ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

SUBMITTED TO:
Mr. VINOD CHAUHAN SUBMITTED BY:
FACULTY OF LAW, JMI SHABNAM SALEEM
B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) 6th Sem. S/F
FACULTY OF LAW, JMI
INTRODUCTION
The principles of natural justice are supposed to be as old as Adam and Eve. When Adam
disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge, God did not punish
Adam without giving him an opportunity. It is said, God called him and asked him "Hast thou
eaten of the tree where I commanded thee that thou should not eat?" There are innumerable
facets of natural justice. Suffice to say the law has been developed in the twentieth century by
many historical decisions. In ordinary parlance it means such principles which govern the justice
to be done in natural manner or principles which are adhered to when justice is done by the
nature. In statutes, such principles are specifically provided and even if unprovided, are read into
a statute, to save it from the vice of arbitrariness, unequality, unfairness and bad conscience.
Such principles are inherent and back bone of the judicial system as well as administrative,
quasi-judicial or disciplinary action. It is rather the soul of an order or judgment. Where the
statute itself provides for a particular form of opportunity, it has to be strictly followed, else in a
manner well defined by the judgements and the precedents. It is trite, justice not only should be
done, it should appear to have been done, to avoid criticism, doubt and suspicion.
The Principles of Natural Justice have come out from the need of man to protect himself from
the excesses of organized power man has always appealed to someone beyond his own creation.
Such someone is the God and His laws, divine law or natural law, to which all temporal laws and
actions must confirm.
Natural Law is of the 'higher law of nature' or 'natural law'
Natural Law does not mean the law of the nature or jungle where lion eats the lamb and tiger eats
the antelope but a law in which the lion and lamb lie down together and the tiger frisks the
antelope.
Natural Law is another name for common-sense justice.
Natural Laws are not codified and is based on natural ideals and values which are universal.
In the absence of any other law, the Principles of Natural Justice are followed.
Earliest form of natural law can be seen in Roman philosophical expressions (Jus Naturale). It is
used interchangeably with Divine Law, jus gentium and the common law of nations.
The Principles of Natural Justice are considered the basic Human Rights because they attempt to
bring justice to the parties naturally.
Giving reasoned decisions is a postulate and principle of Natural Justice.
Natural Justice is an important concept in administrative law. The principles of natural justice are
the preliminary basis of a good administrative set up of any country. The use of the term “Natural
Justice” in the judicial context is very important and frequent. Although there is an adjective
“natural” qualifying the noun “justice”, the concept has nothing to do with laws of nature, which
rather runs counter to it. With the advancement of the civilization our lives started to be
dominated more by the rules of law, rather than law of nature. The supreme and sovereign power
of the state to make laws through the organ of legislatures is one of the essential features of a
democratic establishment and the laws enacted by the legislatures are liable to be used arbitrarily
in the absence of a well-laid down procedure for its application and administration. The principle
of natural justice goes a long way to remedy the situation arising out of the departure from this
established procedure.
As has been explained that the natural justice is rule of law which principally guides this concept
and the rule of law ensures in arriving at decisions in a fair and just manner. The principles are
contained in the act itself. There are certain procedural prescriptions in the Civil Procedure Code
which mention various rights of the parties in dispute viz., the right to reply, the right to cross-
examine witnesses, inspection of evidences and documents submitted by the respective parties
etc. which are all basic rights and any judgements arrived at by violating these rights would
broadly come under the purview of natural justice and may be struck down by the appropriate
judicial authorities.
The Principles of Natural Justice are easy to proclaim, but their precise extent is far less easy to
define”. It has been stated that there is no single definition of Natural Justice and it is only
possible to enumerate with some certainty the main principles. During the earlier days the
expression natural Justice was often used interchangeably with the expression natural Law, but in
the recent times a restricted meaning has been given to describe certain rules of Judicial
Procedure.
