The term, Principles of Natural Justice has its genesis in the phrase “Jus Natural” (Roman Law) and does not have force of law. They may or may not form part of statute but they are to be followed mandatorily. It would not be an exaggeration to say that while the Principles of Natural Justice are not part of any statute as it is but at the same time, there is no such statute which does not follow the principles of natural justice. As the term also suggests, this is how the Justice is supposed to be imparted ordinarily and therefore, the Principles of Natural Justice are followed in true sense and spirit universally. The observance of the principles of natural justice, as acknowledged by all civilized nations, is of utmost significance when an authority undertakes the resolution of disputes between parties or any administrative action affecting civil rights is at stake. These principles are firmly established.

Natural Justice: Concept and meaning

Natural Justice is a pivotal concept in administrative law. The principles of natural justice, as fundamental procedural rules, form the foundational basis of an effective administrative framework in any nation. The concept and doctrine of these principles and their application within the justice delivery system are longstanding, tracing back to the inception of the justice system itself. Natural justice, an expression of English common law, entails a procedural requirement of fairness. Justice Krishna Iyer articulated that natural justice is a pervasive element of secular law, infusing legislation and adjudication with fairness as a fundamental creed. It embodies various hues and forms, serving not merely as a procedural mandate but as a robust safeguard against judicial or administrative actions adversely impacting the substantive rights of individuals. Different legal scholars have characterized this principle in various ways; some refer to it as the unwritten law (jus non scriptum) or the law of reason. Although it defies precise definition, jurists have described it as a profound humanizing principle, intended to imbue the law with fairness, ensure justice, and prevent miscarriages of justice. Over time, certain principles have evolved and crystallized into well-recognized doctrines of natural justice.

In administrative law, natural justice is a key idea. Natural justice refers to fundamental justice concepts that are open to all parties involved in a legal proceeding.

Effect of Breach of Natural Justice Principle: Generally, when a court or other authority is supposed to follow the natural justice principle when issuing an order, and they don't, the order is deemed void.

Historical Approach

The idea behind the Principle of Natural Justice is not new. Natural justice has a long and distinguished history that dates back to ancient times. The idea that "no man should be condemned unheard" was one that the Greeks had embraced. It was first used in the "Garden of Eden," where Adam was first given the chance to be heard before being punished. Roman law also contains some evidence of natural justice. The Natural Justice Principle can also be found in various texts such as the Manusmriti and the Arthshastra of Kautilya. Prior to the time of Christ, Aristotle discussed these ideas and referred to them as universal law.

In the fifth and sixth centuries A.D., Justinian referred to it as "juranaturalia," or natural law. This idea has been around for a very long time in India. It appears to be mentioned in Kautllya's Arthashastra. In this regard, paragraph 43 of the Hon. Supreme Court's ruling in the case of

“Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner” [3]

“Indeed, natural justice is a pervasive facet of secular law where a spiritual touch enlivens legislation, administration and adjudication, to make fairness a creed of life. It has many colours and shades, many forms and shapes and, save where valid law excludes, it applies when people are affected by acts of authority. It is the bone of healthy government, recognised from earliest times and not a mystic testament of judge-made law. Indeed, from the legendary days of Adam-and of Kautllya's Arthashastra-the rule of law has had this stamp of natural justice, which makes it social justice. We need not go into these deeps for the present except to indicate that the roots of natural justice and its foliage are noble and not newfangled. Today its application must be sustained by current legislation, case law or other Extant principle, not the hoary chords of legend and history. Our jurisprudence has sanctioned its prevalence even like the Anglo-American system."

Principles of natural justice:     

The principles of natural justice consist of the rules established by the courts to provide the minimal safeguard of individual rights against arbitrary procedures that may be employed by judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative authorities when issuing orders that impact those rights.

The Frank Committee, also known as the Committee on Minister's Power, established the following natural justice standards:

1. No man should be condemned unheard,

2. No man shall be judge in his own cause,

3. A party is entitled to know the reasons for the decision,

4. Making available a copy of statutory report.

However, the traditional English law recognises other principles of natural justice.

Natural Justice recognizes three principles:

1. Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa.

2. Audi alterem partem, and

3. Speaking orders or reasoned decisions.

Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa:

To put it roughly, the first principle of impartiality is that no one should sit as a judge in a case that they personally support or are personally invested in. More commonly, this idea is referred to as the "Doctrine of Bias." That is, the person making the decision should act impartially and without bias. Justice must not only be served, but must also be perceived to be served in order to foster trust in the system.

In Crawford Bayley & Co. v. Union of India[4],  “the Supreme Court reiterated that the doctrine prohibiting bias is invoked when it is demonstrated that the concerned official has a personal relationship or vested interest, has directly participated in the matter, or has already formed a judgment that they might be inclined to uphold. This principle of disqualification is enforced not only to prevent the likelihood of a biased decision but also to uphold public trust in the fairness of the administrative adjudicatory process. This is grounded in the maxim that a person should not adjudicate their own case and that justice must not only be executed but also be transparently and undeniably perceived to be executed.”

