The Soul of Justice

Indian laws in almost every facet of law have always given a lot of importance to the principles of natural justice. These are foundational to fair decision-making in law, including in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings. They ensure that no individual is condemned unheard. The two cardinal tenets are: nemo judex in causa sua, i.e. no one shall be a judge in their own cause, which guards against bias; and audi alteram partem, i.e. the right to be heard, which mandates that no person should be penalised without a fair opportunity to present their case.

Natural justice is a basic principle of fairness that guides all legal and administrative decisions. It ensures that no person is treated unfairly or punished without being given a proper opportunity to explain their side. Natural justice is not limited to courts of law; it applies to all areas of decision-making, including government offices, schools, universities, workplaces, etc. It protects individuals from arbitrary or unjust actions by those in authority. By following the principles of natural justice, institutions strengthen public confidence, ensure transparency, and promote accountability.

These principles apply even in the absence of express statutory provisions. In Canara Bank v. Debasis Das (2003), the Supreme Court held that adherence to the principles of natural justice, as recognised by all civilised States, is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as the audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice to the party concerned is the first limb of this principle. As per the Court, it must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party of the case he has to meet. The time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable a person to make their representation. In the absence of such notice and reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. The issuance of notice in a proceeding is, after all, an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time.

In K.L. Triathi v. State Bank of India & Ors. (1984), the Apex Court considered the question of whether the violation of each and every facet of the principles of natural justice has the effect of vitiating the enquiry. It was observed that the basic concept is fair play in action — administrative, judicial, or quasi-judicial. The concept of fair play in action must depend upon the particular lis between the parties. Certain dicta have clarified that the principles of natural justice are no unruly horse. The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with, having regard to the facts and situation therein. They cannot be put into a straitjacket formula. They cannot be applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. For instance, when facts are admitted, an enquiry would be an empty formality. Even the principle of estoppel will apply. Decisions have also held that prejudice is to be shown by the person alleging non-compliance with these principles.

In A.K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc. v. Union of India & Ors. (1970), the Supreme Court said that the concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held, and the constitution of the Tribunal or the body of persons appointed for that purpose.

These dicta of Courts collectively affirm that natural justice is not a rigid formula but a flexible doctrine, shaped by context and guided by fairness. However, individuals must not evade service of notice from authorities or courts to falsely claim violation of natural justice, as courts also consider whether genuine prejudice has occurred. The idea is simple — decisions should be made in a fair, open, and unbiased manner. However, in case individuals use it as a ploy, they cannot take advantage of it.

Ultimately, the principles of natural justice serve as a bulwark against arbitrariness, ensuring that fairness, reasoned decision-making, and procedural integrity remain central to the rule of law — but only for genuine cases.

Views expressed are personal. The writer is a practising Advocate in the Supreme Court and High Court of Delhi