The principles of natural justice have evolved under common law as a check on the arbitrary
exercise of power by the State. As the State powers have increased, taking within their ambit not
just the power of governance but also activities in areas such as commerce, industry,
communications and the like, it has become increasingly necessary to ensure that these powers
are exercised in a just and fair manner. The common law, which is a body of unwritten laws
which govern the legal systems of England, USA, Canada, Australia and other commonwealth
countries including India, has responded to this need to control the exercise of State powers
through applying the principles of natural justice to the exercise of such powers. These are
principles, which are necessary for a just and fair decision-making. These principles are often
embedded in the rules of procedure, which govern the judiciary. For example, the Civil
Procedure Code prescribes a detailed procedure under which the Defendant has the right to reply
to the Plaint; both sides have the right to inspect the documents relied upon by the other side and
both sides have the right to cross-examine one another’s witnesses. The judgment must give
reasons for the decision.
In India, there is no particular statute, laying down the minimum standard, which the
administrative bodies must follow while exercising their decision-making powers. There is,
therefore, a bewildering variety of administrative procedure. In some cases, the administrative
procedure is controlled by the statute under which they exercise their powers. But in some cases,
the administrative agencies are left free to device their own procedure. But the courts have
several times reiterated that the administrative agencies must follow a minimum of fair
procedure, while exercising their powers. This fair procedure is called the principles of natural
justice. The courts have developed the principles of natural justice, in order to secure fairness in
the exercise of the powers by the administrative agencies. The principles of natural justice are the
Common Law counterpart of the ‘due process of law’ in the Constitution of the United States.
However wide the powers of the state and however extensive discretion they confer, the
administrative agencies are always under the obligation to follow a manner that is procedurally
fair. The doctrine of natural justice seeks not only to secure justice but also to prevent
miscarriage of justice. Natural justice implies fairness, equity and equality. There is several
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is sufficient to explain the essential elements of
Natural Justice namely:
The laws of nature are designed to promote survival rather than justice. Nature is governed by
principles such as the survival of the fittest and prevalence of might over right. When a herd
leaves its weak members behind there is no question of the weak being supported or protected.
Therefore, ‘natural’ justice is not justice found in nature; it is a compendium of concepts which
must be naturally associated with justice, whether these concepts are incorporated in law or not.
Natural justice is a term of art that denotes specific procedural rights in the English legal system
and the systems of other nations based on it. The principles of natural justice have evolved under
common law as a check on the arbitrary exercise of power by the State. As the State powers have
increased, taking within their ambit not just the power of governance but also activities in areas
such as commerce, industry, communications and the like, it has become increasingly necessary
to ensure that these powers are exercised in a just and fair manner. The common law, which is a
body of unwritten laws which govern the legal systems of England, USA, Canada, Australia and
other commonwealth countries including India, has responded to this need to control the exercise
of State powers through applying the principles of natural justice to the exercise of such powers.

Basic Pillars of Principles of Natural Justice

It is difficult to precisely define what is meant by natural justice, the contents of principles of
natural justice are quite easy to enumerate. As it stands today, the basic principles of natural
justice are: (i) that the parties should be heard before deciding an issue; (ii) the hearing must be
before an impartial Judge, as no man can be judge of his own cause. Therefore, the hearing
must be before an unbiased Judge; (iii) the Judge should decide in good faith. He should have no
bias, personal or pecuniary; and (iv) the decision given must be reasoned one and therefore, the
decision must be evidenced by a speaking order which enumerates the reasons for coming to
a particular conclusion. The American Due Process of Law postulates: (a) notice (b) opportunity
to be heard; (c) an impartial tribunal and (d) an orderly course of procedure. The concept of
speaking order as a part of principles of natural justice is a significant and important contribution
by Indian jurisprudence. The three basic accepted principles of natural justice are:
 Rule against bias- that the dispute should be decided by an impartial judge without any bias
or interest against the parties and in the subject-matter of dispute;
 Audi alteram partem which means, no man should be condemned unheard. Both parties must
be heard before passing any order;
 Reasoned decisions- that the decisions must be reasoned one and the orders containing the
decision must be speaking orders.
