Unit 3

Principles of Natural Justice

3.1 Meaning and its importance

3.2 Rule against bias

3.3 Rule of fair hearing 

3.4 Reasoned Decisions

3.5 Public interest litigation, meaning and its importance,

3.6 Application of rule of locus standi and Judicial Trends

 

Unit 3: Principles of Natural Justice & PIL

3.1 Meaning and Importance of Natural Justice

Introduction & Definition

Natural Justice is not defined in any statute or the Constitution. It is a concept of “Common Law” derived from the Roman concept ‘Jus Naturale’ (Law of Nature). It refers to the basic moral principles of fairness, equity, and equality.

In simple terms, it is “fair play in action.” It ensures that administrative authorities, who often have wide powers, do not act arbitrarily.

Importance

  1. Prevents Arbitrariness: It acts as a check on administrative power.
  2. Ensures Fairness: It guarantees that justice is not only done but seen to be done.
  3. Civil Rights: It protects the civil liberties of individuals against state action.

3.2 Rule Against Bias (Nemo Judex In Causa Sua)

Introduction & Definition

The first principle is based on the Latin maxim “Nemo Judex In Causa Sua”, which means “No one should be a judge in their own cause.”

Core Idea: An authority deciding a matter must be neutral and impartial. If the deciding officer has any interest (financial, personal, or official) in the outcome, the decision is biased and void.

Types of Bias

  1. Personal Bias: Arises from friendship, relationship, or professional rivalry between the authority and the party.
  2. Pecuniary Bias: Arises if the authority has a financial interest (even a small one) in the subject matter.
  3. Subject Matter Bias (Official Bias): Arises when the authority has already formed an opinion or is directly involved in the department prosecuting the case.

Landmark Case Laws

  1. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)
  • Facts: Mr. Naquishbund was a candidate for selection to the Indian Forest Service. He was also a member of the Selection Board. Though he stepped out when his own name was discussed, he participated in the selection of his rivals.
  • Issue: Was there bias?
  • Judgment: Yes. The SC held that bias exists even if there is a “reasonable suspicion” of it. One cannot be a judge and a candidate at the same time. The selection list was quashed.
  1. Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand (1957)
  • Facts: A disciplinary committee was formed to investigate a complaint against Dr. Prem Chand. The Chairman of the committee had previously represented the complainant in a different legal case against Dr. Prem Chand.
  • Judgment: The SC quashed the proceedings due to Personal Bias. It held that justice must be rooted in confidence, and confidence is destroyed when the judge has a prior relationship with one party.

Exam-Style Conclusion

The Rule against Bias ensures impartiality. It operates on the principle that justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Any decision tainted by bias is a nullity.

3.3 Rule of Fair Hearing (Audi Alteram Partem)

Introduction & Definition

The second principle is “Audi Alteram Partem”, meaning “Hear the other side.”

Core Idea: No person should be condemned unheard. Before any action is taken that affects a person’s rights or property, they must be given a fair chance to present their defense.

Essential Ingredients of Fair Hearing

  1. Notice: The party must be informed of the charges/case against them. The notice must be clear, specific, and given in advance.
  2. Hearing: The party must be given an opportunity to present their case (oral or written).
  3. Evidence: The authority must not use any evidence against the party without disclosing it to them.
  4. Cross-Examination: (Not always absolute) In complex cases or where reputation is at stake, the right to cross-examine witnesses should be given.
  5. Legal Representation: (Not absolute) Generally, lawyers are not allowed in domestic inquiries, but if the matter is complex, assistance may be permitted.

Landmark Case Laws

  1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
  • Facts: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the Govt without giving her any prior notice or hearing, citing “public interest.”
  • Issue: Can the right to hearing be completely denied?
  • Judgment: The SC expanded the scope of Art 21. It held that any procedure established by law must be “fair, just, and reasonable.” The Govt cannot impound a passport without a hearing. (Post-decisional hearing was allowed in this specific urgency).
  1. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
  • Facts: BMC decided to evict pavement dwellers without notice.
  • Judgment: The SC held that the “Right to Livelihood” is part of the Right to Life (Art 21). Eviction deprives livelihood, so a hearing must be given before eviction, even to encroachers.