Types of Bias:

A. Pecuniary Bias

The consensus among judges is that administrative action would be invalidated by any financial interest, regardless of the size of the interest. If the biased member was present when the decision was made, his non-participation in the proceedings will not save him from being disqualified.

There is a great likelihood of this kind of bias in the era of free market economies, where stock investments are common. Nonetheless, the consensus is that if the deciding officer saves himself in a situation in which he has no significant financial interest, it would not be in the public interest.

B. Personal Bias

Personal prejudice can result from enmity, a friendship, a relationship, or even a professional grievance. Once more, the possibility of bias should be taken into consideration rather than the actual bias found in the Principles of Natural Justice.  “It is difficult to prove the state of mind of a person. Therefore, we have to see whether there is reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have been biased”. The decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of A. K. Kraipak (supra) is considered a classic one on the issue of personal bias. We often witness in Courts that the Judges recuse themselves from some cases when they see some conflict of interest. Prior representation, proximity to any litigant etc. is often the consideration before a Judge for such recusal.

C. Official Bias

The third kind of bias, known as official bias, can occur when an administrator is tasked with approving and enforcing an official policy and is also responsible for considering objections from those affected by the policy's implementation. In this case, the general rule is that the adjudicator's general interest in the topic and the administration of the policy in his official capacity does not operate as a disqualification for any bias that might be said to be likely to arise.

2. Audi alterem partem

"To hear the other side" is the literal meaning of the second natural justice principle. This is required to ensure a fair trial, and the policy against bias would undoubtedly be included in the process. The audi alteram partem rule, in particular, and the other two rules have led to the deduction of a corollary, which is "qui aliquid statuerit parte inaudita alteram actquam licet dixerit, haud acquum facerit," that is, ‘he who shall decide anything without the other side having been heard, although he may have said what is right, will not have been what is right’ or in other words, as it is now expressed, ‘justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done’. The procedure for conducting Disciplinary proceedings as enshrined under Rule 120 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 is one such instance where the entire procedure is revolving around hearing the other side, only.

 Principle was incorporated into the "Magna Carta." In Sir Edward Coke's classic formulation, natural justice necessitates "vacate, interrogate, and adjudicate." The aforementioned principle was articulated in the well-known Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works case.

"Even God did not pass a sentence upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his defence. Adam, says God, where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat”.

That no one ought to be condemned without first being heard. The first branch of this principle is notice. It needs to be clear-cut and exact. It should evaluate the party's case definitively, based on what he needs to prove. Enough time should be allotted for the purpose so that he can present his case. The passed order is completely nullified if no notice of this kind and reasonable opportunity is given. It is therefore imperative that a party be informed of the case prior to the issuance of any unfavourable orders against him. Among the fundamental tenets of natural justice is this one. It is, after all, a recognized fair play regulation.

The following crucial elements are part of the broader concept of effective hearing: -

i. Notice Issuance: - A fair hearing requires that the facts of the case and the nature of the proposed action be properly disclosed to the appropriate or concerned party. Even in cases where the statute makes no mention of the need to issue notice, notice must still be given.

ii. Notification of Evidence Being Relied Upon: - The notice needs to make it obvious what evidence the proposed action is based on. A person's right to self-defence includes the right to know such information. Only that person will then have an equal chance to refute, correct, or defend their position.

iii. Right to Representation: - In order to exercise this right, the person being sued must be given the chance to review all of the evidence used against them. Even in situations where the documents are relied upon after being taken from the party, copies of such material should be provided without charge and without demand. Copies of test results, trade opinions, international price publications, etc. would be furnished with these copies. If any document or material is relied upon without providing the aforementioned requirements, natural justice would be violated and the final decision would be flawed.

In Nandini Sathpathy v. P.L. Dani[5], “the court determined that the accused is entitled to legal counsel during custodial interrogation, and the police are required to wait a reasonable duration for the lawyer's arrival. Nevertheless, the court, while making a progressive decision, did not extend to mandating that the state furnish a lawyer for an indigent accused. This observation by the court could be integrated into administrative practice. In the realm of criminal justice, the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 now stipulates the provision of legal aid to the accused.”

i. Reasonable Time to File Reply: Upon receipt of the notice, the individual must be afforded the opportunity to submit a response. This opportunity must be genuine and effective, encompassing the right to adequate time to prepare the reply

ii. Grant of Personal Hearing: In addition to providing written representation, the opportunity for hearing also includes a personal hearing. Two things are necessary for a fair hearing: first, a chance to be heard must be provided; second, that chance must exist and not just be made up or illusionary.

iii. Cross-Examination: This is a useful technique for proving the truth and disproving falsehoods. However, this does not always mean that the party in question should have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness in administrative adjudications. It depends on the case's facts and circumstances, i.e., unless those circumstances require that the party cannot effectively defend himself in the absence of

iv. The right to legal counsel: A fair hearing also includes the right to legal counsel during the investigation. The rule in this case is that the other side's right to legal representation cannot be curtailed when one party is represented by attorneys or other individuals with legal training.