The concept of natural justice is comprised of many colors and shades and many forms and
shapes, it is easy to proclaim, but very difficult to define. No doubt, it is true that the concept of
natural justice is not very clear and, therefore, it is not possible to define it; yet the principles of
natural justice are universally accepted and enforced.
Article 14 of the Constitution of India contains a guarantee of equality before the law to all
persons and a protection to them against discrimination by any law. What Article 14 forbids is
discrimination by law that is, treating persons similarly circumstanced differently or treating
those not similarly circumstanced in the same way, or, as has been pithily put treating equals as
unequals and unequals as equals. Article 14 prohibits hostile classification by law and is directed
against discriminatory class legislation. Arbitrariness can take many forms and shapes but
whatever form or shape it takes, it is nonetheless discrimination. It also became apparent that to
treat a person or a class of persons unfairly would be an arbitrary act amounting to discrimination
for- bidden by Article 14. The Apex Court has recognized that to treat a person in violation of the
principles of natural justice would amount to arbitrary and discriminatory treatment and would
violate the guarantee given by Article 14.
The principles of natural justice have thus come to be recognized as being a part of the guarantee
contained in Article 14 because of the new and dynamic interpretation given by the Supreme
Court to the concept of equality. Violation of a rule of natural justice results in arbitrariness
which is the same as discrimination; where discrimination is the result of State action, it is a
violation of Article 14: therefore, a violation of a principle of natural justice by a State action is a
violation of Article 14.
The two rules of natural justice, namely, nemo judex in causa sua and audi alteram partem, have
now a definite meaning and connotation in law and their content and implications are well
understood and firmly established, they are nonetheless not statutory rules. Each of these rules
yields to and changes with the exigencies of different situations. They do not apply in the same
manner to situations which are not alike. These rules are not cast in a rigid mould nor can they be
put in a legal strait-jacket. They are not immutable but flexible.
These rules can be adapted and modified by statutes and statutory rules and also by the
constitution of the Tribunal which has to decide a particular matter and the rules by which such
Tribunal is governed.
The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Kraipak vs. Union of India AIR 1970 S.C. 150 observed: "the
aim of rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage
of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other
words they do not supplant the law but supplement it. ‟It is true that if a statutory provisions
can be read consistently with the principles of natural justice, the courts should do so because it
must be presumed that the legislatures and the statutory authorities intend to act in accordance
with the principles of natural justice. But if on the other hand a statutory provision either
specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application of any or all the principles of
natural justice then the court cannot ignore the mandate of the legislature or the statutory
authority and read into the concerned provision the principles of natural justice. Whether the
exercise of a power conferred should be made in accordance with any of the principles of natural
justice or not depends upon the express words of the provision conferring the power, the nature
of the power conferred, the purpose for which it is conferred and the effect of the exercise of that
power".
Origin of the term natural justice
The phrase is, of course, used only in a popular sense and must not be taken to mean that there is
any justice natural among men. Among most savages there is no such thing as Justice in the
modern sense. In ancient days a person wronged executed his own justice. Amongst our own
ancestors, down to the thirteenth century, manifest felony, such as that of a manslayer taken with
his weapon, or a thief with the stolen goods, might be punished by summary execution without
any form of trial. Again, everyone has heard of compurgation and of ordeal; and it is hardly
necessary to observe that a system of ordeal by water in which sinking was the sign of innocence
and floating the sign of guilt, a system which lasted in this country for hundreds of years, has
little to do with modern ideas of justice. It is unnecessary to give further illustrations. The truth is
that justice is a very elaborate conception, the growth of many centuries of civilization; and even
now the conception differs widely in countries usually described as civilized”.

