PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

[Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN]

INTRODUCTION:

The expression 'Natural Justice' is derived from the expression 'jus naturale' meaning justice which comes naturally to a man or which is part of his nature. It has been defined as 'Natural sense of what is right and what is wrong'. It has been accepted in the judicial systems since time immemorial. There were times when the principles of natural justice were considered supreme over codified laws. It was felt that this was infused into the heart of man by God at the time of creation of man itself. During 17th century the supremacy of Natural Justice over the statutory law was upheld. If the laws enacted were repugnant to the law of nature, would be void. The Supreme Court has observed that the aim of rules of natural justice is to secure justice, or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice.

PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE:

The following are the principles of Natural Justice:

* Audi alteram partem - hear the other party or no one shall be condemned unheard;

* Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa - no one shall be judge in his own cause;

* The final order must be a speaking order;

* The decision must be made in good faith that is justice should not only be done but should manifestly appear to have been done.

Audi alteram partem:

It means no person shall be condemned unheard. A naturally corollary of this principle is that the party against whom the proceedings are launched should have a reasonable notice of the case he is called upon to meet. The reasonableness of the notice is a question of fact to be ascertained in each case. However notice implies that the person concerned is not only informed of the allegations against him but also the evidence supporting the allegations. The person should be given a fair chance of being heard and allowed to rebut or explain the allegations leveled against him. This he can, only if, he is allowed to cross examine the witnesses produced in support of the allegations, produce witnesses and documents in his own defence. Another restriction is that no evidence shall be recorded at the back of the party. The Supreme Court has laid down the following three conditions, which if satisfied, would amount to reasonable opportunity having been afforded:

* The adjudicator should receive all the relevant material which a party wishes to submit in his report;

* The evidence of the opponent whether oral or documentary should be taken in his presence;

* Each party should have the opportunity of rebutting the evidence of other by cross examination or explanation.

Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa:

According to this principle no one shall be a judge in his own cause necessarily implies that the Tribunal or the Judge must be impartial and without bias. The judicial or quasi judicial authority should not only himself not be a party but also not be interested as a party in the subject matter of the dispute which he has to decide. 'Judges like Ceaser's wife, should be above suspension'. It is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to done. Bias can be of three forms-

* Pecuniary bias;

* Personal bias; and

* Bias in the subject matter or official bias.

A pecuniary interest will disqualify the person to be a judge in a case. Thus in the case of Air Corporation Employees Union V. Vyas the proceedings were held to be invalid that the Chairman of the arbitrators had accepted the hospitality of the Air Corporation on an inaugural flight.

A judge may sometime have personal bias towards a party owing to relationship and the like or he may be hostile to a party as a result of events happening either before or during the trial. Whenever there is an allegation of personal bias it should be seen whether there is in the mind of the accused a reasonable apprehension that he would not get a fair trial. The test, therefore, is that there should be a reasonable likelihood of bias.

The bias in the subject matter or official bias must be specific. Thus a Judge should not try a case in which he has examined himself as a witness. Mere general interest in the general object to be perused would not disqualify the Judge. For example it has been held that a Magistrate who subscribed to the society for prevention of cruelty to animals was not thereby disqualified from trying a charge brought by that body, of cruelty to a horse.

In all above cases of bias, the party is required to raise the objection of bias at the earliest possible opportunity. Thus, if a party who with full knowledge of the facts constituting bias, does not raise the objection, it will be assumed that the party has expressly or impliedly waived his right. In these circumstances, the objection if raised later has to be overruled.

Speaking Order:

A speaking order is one which contains the reasons for the conclusions reached. Whether the Judge has considered the evidence before him or not can only be ascertained if the final order is a speaking order. It has been held that if an order does not give any reasons, it does not fulfill the elementary requirements of a quasi judicial process.

Good faith:

The principle that the decision must be made in good faith is derived directly from the principle that no one shall be a judge in his own cause. This presupposes the impartiality of the judge and that he should be without any bias. The decision must be made in good faith implies that it is based on evidence adduced during the trial or enquiry; that it has been arrived at without favour to any of the parties; that he has followed the procedure in such a manner that justice is not only done but manifestly appears to have been done.

CONCLUSION:

The principles of natural justice are applicable to judicial and quasi judicial proceedings generally. These rules are not applicable in respect of purely administrative orders which are rested on subjective discretion, but may be applied where the administrative authority is called upon to decide objectively or where its decision is likely to affect the other party prejudicially to a great extent. These principles are intended to ensure fair play and justice or to avoid miscarriage of justice.