Principles of Natural Justice
Principles of Natural Justice are those rules which have been laid down by courts as being minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights.
Norms of Natural Justice: Norms of Natural Justice are as follows:
a. No one should be condemned unheard;
b. No one shall be judge in one’s own case;
c. A party is entitled to know the reasons for the decision;
d. Making available a copy of statutory report.
Principles of Natural Justice: There are mainly two Principles of Natural Justice and these two principles are:
(A) Nemo Judex in Causa Sua (Rule Against Bias) &
(B) Audi Alteram Partem (Rule of Fair Hearing).
(A) Nemo Judex in Causa Sua (Rule Against Bias):
Nemo Judex in Causa Sua is a Latin word which means “No man shall be a judge in his own cause”. It means the deciding authority must be impartial and without bias. It implies that no man can act as a judge for a cause in which he has some interest which may be pecuniary or otherwise.
Bias:
Bias means an operative prejudice, whether conscious or unconscious, in relation to a party or issue. As a result of this, the ‘Rule Against Bias’ strikes against those factors which may improperly influence a judge in arriving out at a decision in any particular case.
The requirement of this principle is that the judge must be impartial and must decide the case objectively on the basis of evidence on record and merit. Therefore, if a person for whatever the reason, cannot take an objective decision on the basis of evidence on record and on merit he/she shall be said to be biased.
A person cannot take an objective decision in a case in which he/she has an interest for, as human psychology tells that, very rarely can people take decisions against their own interests. This rule of disqualification is applied not only to avoid the possibility of a partial decision but also to ensure public confidence in the impartiality of the administrative adjudicatory process because not only must “no man be judge in his/her own cause” but also “justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”.
On the basis of above, it is clear that Rule Against Bias is so important in Principles of Natural Justice and it is required to be discussed in length. There are many kind of ‘Bias’ under this principle. Primely important ‘Bias’ components are discussed in successive paras hereinafter.
Personal Bias:
It arises from a certain relationship equation between the deciding authorities and the parties which results into inclination of him/her unfavourably or otherwise on the side of one of the parties. Such equation may develop out of varied form of personal or professional hostility or friendship.
An example of Personal Bias can be taken from a judgement delivered by Hon. Apex Court that it quashed the selection list prepared by Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) which considered the confidential reports of candidates prepared by an officer who himself was a candidate for promotion. In this case, Principle of Natural Justice – Rule against Bias (Personal Bias) was not followed.
Pecuniary Bias:
The kind of favour/bias which involves financial interest and decision is affected is known as Pecuniary Bias. Judicial approach is unanimous and decisive on the on the point that any financial interest whether small or huge would vitiate administrative as well as judicial action. Pecuniary Biased member cannot be involved in any decision-making machinery as chances of fair and impartial decision may not be delivered.
In a case, Hon. Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Textbook Selection Committee because some of its members were also authors of books which were considered for selection.
Subject Matter Bias:
Those cases fall within this category where the deciding authority is directly, or indirectly or otherwise, involved in the subject matter of the case. Mere involvement would not vitiate the administrative action unless there is a real likelihood of bias.
In a case, Hon. Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Andhra Pradesh Government, nationalizing road transport on the ground that the Secretary of the Transport Department who gave hearing was interested in the subject-matter.
Departmental bias or Instrumental bias:
It when the functions of a Judge and the Prosecutor (Public Prosecutor/Government counsel) are combined in the same department as it is not uncommon to find that the same department which initiates the matter also decides, department which heard and decided the case was the same, the element of departmental bias vitiated administrative action.
The problem of departmental bias is something which is inherent in the administrative process, and if it is not effectively checked, it may negate the very concept of fairness in the administrative proceeding.