Rule of Audi Alteram Partem

Both parties should be heard before any decision. The right to a fair hearing has been used by the
court as the base on which to build a kind of code for administrative procedure comparable with
due process of law. A proper hearing must always include a fair and adequate opportunity to
those who are parties in the controversy for correcting and contradicting anything prejudicial to
their view. The disclosure of a charge or opposing case must be made and it must be made within
reasonable time to allow the person affected to prepare his defense or his comments. He must
have fair notice of any accusation against him. The principle of audi alteram partem has two
aspects (i) notice and (ii) hearing
The components of fair hearing are not fixed but are variable and flexible. Their scope and
applicability differ from case to case and situation to situation. The concept of fair hearing is
elastic and not susceptible of a precise and easy definition. The hearing procedures vary from the
tribunal, authority-to-authority and situation-to-situation. It is not necessary that the procedures
of hearing must be like that of the proceedings followed by the regular courts.
The objective of the giving the accused an opportunity of fair hearing is that an illegal action or
decision may not take place. Any wrong order may adversely affect a person. The maxim implies
that the person must be given an opportunity to defend himself. LORD HEWART rightly
observed that it is merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice
should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seem to be done”. Even if the
legislature authorizes the administrative action, without any hearing, the law would be violative
of the principles of fair hearing and thus violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian
Constitution. The laws of God and man both give the party an opportunity to defend himself.
Even God did not pass a sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defense.
Law envisages that in the cases classified as ‘quasi-judicial’, the duty to follow completely the
principles of natural law exists. But the cases, which are classified as the ‘administrative’, the
duty on the administrative authority, are to act justly and fairly and not arbitrarily. The fine
distinction between the quasi-judicial and administrative function needs to be discarded for
giving a hearing to the affected party. The expression audi alteram partem implies that a person
must be given opportunity to defend himself. This principle is sine qua non of every civilized
society.
This rule covers various stages through which administrative adjudication passes starting from
notice to final determination.
‘Hear the other side’ means (a) that a judge must hear both sides and must not hear one side in
the absence of the other. It means that the delinquent Government servant has a notice of the
charges he is called upon to explain and the allegations on which those are based; (b) that he has
access to all relevant evidence that he wishes to adduce; (c) that he is given the opportunity to
cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and to produce witnesses in defense and offer himself
for examination; (d) that no evidence should be recorded behind his back but all of it should be
taken in his presence; and (e) that no materials should be relied on against him without his being
given an opportunity of explaining them.
Right to fair hearing thus includes: -
1. Right to notice:
The term ‘Notice’ originated from the Latin word ‘
Notitia’ which means ‘being known’. Thus it connotes the sense of information, intelligence or
knowledge. Notice embodies the rule of fairness and must precede an adverse order. It should be
clear enough to give the party enough information of the case he has to meet. There should be
adequate time for the party, so that he can prepare for his defence. It is the sine qua non of the
right of hearing. If the notice is a statutory requirement, then it must be given in a manner
provided by law.

Thus notice is the starting point in the hearing. Unless a person knows about the subjects and
issues involved in the case, he cannot be in the position to defend him. The notice must be
adequate also. Its adequacy depends upon the case. But generally, a notice, in order to be
adequate must contain following elements: Time, place and nature of hearing. Legal authority
under which hearing is to be held. Statements of specific charges, which the person has to
meet. The test of the adequacy of the notice will be whether it gives the sufficient information
and material so as to enable the person concerned to prepare for his defence. There should also
be sufficient time to comply with the requirements of a notice. Where a notice contains only one
charge, the person cannot be punished for the charges, which were not mentioned in the notice.
The requirement of notice can be dispensed with, where the party concerned clearly knows the
case against it and thus avails the opportunity of his defence. Thus in the case of
Keshav mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, the court upheld the government order of taking over the
mill for a period of 5 years. It quashed the argument of the appellants that they were not issued
notice before this action was taken, as there was the opportunity of full-scale hearing and the
appellant did not want to know anything more.
2. Right to present case and evidence:
Every person before an administrative authority, exercising adjudicatory powers has right to
know the evidence to be used against him. The court in case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v.
CIT held that the assessee was not given a fair hearing, as the Appellate Income Tax tribunal did
not disclose the information supplied to it by the department. A person may be allowed to inspect
the file and take notes. The adjudicatory authority must provide the party a reasonable
opportunity to present his case. This can be done either orally or in written. The requirement of
natural justice is not met if the party is not given the opportunity to represent in view of the
proposed action.
