Natural Justice- Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa, Audi alteram partem

0
Natural Justice- Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa, Audi alteram partem
Natural Justice- Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa, Audi alteram partem

The principle of natural justice is a fundamental concept in the administration of law. It is one of the most important rules and procedure in the exercising of justice and fair hearing. The principle of natural justice is known by names like ‘fundamental justice’, ‘fair play in action’ and ‘substantial justice’. The term natural justice is not found in the constitution of India neither is it prescribed by any court.

Defining the principle of natural justice is very difficult because of the ambiguity that surrounds its terms. However, it is accepted and enforced by judicial institutions of the world.

The principle of natural justice can be traced to the Greek era where it was unlawful to condemn anyone without a hearing. The principle of natural justice has become a rule which is binding on courts and any judicial institution. The rule is not limited to judicial institutions or establishments, but it is binding to all administrative authorities.

  1. WHAT IS NATURAL JUSTICE?

Natural justice refers to the specific procedures that are engaged in the legal system in actualizing the rules of equity and fairness. The principle of natural justice is, in fact, a rule of conscience and personal character. The purpose of the principle of natural justice is to prevent the authorities from acting in arbitrariness and exclude the chance of consciously denying a person justice.

The two principles of natural justice that are recognized in English law are:

  • The Rule against bias – the jury must be impartial and no man will act as a judge in his personal case.
  • Rule of fair hearing – this implies that no man shall be condemned by the authorities without being heard on the case.
  1. RULE AGAINST BIAS –

The rule against bias can be further divided into:

  1. Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa –

    this principle implies that the jury to decide the case must neutral to the parties. The principle is guided by the fact that no one will act as a judge in his case and justice should be decided in the presence of all.

What is bias? Bias is a disregard for the true merits in the dispute while deciding the case for or against a party. The judge in any case, must be neutral and without any bias. In a case that the judge should not act in a case where he has conflicting interests. He must decide objectively on the matter and must prove his impartiality beyond all reasonable doubt. No form of personal prejudice should be a factor in his decisions on the case.

Types of Bias –

the various types of bias recognized by law are pecuniary, personal, subject matter, departmental and policy bias.

Pecuniary Bias-

Any judge with a pecuniary interest no matter how little it may seem on the case will be automatically disqualified from acting in his capacity as the decision maker.

 

Cases-

In a case between Dr. Prem Chand and Manak Lal in 1957, it was observed by J. Gajendragadkar that a pecuniary interest of any magnitude on the proceedings of the case will disqualify any member of the jury from being the judge.

In the case of Jeejeebhoy and Asst. Collector, Thana, 1965, the panel of inquiry on the case was reconstituted because of an observation raised by C. J. Gajendragadkar that one of the members of the jury is equally a member of the Co-operative society which is the owner of the disputed land.

 

Personal bias:

This arises in cases where the deciding authority has a personal relationship with any of the parties in the suit. It is either the judge is a relative, business associate or friend to one of the parties in the suit or has a hatred or grievance against a party. Based on the factors outlined, there is the tendency that the judge could be prejudiced or biased against a party in the dispute.

 Cases-

          In the case of Mineral Development Ltd. and the State of Bihar, 1969, the Minister revoked the mining license of 99 years that was offered to the petitioner in 1947 because of the personal rivalry he had with him. However, the court ruled that due to the personal grievance the minister had with him, the action of the minister is hereby nullified.

In a 1973 case between the Union of India and D. K. Khanna, the legitimacy of a candidate was challenged and his selection canceled because of bias in the selection committee as one of the members was a     son-in-law to the candidate.

 

Subject matter Bias:

Subject matter bias arises in situations where the judge or deciding authority has a general interest in the dispute. The authority will have a direct link with the case.

 Cases-

          In 1964 case between Murlidhar and Kadamsingh, the chairman of the election tribunal was declared unfit for the position because his wife was a member of the party through which a party in the dispute emerged.

In the case of Gullapalli Nageshwar Rao and A.P.S.R.T.C, 1959, a publication on a scheme for nationalization of motor transport in the state was made by the Andhra Pradesh State transport undertaking and included an invitation for applications. The petitioners objected to the matter following which the matter was heard by the secretary and the Chief Minister eventually approved the scheme. The supreme court held that the parties that heard the case violated the principle of natural justice because they were a party to the litigation.

 

Department Bias:

this is mostly found in administrative processes and if it is not curbed, the principles of natural justice could be violated.

Cases-

          In the case between Kondala Rao and A.P. Transport Corporation, the scheme on the nationalization of the bus services was initiated by the transport company of which was open for hearings upon which the    Minister of Transport was the presiding judge. After the scheme was adopted, the petitioners pleaded that the minister was biased and that the proposed scheme should be nullified. However, the supreme court ruled that there was no bias.