Legal Exceptions (When Hearing Can Be Excluded)

  • Emergency: When immediate action is needed (e.g., demolishing a dangerous building).
  • Confidentiality: Where state security is involved.
  • Legislative Action: Natural justice does not apply to the making of laws/policies by Parliament.

3.4 Reasoned Decisions (Speaking Orders)

Introduction & Definition

Often considered the third principle of Natural Justice, this requires that the administrative authority must record reasons for its decision.

Definition: A “Speaking Order” is an order that speaks for itself—it tells the affected party why the decision was taken.

Why Reasons are Necessary?

  • Prevents Arbitrariness: Forces the authority to apply its mind.
  • Enables Judicial Review: Courts can only review a decision if they know the reasons behind it.
  • Satisfaction of Party: The losing party knows why they lost.

Landmark Case Law

  1. S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (1990)
  • Judgment: The Constitution Bench of the SC held that barring exceptional cases (like Court Martial), the requirement to record reasons is an integral part of the principles of natural justice in India. Administrative justice cannot be done in silence.

3.5 Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

Introduction & Definition

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) means litigation filed in a court of law not by the aggrieved party but by a public-spirited individual or group for the protection of the “Public Interest.”

  • Origin: It is a judicial innovation of the 1980s (spearheaded by Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer).
  • Concept: It relaxes the strict rule of Locus Standi.

Importance

  1. Access to Justice: Helps the poor, illiterate, and marginalized who cannot approach courts themselves.
  2. Social Change: Used to address issues like environmental pollution, prison reforms, and human rights violations.
  3. Monitoring: Allows the judiciary to monitor the implementation of laws (e.g., Right to Food cases).

3.6 Application of Locus Standi and Judicial Trends

Introduction & Definition

Locus Standi means “right to stand” or the right to bring an action in court.

  • Traditional Rule: Only the person whose rights are violated can file a case. (If A is hit, only A can sue).
  • Modern Rule (PIL): If the person affected is unable to approach the court due to poverty or disability, any member of the public can file a case on their behalf.

Judicial Trends & Landmark Cases

  1. Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979) – [First PIL]
  • Facts: A news report highlighted the plight of undertrial prisoners in Bihar rotting in jail for years (longer than their potential sentence). An advocate filed a petition.
  • Judgment: The SC accepted the petition. It recognized the “Right to Speedy Trial” as part of Art 21 and ordered the release of thousands of prisoners.

*2. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) – [Judges Transfer Case]

  • Significance: Justice P.N. Bhagwati formally defined the scope of PIL. He stated that any member of the public acting bona fide (in good faith) can approach the court for redressal of a public wrong.
  1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Series of Cases)
  • Trend: Environmental Jurisprudence.
  • Ganga Pollution Case: M.C. Mehta filed a PIL to clean the Ganga. The SC ordered the closure/relocation of polluting industries. This established that PIL is the primary tool for environmental protection in India.

Comparison: Traditional Litigation vs. PIL

Feature

Traditional Litigation

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

Locus Standi

Strict (Only aggrieved party).

Relaxed (Any public-spirited person).

Nature

Adversarial (One vs. One).

Collaborative (Court + Petitioner vs. State).

Remedy

Compensation/Damages for individual.

Policy change/Enforcement of rights for a group.

Procedure

Strict procedural rules (CPC/CrPC).

Flexible (Can be started even by a letter/postcard).

Exam-Style Conclusion

While Principles of Natural Justice (Bias, Hearing, Reasons) ensure fairness in administrative action, PIL ensures fairness in access to justice. Together, they form the bedrock of the Rule of Law, ensuring that the state remains accountable and the judiciary remains accessible to the last person in the line.

 

PreviousNext