Courts have unanimously held that the oral hearing is not an integral part of the fair hearing,
unless the circumstances call for the oral hearing. In Union of India v. JP Mitter, the court
refused to quash the order of the President of India in respect of the dispute relating to the age of
a High Court judge. It was held that where the written submission is allowed, there is no
violation of natural justice, if the oral hearing is not granted.
3. Right to cross-examination:
The right to rebut adverse evidence presupposes that the person has been informed about the
evidence against him. Rebuttal can be done either orally or in written, provided that the statute
does not provide otherwise. Cross-examination is a very important weapon to bring out the truth.
Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972, provides for the rights of the parties to cross-
examine. The cross-examination of the witnesses is not regarded as an obligatory part of natural
justice. Whether the opportunity of cross-examination is to be give or not depends upon the
circumstances of the case and statute under which hearing is held. State of Jammu and Kashmir
v. Bakshi Ghulam Mohd the Government of Jammu and Kashmir appointed a Commissioner of
Inquiry to inquire into the charges of corruption and maladministration against the ex-Chief
Minister of the state. He claimed the right to cross-examine the witnesses on the ground of
natural justice. The Court interpreted the statute and held that only those witnesses who deposed
orally against the chief Minister can be cross-examined and not of those who merely filed
affidavits.
4. Right to counsel:
For sometime, the thinking had been that the lawyers should be kept away from the
administrative adjudication, as it saves time and expense. But the right to be heard would be of
little avail if the counsel were not allowed to appear, as everyone is not articulate enough to
present his case. In India few statutes like the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, specifically bar the
legal practitioners from appearing before the administrative bodies. Till recently the view was
that the right to counsel was not inevitable part of the natural justice. But this view has been
almost done away with.

Nemo judex in causa sua- Rules against bias

The principle, ‘No one can be a judge in his own cause’ implies that the accuser must not sit in
judgment on the accused. The judge can under no circumstances combine in himself the roles of
judge and jury, of judge and witness or judge and prosecutor. “Nemo judex in causa sua” the
maxim means that a person will not judge a matter in which he is interested. In recent times
another principle has come into existence and followed by the judiciary is that a judgements
should be a speaking one, which means it should state the reasons behind arriving at a particular
decision. He must be totally free from any bias. Bias can be of three types: (a) a pecuniary
interest, (b) a personal interest, and (c) a general interest, in the subject matter brought before
him for decision. Bias is relevant not only in the disciplinary authority but also in the inquiry
officer even where the inquiry officer is a different person from the disciplinary authority. The
Principle is not confined merely to the case where the Judge is an actual party to a cause, but
applies to a cause in which he has an interest. An “Interest”, has been defined as a legal interest
or a pecuniary interest and is to be distinguished from “favour”. Such an interest will disqualify a
Judge. The interest (or bias) that disqualifies must be one in the matter to be litigated. A mere
general interest in the general object to be pursued will not disqualify a magistrate. The interest
or bias, which disqualifies is an interest in the particular case, something reasonably likely to
bias or influence the minds of the magistrates in the particular case. The Law in laying down this
strict rule has regard, not to the motive, which might bias the Judge, but it is to promote the
feeling of confidence in the administration of Justice.
a) Pecuniary bias: It is well-settled that as regard pecuniary interest “the least pecuniary
interest in the subject matter of the litigation will disqualify any person from acting as a
judge”. Griffith and Street rightly state that “a pecuniary interest, however slight will
disqualify even though it is not proved that the decision is in any way affected.
b) Personal bias: The second type of bias is personal one. A number of circumstances may
give rise to personal bias. Here a judge may be a relative, friend or business associate of a
party. He has some personal grudge, enmity grievance or professional rivalry against such
party. In view of these factors, there is very likelihood that the judge may be biased
towards one party or prejudiced towards the other.
c) Official bias: The third type of bias is official bias or bias as to subject-matter. This may
arise when the judge has a general interest in the subject-matter. Only rarely will this bias
invalidate proceedings. A mere general interest in the general object to be pursued would
not disqualify a judge from deciding the matter. There must be some direct connection
with the litigation.