3. Provision for Speaking Orders or Reasoned Decision

The third facet of natural justice necessitates articulate decisions or reasoned determinations. It is universally acknowledged that providing rationale for a particular decision is a cornerstone of sound administration and a safeguard against arbitrariness. The failure to provide rationale may raise suspicions that there are likely no valid grounds supporting the decision. Therefore, explanations are beneficial as they may disclose a legal error, provide grounds for an appeal, or simply alleviate any lingering sense of injustice felt by the unsuccessful party. When the order to be issued is subject to appeal, the requirement to provide explanations becomes essential. Hence, explanations are also mandated when the appellate or revisory authority upholds the decision of the lower authority.

Need of Speaking Order

In the majority ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision in "Shri Swamiji of Shri Admar Mutt etc. Vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Dept. and Ors," Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud cited Broom's Legal Maxims (1939 Edition, page 97), where the following principle is stated in Latin: “Ces-sante Ratione Legis Cessat Ipsa Lex”

The English version of the said principle given by the Chief Justice is that: -

“Reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the Law itself”

The Hon'ble Supreme Court addressed the significance of issuing a "speaking order," or the necessity of providing justification for the decision or order, in all proceedings (administrative or quasi-judicial) that impact the parties' rights in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan. The Court has occasionally held that an order passed by a quasi-judicial body or even an administrative body that affects parties' rights must be spoken for. It can't be comparable to the "inscrutable face of a Sphinx."

In this case, the Hon’ble court held as under: -

a. In India, the judicial inclination has consistently been towards providing rationale, even in administrative decisions, when such decisions adversely impact anyone.

b. A quasi-judicial entity is obligated to articulate reasons supporting its findings.

c. Emphasizing the need for rationale is intended to uphold the broader principle of justice, ensuring not only the execution of justice but also its perception.

d. Providing reasons also serves as a legitimate check against any potential arbitrary exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative authority.

e. Explanations affirm that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker based on pertinent considerations and without regard to irrelevant factors.

f. Reasons have essentially become as essential an element of the decision-making process as adhering to principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial, and even administrative entities.

g. In all common law systems, judgments play a crucial role in establishing precedents for future cases. Thus, for legal evolution, the necessity of providing rationale for decisions is fundamental and is essentially a part of "Due Process."

Useless Formality Theory:

What is known as “useless formality theory‟ has received consideration of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[6]. It was observed as under:

“Before we go into the final aspect of this contention, we would like to state that case relating to breach of natural justice do also occur where all facts are not admitted or are not all beyond dispute. In the context of those cases there is a considerable case-law and literature as to whether relief can be refused even if the court thinks that the case of the applicant is not one of “real substance” or that there is no substantial possibility of his success or that the result will not be different, even if natural justice is followed.”

To comprehend the theory of "Useless formality" as described above, consider the following scenario: A party submits a refund claim after the expiration of the statutory one-year period from the due date. The claim is evidently time-barred. One perspective suggests that the adjudicating authority could reject the claim without issuing any notice to the party or conducting a hearing, thus bypassing the principles of natural justice. Conversely, another viewpoint proposes that the claim should be handled in accordance with the principles of natural justice, involving issuing notice to the party, considering their written submissions, providing an opportunity for a personal hearing, and subsequently issuing an original order rejecting the refund claim as time-barred. The concept of "Useless formality" aligns with the first perspective. Despite the evident time-barred nature of the refund claim, the proper approach would still be to adhere to the second perspective and uphold the principles of natural justice.

Exceptions to Principles of Natural Justice:

1. Emergency situations

2. Interim preventive actions

3. Impracticability

4. Confidentiality

5. Where the rights of a person are not infringed

6. Exclusion in cases of Legislative Actions

7. Exclusion in Case of Statutory Exception or Necessity

8. Exclusion in Case of Contractual Arrangement

The doctrine of natural justice seeks not only to secure justice but also to prevent miscarriage of justice. In conclusion, the principles of natural justice, deeply ingrained in legal systems worldwide, serve as the bedrock of fair and just governance. They not only apply to Courts of law but to Tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions as well as to Statutory and Administrative authorities. Whenever the Courts are adjudicating upon any issue, the prime consideration before them is whether the principles of natural justice have been followed or not. Rooted in historical and philosophical traditions, these principles demand impartiality, transparency, and the right to be heard in administrative, quasi-judicial, and judicial proceedings. The doctrine of bias, the "audi alterem partem" principle, and the requirement for reasoned decisions collectively ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done. Even in cases where facts are clear, following these principles is not a mere formality but a crucial safeguard against arbitrariness and the preservation of individual rights. Natural justice remains an indispensable cornerstone of equitable legal systems, upholding the noble creed of fairness and the prevention of miscarriages of justice.

1. UDHR 1948 Art. 1
2. A.K Kraipak vs. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC150)
3.  AIR 1978 SC 851
4. (2006)6 SCC 25
5. AIR 1966 SC 671
6. 1999 (6) SCC 237