarly, if a contagious disease breaks out, the authorities may need to impose quarantine measures without giving prior notice to the affected individuals.

Thus, where a dangerous building is required to be demolished to save human lives or where a Banking company is required to be wound up to protect the interest of depositors

Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (1990): In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of a law enacted by Parliament that allowed the government to take immediate action to prevent a threatened famine without providing an opportunity for affected parties to be heard. The Court held that the government’s actions were necessary to protect public health and safety and, therefore, not subject to the principles of natural justice.

4.Impractibility:

The Impractibility exclusion recognizes that there are situations where it is impractical or impossible to comply with the strict requirements of natural justice. This may occur due to various factors, such as:

The number of individuals affected: When a decision affects a large number of individuals, providing each individual with an opportunity to be heard can become an overwhelming task, rendering the process impractical.

The complexity of the issues involved: In situations involving complex and multifaceted issues, following the principles of natural justice can be unduly time-consuming and resource-intensive.

The urgency of the decision: When prompt action is required to protect the public interest, the strict adherence to natural justice procedures may hinder timely and effective decision-making.

Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhash: The candidates at the Secondary School Examination f the Board at one Centre indulged in mass-copying. The Chairman of the BSEB, acting under Section 9(3) of the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952, passed an order canceling the examination at the center and allowing the examinees to reappear in the Supplementary Examination. The Board subsequently approved this decision. The respondents, who were the examinees at the center, challenged the Board’s decision in the Patna High Court. They argued that the Board had acted arbitrarily and without following the principles of natural justice. Specifically, they contended that they had not been given an opportunity to be heard before the decision was made. The High Court quashed the Board’s order, holding that the Board had failed to follow the principles of natural justice. The Court reasoned that the examinees had a right to be heard before their examination results were canceled.

The BSEB appealed to the Supreme Court of India against the High Court’s decision.

The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment delivered in 1970, reversed the High Court’s decision and upheld the Board’s action. The Court held that the Board had acted within its powers and that the principles of natural justice did not apply in this case.

5.Academic Evaluation Exclusion:

The academic evaluation exclusion is a principle of administrative law that exempts academic institutions from following the strict rules of natural justice when evaluating students. This means that academic institutions have a certain degree of discretion in determining students’ grades and other academic outcomes, without having to provide students with a detailed explanation of their decisions or an opportunity to challenge them. Where a student is removed from an educational institution on grounds of unsatisfactory academic performance, the requirement of pre-decisionnal hearing is excluded.

The rationale for the academic evaluation exclusion is that academic institutions are experts in their field and that they need the flexibility to make decisions about student performance without being constrained by rigid procedural requirements. However, this does not mean that academic institutions are not bound by any principles of fairness. Academic institutions must still act in good faith and avoid decisions that are arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory. Students also have the right to challenge academic evaluations in certain circumstances, particularly when there is evidence of procedural irregularities, bias, or a lack of academic basis.

6.Interim disciplinary action:

A student in a high school is caught cheating on an exam. The school principal believes that the student’s behavior is serious and poses a risk to the integrity of the school’s academic program. The principal decides to suspend the student pending a full disciplinary hearing.

This is because the institution may need to take immediate action to protect the safety and well-being of the school community.

The interim disciplinary action exclusion is a principle of administrative law that exempts educational institutions from following the strict rules of natural justice when taking interim disciplinary action against students. This means that institutions can suspend or expel students without having to provide them with a detailed explanation of the allegations against them or an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Because interim disciplinary action exclusion is that educational institutions need the flexibility to maintain order and protect the safety and well-being of their students and staff in situations where there is an immediate threat of harm or disruption. If institutions were required to follow the strict rules of natural justice before taking interim disciplinary action, it could delay or prevent them from taking necessary action to protect the school community.

Abhay Kumar v. K. Srinivasan: The institution passed an order debarring the student from entering the premises of the institution and attending classes till the criminal case against him for stabbing a co-student is under Consideration. The validity of this order was challenged on the ground of denial of the principles of natural justice. Rejecting the contention, the Delhi High Court ruled that such an order could be compared with an order of suspension pending enquiry which is preventive in character in order to maintain peace on the campus and therefore the principles of natural justice not attracted.

7.Public Interest :

The public interest exclusion is typically applied in situations where there is a need to act quickly to protect the public health, safety, or welfare. For example, a government agency may be able to suspend a food license without a hearing if it has evidence that the food is contaminated.

The public interest exclusion can also be applied in cases where it is impractical or impossible to provide a fair hearing. For example, it may be difficult to provide a fair hearing to a large number of people who are all affected by a government decision.

However, the public interest exclusion is not absolute. Government agencies must still act reasonably and in good faith when using this exclusion. They must also have a valid public interest justification for their actions.

In Balco Employees Union vs. UOI, the Supreme Court established that the principles of natural justice had no role to play in those situations where policies considering the public at large were to be undertaken.