This principle could be broadly classified as under.
1. Party to an action is prima facie entitled to be heard in his presence
2. He is entitled to dispute his opponent’s case, cross examine his opponent witnesses and
entitled to call his own witnesses and give his own evidence before Court.
3. He is entitled to know the reasons for the decision rendered by a Court /Tribunal.
The following further principles emerge from a consideration of what is stated above:
(i) That the decision must be made in good faith and
(ii) An order must be a speaking order.
The principle that the decision must be made in good faith implies that the judge has bestowed
due consideration to the facts and evidence adduced during the inquiry and has not taken into
account any extraneous matter not adduced during the inquiry and that he has arrived at the
decision without favour to any of the parties.
The principle that the order must be a speaking order is based on the premise that whether the
judge has considered all the aspects of a matter before him can be ascertained only if the order,
which he makes, is a speaking order. The requirement of making a speaking order will minimize
the possibility of arbitrary exercise of power, as the necessary search for reasons will ensure
reasonableness. Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are
based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter
while arriving at a decision.
The rules of natural justice are violated:
(a) Where the inquiry is confidential and is held ex parte (without valid reasons) or the witnesses
are examined in the absence of the charged officer;
(b) Where the charged officer is denied the right to call material defense witnesses or to cross-
examine the prosecution witnesses, or he is not given sufficient time to answer the charges, or
the Inquiry Officer acts upon documents not disclosed to the charged officer;
(c) Where the Inquiry Officer has a personal bias against the person charged.

Reasoned Decisions
The third aspect of natural justice requires speaking orders or reasoned decisions. It is now
universally recognized that giving reasons for a certain decision is one of the fundamentals of
good administration and a safeguard against arbitrariness. The refusal to give reasons may excite
the suspicion that there are probably no good reasons to support the decision. Hence reasons are
useful as they may reveal an error of law, the grounds for an appeal or simply remove what
might otherwise be a lingering sense of injustice on the part of the unsuccessful party. When the
order to be passed is an appealable order, the requirement of giving reasons would be a real
requirement. Thus, reasons are also required to be given when the appellate or revisionary
authority affirms the order of the lower authority.
A “speaking order” means an order speaking for itself. To put simply, every order must be
speaking, i.e. to say it must contain reasons in support thereof, should not be like the “inscrutable
face of sphinx”. Recording of reasons is soul of justice.
Object and Importance
The giving of reasons for a decision is one of the fundamentals of good administration. This
leads to natural justice on the part of decision maker. Articulating the base of a decision can
improve the quality of decision making in a number of significant ways. it makes administrative
authority more accountable to their actions and it also develops a habit of mind to look at things
from the standpoint of policy and administrative expediency. if an individual is subjected to give
reasons for his decision, it will impose some restriction on him and moreover if an adjudicator is
mandated to record reasons for his conclusions, it will make it necessary for him to consider the
matter more carefully.
The condition to give reasons introduces clarity, ensures objectivity and impartiality on the part
of decision maker and minimizes unfairness and arbitrariness for “compulsion of disclosure
of guarantees consideration”.
The adjudicator will have to give such reasons of r his decisions as may be regarded fair and
legitimate by a reasonable man and thus it will minimize chances of irrelevant or extraneous
consideration from entering his decisional process, and it will also minimizes chance of
unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfairness in his conclusions. Giving of reasons for
his decision is a guarantee by the decision- maker has applied his mind to the facts and
circumstances of the case and has not reached to the conclusion mechanically or arbitrarily, or on
irrelevant considerations; that he has reached decision according to law and not according to
caprice, whim or fancy, or on grounds of policy or expediency.