In a case, Hon. Supreme Court quashed the notification of the Government which conferred powers of a Deputy Superintendent of Police on the General Manager, Haryana Roadways in matters of inspection of vehicles on the ground of departmental bias. In this case, private bus operators alleged that the General Manager of Haryana Roadways who is a rival in business in the State, cannot be expected to discharge his duties in a fair and reasonable manner he would be too lenient in inspecting the vehicles belonging to his own department.
Preconceived Notion Bias:
This type of bias is also known as unconscious bias. All person exercising adjudicatory powers are humans with human prejudices, no matter some persons are more humans than others. This may include class bias and personality bias. Every person is a product of a class and inherits some characteristics of the class which may also reflect in his decision-making process. In the same manner, the personality of every person is a combination of his biological and social heredity which determine his values and attitudes in a way that may condition his/her decision-making process. In general, it can be said community-based bias.
The problem of Preconceived Notion Bias is such which is inherent in any adjudication and cannot be eliminated unless detected by some over action of the authority and also is so detected can vitiate an administrative hearing if it has a direct relation with decision. This may include a situation where the deciding officer openly expresses his/her prejudice.
Bias on Account of Obstinacy:
It is a new category of bias as discovered by Hon. Supreme Court arising out of thoroughly unreasonable obstinacy. It literally means unreasonable and unwavering persistence and the deciding officer would not take no for an answer. This category of bias was discovered in a situation where a judge of Hon. Calcutta high Court upheld its own judgement while sitting in appeal against its own judgement.
(B) Audi Alteram Partem (Rule of Fair Hearing):
Rule of fair hearing simply implies that a person must be given an opportunity to defend himself/herself as it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seem to be done. However, refusal to participate in enquiry without valid reason cannot be pleaded as violation of natural justice at a later state.
The important components of this rule are – (a) Right to Notice; (b) Right to present case & evidence; (c) Right to Rebut Adverse Evidence; (d) Cross-Examination; (e) Legal Representation; (f) Report of Inquiry to be shown to the Other Party; (g) Post Decisional Hearing. These components of Rule of Fair Hearing are discussed in length in successive paras hereinafter.
Right to Notice:
The term Notice originated from a latin word notitia means being known. ‘Notice’ is the starting point of any hearing in the case. Unless a person knows the formulation of subjects and issues involved in the case, he/she cannot defend himself/herself. It is not enough that the notice in the case be given, but it must be adequate also. Any decision taken without serving notice is liable to be quashed subject to conditions.
Notice which is to be served in the case is to be adequate and must contain –
(i) sufficient information and material so as to enable the person concerned to put up an effective defence;
(b) name of person to whom notice to be served;
(c) Time, place & nature of hearing;
(d) sufficient time to be given to comply with the requirement of notice;
(e) Statement of specific charges which the person has to meet/alleged as a person cannot be punished for any other charge for which notice is not served. A notice should not create any dilapidated condition in the case.
Right to Present Case & Evidence:
The adjudicatory authority should extend reasonable opportunity to the party to present his/her case. This can be done through writing or orally at the discretion of the authority unless the statute under which the authority is functioning directs or otherwise.
The requirements of natural justice are met only if opportunity to represent is given in view of the proposed action. The demands of natural justice are not met even if the very person proceeded against has been furnished information on which the action is based, if it is furnished in a casual way or for some other purposes. This does not mean that the opportunity need be a “double opportunity”, that is one opportunity on the factual allegations and another on the proposed penalty.
This can be done through writing or orally. Oral hearing is not an integral part of fair hearing unless the circumstances are so exceptional that without oral hearing a person cannot put up an effective defence. In a case where complex legal and technical questions are involved or where stakes are very high, oral hearing shall become a part of fair hearing. Thus, in the absence of a statutory requirement for oral hearing courts will decide the matter taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of every case.
Right to Rebut Adverse Evidence:
The right to rebut adverse evidence presupposes that the person is informed about the evidence against him. This does not, however, necessitate the supply of adverse material in original in all cases. It is sufficient if the summary of the contents of the adverse material in made available provided it is not misleading.