8.National Security:

Government agencies may take action to protect national security without following the strict rules of natural justice. This is because the need to protect national security may outweigh the need for individual procedural fairness.

9.Doctrine of Necessity:

The doctrine of necessity is a legal principle that allows government agencies to take action without following the strict rules of natural justice in situations where it is absolutely necessary to do so to avoid a serious and irreparable harm. This exception is based on the idea that the public interest may sometimes outweigh the need to provide individuals with a fair hearing before taking action.

The doctrine of necessity is typically applied in very limited circumstances, where there is no other reasonable alternative to taking action without a hearing. For example, the doctrine may be applied in situations where:

There is an immediate and severe threat to public health, safety, or welfare.
It is impractical or impossible to provide a fair hearing before taking action.
The delay caused by providing a fair hearing would result in irreparable harm.

Effect of Breach of Natural Justice

When the authority is required to observe the principle of natural justice in passing an order but fails to do so, the general judicial opinion is that the order is void.
In England, in the case of Ridge v. Baldwin, the court held the decision of the authority void on the ground of the breach of the rule of fair hearing.
In India, the position is well settled that the order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is void

Failure to give reason:

Where the reasons for the decision are not given to the person concerned by court, the order is quashed and the authority is directed by the court to examine the matter afresh. Where the reasons are not communicated to the person concerned that they are on record, in some cases, the court has upheld the action but in some other cases, the court has not upheld it

Erosion of Trust in the Legal System:

Non-observance of Natural Justice principles erodes public trust in the legal system. When individuals perceive that fairness, impartiality, and transparency are compromised, they may lose confidence in the judiciary, leading to skepticism and cynicism regarding the dispensation of justice.

Injustice and Unfair Outcomes:

The essence of Natural Justice lies in ensuring a fair hearing and unbiased decision-making. Ignoring these principles can result in unjust outcomes where individuals are deprived of their rights without due process. This not only harms the affected parties but undermines the credibility of the entire legal apparatus.

Undermining Rule of Law:

Natural Justice principles are fundamental to the rule of law. Non-observance weakens the foundation of the legal system, creating a perception that the rule of law is selective or arbitrary. A system perceived as capricious erodes its ability to maintain order and protect individual liberties.

Legal Precedents and Precedent-setting Impact:

Decisions that neglect Natural Justice principles can set problematic precedents. These flawed precedents may influence future cases, perpetuating a cycle of injustice and creating a precedent-setting impact that compromises the legitimacy of the legal system.

Social Discontent and Unrest:

When people feel that justice is elusive and the legal system is inherently unfair, it can contribute to social discontent. This discontent may manifest in various forms, from protests to a general breakdown of social cohesion, as citizens lose faith in the institutions meant to safeguard their rights.

Compromised Human Rights:

Natural Justice principles are intertwined with the protection of fundamental human rights. Ignoring these principles may result in the violation of these rights, leaving individuals vulnerable to arbitrary decisions, discrimination, and injustice.

Ajantha Industries v. Central Board of Direct Taxes:• The court has held that recordings of reasons on the file are not sufficient. It is necessary to give reasons to the person concerned. In this case, the order was quashed on the ground that the reasons were not communicated to the person concerned. The view expressed in the Ajantha Industries case appears to be the better view. Reasons are for the benefit of the party concerned and, therefore, they should be communicated to the person concerned and they should not be confined to the record or file.

Consequences of Breach of Natural Justice

• In India the Courts have taken the view that whenever there is violation of any rule of natural justice, the order is null and void.

• Whenever the courts believe that the authority has been vitiated from the principles of natural justice, they quash the order and direct the authority to dispose of the matter afresh in considerationof the principles of Natural Justice.

• Violation of Principle of natural justice is attracted whenever a person suffers a civil consequence or a prejudice is caused to him by an administrative action.

• In other words principle of natural justice is attracted where there is some right which is likely to be affected by any act of the administration including a legitimate expectation.

Hari Khemu Gawali v. The Deputy Commissioner of Police [AIR 1956 SC 559]

• In this case an externment order was challenged on the ground that since the police department which heard and decided the case was the same, the element of departmental bias vitiated administrative action and this Court rejected the challenge on the ground that so long as two functions(initiation and decision) were discharged by two separate officers, though they were affiliated to the same department, there was no bias.

• Judgments dealing with the administrative decisions proceed on the footing that the presence of bias means can only be considered void

Conclusion:

The non-observance of Natural Justice principles goes beyond individual cases; it permeates the very fabric of the legal system and society. Upholding these principles is not merely a procedural formality but a commitment to the ideals of justice, fairness, and the protection of human rights. To safeguard the integrity of the legal system and maintain public trust, it is imperative to recognize and adhere to the principles of Natural Justice at every stage of legal proceedings.