In the case of Vallukunnel and RBI, 1962, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Section 38 of the 1949 Banking Companies Act which authorized the Reserve Bank of India to decide whether actions taken by the banks have been in the interest of its depositors.

In the 1994 case between the State of U.P. and R.S. Sodhi, the subject of the matter was on the legality of the actions of the state police in conducting investigations on persons they encounter. The allegation came against the state police on which the Supreme court ruled that investigation could be made on subject matters from the independent agencies.

 

Policy bias:

In some cases that the Minister or the official concerned makes a pronouncement on a certain general policy which must be followed; there could arise a contention if the pronouncement could disqualify him from acting in the capacity to decide on the parties in the dispute.

 Case-

          In the case between T. Govindraj Mudliar and State of T.N, 1973, it was ruled that the government’s decision to nationalize road transport and appointing a committee to decide on the scheme. The home secretary who was a member of the committee and presided over the hearing on objections to the scheme was alleged to be biased. However,         the court ruled that the Home Secretary was not in any biased but was acting in his capacity as an assistant to the government in preparing the scheme and as such could not have predetermined the outcome of the scheme.

 

  1. RULE OF FAIR HEARING (Audi alteram partem)

Audi alteram partem which is the Latin word for the rule of fair hearing means that unless a person is heard he must not be condemned. The principle allows for the person against whom an action is taken or whose rights are infringed to defend himself and be heard accordingly. Before a cause is decided against a person on a subject matter, a reasonable opportunity must be provided for the individual or parties to be heard.

The two recognized principles of this rule include notice and hearing.

  1. Notice – the person of interest must be served with a notice to seek for his explanation and to show a cause of the proposed action. An action taken without a notice is a direct violation of the principle of natural justice. In case that the order could violate the rights of an individual, then a notification must be made. The notice should be clear, precise and the charges spelled out to the understanding of the individual(s) concerned.
  2. The Question of the Adequacy of Notice – for a notice to be regarded as adequate, it must contain time, place, nature of the hearing, jurisdiction or authority under which hearing will take place, the matter of fact and law the regard charges. Adequacy of notice may vary from court to court. However, cases can be struck out by a court because of issues in the adequacy of notice.

   Case-

          In a 1978 case between J. Vilangandan and Executive Engineer, there was a proposition by the Executive Engineer that a contractor should be blacklisted. The contractor was served a notice, but the      Supreme Court discovered inadequacies in the notice because it lacked in content to inform the contractor of his illegibility of partaking in future contracts under the department.

  1. Reasonable Opportunity of Notice: The notice must provide a reasonable opportunity for the person on which it is served to comply with the requirements contained in it. A person can only be punished based on the charges mentioned in the notice.
  2. Hearing: this is the second requirement in the rule of fair hearing which implies that a party must be granted the right to be heard before a decision is reached on the matter.

  Case-

In the case between Maneka Gandhi and Union of India, 1978, the passport belonging to the petitioner was confiscated by the government in the interest of the public. There was no opportunity for the petitioner to be heard before the action was taken. The supreme court ruled that the petitioner’s rights were violated.

  1. Oral hearing – oral hearing is effected where the parties of interest are granted the legal right to present witnesses which can be cross-examined.
  2. Fair hearing – hearing can be regarded as a fair hearing on the condition that the party is permitted by the judicial authority to produce any material he decides, any material or facts in possession of the authorities that would be used in determining the suit should be disclosed and an opportunity for the individual to refute any material or fact against him.
  3. Crossexamination – Cross-examination of a witness is one of the most important methods of establishing the veracity of the claims.
  4. Legal representation – it is the right of every person to be represented by an attorney. In India, the right to legal representation is determined based on the circumstances involved. An example is the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
  5. Right to know evidence – the party in the case has a right to know the nature of the material the judge will be using as evidence against him in the case. Evidence that is not known to the party should not be considered.

 

 

  1. CONDITIONS FOR EXCLUSION OF NATURAL JUSTICE

The principles of natural justices are yet to be made statutory rules and as such could be adopted or modified by other laws. The following are the conditions for exclusion of natural justice:

  • Where a statute is framed to exclude an application of natural justice.
  • On the doctrine of necessity
  • On taking a preventive action
  • On the necessity of an urgent action
  • Where non-observance of natural justice would not amount to an unfair practice.
  • On conditions of confidential inquiry.

  Case-

          In the case of A. K. Kraipak and Union of India, 1969, the supreme court ruled that the purpose of natural justice is to prevent the injustice of any form. The rules of natural justice cannot replace the laws of the country.

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here