The, publication of reasons may increase public confidence in the administrative
process, particularly, by assuring those adversely affected by a decision that it has not been made
arbitrarily and relevant point which may support a contrary view have not been ignored but given
due consideration. It is well known principle that justice should not be only done but should
also be seen to be done. Administrator is under a general duty to act fairly and fairness founded
on reason is the essence of the right of equality. And moreover under many laws decision of
lower adjudicatory body are appealable so there a proper review is not possible unless the higher
body knows the base upon which original decision is made.
ENGLISH LAW
There is no general rule of English law that reasons must be given for administrative or
even judicial decision. But as Lord denning says, “The giving of reason is one of the
fundamentals of good administration”. The condition to record reasons introduces clarity and
excludes arbitrariness and satisfies the party concerned against whom the order is passed.
Today the old police state has become a “welfare state”. To provide a safeguard against these
arbitrary powers and there are all possibilities of abuse of power by these authorities, the
condition of recording reasons is imposed on them. It is true that even ordinary law courts do not
always give reasons in support of orders passed by them when they dismiss appeals and revisions
summarily. But Regular court of law and Administrative Tribunals cannot be put at par.
According to wade, the need for recording reason has been sharply exposed by the expanding
law of judicial review. The necessity of reason has also been recognized by the committee on
ministers’ Powers, 1973 (Frank Committee), the tribunals AND inquiries Act, 1958, the tribunals
and the inquiries Act, 1958, the tribunals and inquiries Act, 1922 and several others.
INDIAN LAW
If the statue requires recording of reasons, then it is the statutory requirement and therefore, there
is no scope for further inquiry. But even when the statue does not impose such an obligation, it is
necessary for the quasi-judicial authority to record reasons, as it is the “only visible safeguard
against possible injustice and arbitrariness” and affords protection to the person adversely
affected. Reasons are the links between the materials on which the certain conclusions are based
and the actual conclusion.11
The courts insist upon disclosure of reasons in support of the order on three grounds:12
 The party aggrieved has the opportunity to demonstrate before the appellate or revisional
court that the reasons which persuaded the authority to rejects his case were erroneous;
 The obligation to record reasons operates as a deterrent against possible arbitrary action by
executive authority invested with judicial power; and
 It gives satisfaction to the party against whom the order is made.
RECORDING OF REASONS BY COURTS
A judgment or an order of a court of law must be self-contained with reasons in support of the
findings arrived at the court. Sometimes, it is contended that courts themselves are not obliged at
common law to give reasons for their decisions (of course, in absence of any statutory provision
in that behalf). But as de smith states, “today not only higher courts, but all courts, at least in
relation to some of their decision, are under such obligation”.
RECORDING OF REASONS AS A PART OF NATURAL JUSTICE
A difficult and controversial question, however, is whether recording of reason can be said to
beone of the principal of natural justice, so the two principals of natural justice are well
establishedthat are-
 No man shall be judge in his own cause (nemo judex in causa sua).
 No man should be condemned unheard (audi alterum partem).
But the rule of natural justice is neither embodied rules nor they can be poisoned within the
straight jacket of a rigid formula so as to apex court in A.K Kraipak that “in the course of years
many more subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice”. For the first time in
Siemens Engg. Mfg. Co. of India Ltd v. Union of India AIR 1976 SC 1785, Supreme Court held
that the rule requiring reason to be recorded by quasi-judicial authorities in support of the orders
passed by them must be held to be a basic principal of natural justice.
EFFECT OF THE FAILURE TO RECORD REASONS
Judicial trend is not consistent and uniform in some cases, it has been held that the defect goes to
the root of the matter as there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record and the
decision is, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside.
It is not ordinary open to a decision maker, who is required to give reasons, to respond to a
challenge by giving different or better reasons. To quash a decision simply because of failure to
record reason is disproportionate and inappropriate response. The court may in such cases direct
the adjudicating authority to consider the matter again and record reasons in support of the order
passed.