The opportunity to rebut evidence necessarily involves the consideration of two factors:
(i) Cross-Examination and (ii) Legal representation.
Cross-Examination:
Cross-Examination is the most powerful weapon to elicit and establish truth. In case, where the witnesses have orally deposed, the refusal to allow cross-examination would certainly amount to violation of the principles of natural justice. In the area of labour relations and disciplinary proceedings against civil servants also, the right to cross-examination is included in the rule of fair hearing.
Legal Representation:
Normally, representation through a lawyer in any administrative proceeding is not considered an indispensable part of the rule of natural justice as oral hearing is not included in the meaning of fair hearing. Denial of legal representation is justified on the ground that lawyers tend to complicate matters, prolong the proceedings and destroy the essential informality of the proceedings.
It is further justified on the ground that the representation through a lawyer of choice would give edge to the rich over the poor who cannot afford a good lawyer. The fact Techniques of Law remains that unless some kind of a legal aid is provided by the agency itself, the denial of legal representation would be a mistaken kindness to the poor people.
It is required to be established to what extent legal representation would be allowed in administrative proceedings depends on the provisions of the Statute. Factory Laws do not permit legal representation, Industrial Dispute Acts allows it with the permission of the Tribunal and some Statutes like Income Tax Act permit legal representation as a matter of right. However, the Courts in India have held that in situations where the person is illiterate, or the matter is complicated and technical, or expert evidence is on record or a question of law is involved, or the person is facing a trained prosecutor, some professional assistance must be given to the party to make his/her right to defend himself/herself correctly.
Report of Inquiry to be shown to the Other Party:
It is experiences in many cases, especially in matters relating to disciplinary proceedings, on the basis of the report of the inquiry submitted by the Inquiry Officer, suitable action is taken by the competent authority. Under these circumstances a very natural question arises whether the copy of the report of the inquiry officer be supplied to the Charged Officer (DGS) before final decision is taken by the competent authority or otherwise? This question is important both from the constitutional and administrative law point of view.
One of the cardinal principles of the administrative law is that, any action which has civil consequences for any person cannot be taken without complying with the Principles of Natural Justice. Therefore, administrative law practice in disciplinary matter has always been whether failure to supply the copy of the Report of the Inquiry Officer to the Charged Officer (DGS) before final decision is taken by the competent authority would violate the principles of natural justice or otherwise?
In the same manner the constitutional question subsequently arises in such a situation, whether failure to supply the copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer to the Charged Officer (DGS) would violate the provisions of Article – 311(2) of the Constitution of India?
Article – 311(2) of the Constitution provides that no government employee can be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank without giving him/her a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of charges framed against him/her. Therefore, it has always been a perplexing question whether failure to supply the report of the inquiry officer to the DGS before final decision is taken would amount to failure to provide “reasonable opportunity” as required under Article 311(2).
In the same line of interpretation, there is a question arises if copy of Inquiry Officer is not supplied to the DGS be treated as violation of Article 14 of the Constitution which enshrines the great harmonizing and rationalizing principle or otherwise?
Neither the findings nor the recommendations of the Inquiry Officer are binding on the Disciplinary Authority in disciplinary proceeding. The findings of Inquiry Officer with evidence recorded constitute material on which the government has ultimately to act and this is the only purpose of the Inquiry. Hence, it is advisable to show the findings of Inquiry officer to the DGS to satisfy the norm – reasonable opportunity under Principle of natural Justice.
The application of the principles of natural justice varies from case to case depending upon the factual aspect of the matter. For example, in the matters relating to major punishment, the requirement is very strict and full-fledged opportunity is envisaged under the statutory rules before a person is dismissed removed or reduced in rank, but where it relates to only minor punishment, a mere explanation submitted by the DGS concerned meets the requirement of principles of natural justice. Also, in some matters oral hearing may be necessary but in others, It may not be necessary.