Exceptions of the Rules of Natural Justice

In the following grounds, there may be exclusion to the rules of natural justice:
I. Exclusion in exceptional cases of emergency: Where a company has to be wound up to
save the depositors or a trade dangerous to society is to be prohibited or a dangerous
building is to be demolished or in such other exceptional cases of emergency, where
urgent action, preventive or remedial, is needed the application of the rule of fair hearing
may be excluded.
II. Exclusion in cases of Dire Public Interest: In Mohinder Sing Gill vs. Chief Ellection
Commissioner the Supreme court of India held that ‘Rule of Fair Hearing’ can be
obviated in administrative adjudication or in a decision making process to save greater
public interest.
III. Exclusion in cases of confidentiality: If application of the rule of fair hearing breaks any
confidentiality which is detrimental to national interest or public order, in that case this
rule may be excluded.
IV. Exclusion in case of Academic Adjudication: A student of the University was removed
from the rolls for unsatisfactory academic performance without giving any pre-decisional
hearing. The Supreme Court of India held that where the competent academic authorities
examine and assess the work of a student over a period of time and declare his
performance unsatisfactory, application of the rule of fair hearing is not needed.
V. Exclusion based on Impracticability: In R. Radhakrishna vs. Osmania University it was
found that the entire M.B.A, entrance examination was cancelled by the University
authority because of mass copying. The court held that notice and hearing to all
candidates is impossible, since assumed national proportions.
VI. Exclusion is cases of Interim Preventive Action: If any order taken by an
administrative authority is a suspention order being preventive in nature and not final
order, in that case application of rules of natural justice may be excluded.
VII. Exclusion in case of Legislative Action: Exclusion is justified if the nature of
administrative action is legislative. If any administrative action, taken in violation of
 natural justice, does not apply to a single individual or a few specified person and is of
general nature, it may be called legislative.

CONCLUSION
Natural justice have a close relation with common law and moral principles but it is not the
natural law. Natural justice aims at providing fairness equity and equality to the people and it
aims at decisions and judgement free from any kind of biasness to give proper justice to people
in absence of this, judgements would go influenced with biasness and would change their nature
so we cannot hope to get justice from court as they would be partial which would thus make a
court a useless place to get justice from. Rule against biasness makes a judge to be impartial and
to put his mind objectively to the dispute or problem before him The basis on which impartiality
operates is the need to maintain public confidence in the legal system. The erosion of public
confidence undermines the nobility of the legal system, and leads to ensuing chaos Justice must
be rooted in confidence and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away
thinking: 'The judge was biased. And thus the complete law and order fails without natural
justice and rule against biasness.
Principles of natural justice are soul of an administration of justice and need to be adhered to in
order to make the order as a just and fair order. Above stated principles are well settled and need
to be complied by all Courts, authorities and Tribunals while dispensation of justice. It is a duty
and obligation and its violation is infringement of fundamental rights conferred by the
Constitution of India and shall also make mockery of law, which is impermissible in democracy.
The natural justice forms the cornerstone of every civilized legal system. It is not found in the
codified statutes. But it is inherent in the nature. Being uncodified, the natural justice does not
have a uniform definition. However, it lays down the minimum standard that an administrative
agency has to follow in its procedure. Where the legal justice fails, the role of natural justice
becomes evident in preventing the miscarriage of justice. Even God never denied the natural
justice to the human beings. So the human laws also need to be in conformity with the rules of
natural justice. The rule of fair hearing must be followed to prevent the miscarriage of justice. If
an accused is punished unheard, the purpose of law is defeated. The adjudicatory authority does
not know whether the accused is innocent or not. What if the accused is punished unheard and
later he turns out to be an innocent? Before taking any action the adjudicatory authority has to
keep in mind the several considerations.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Jain, M.P. & Jain, S.N.; Principles of Administrative Law, 6th Ed., Vol. II, Wadhwa
Nagpur, 2007.
2. Kumar, Narender; Nature and Concepts of Administrative Law, 1st Ed., Allahabad Law
Agency, Faridabad, 2011.
3. Massey, I.P., Administrative Law, Eastern Book Company, (Lucknow)