Principles of natural justice

In India there is no statute laying down the minimum procedure which administrative agencies must follow while exercising decision-making powers. This minimum fair procedure refers to the principles of natural justice Natural justice is a concept of common law and represents higher procedural principles developed by the courts, which every judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative agency must follow while taking any decision adversely affecting the rights of a private individual.

Natural justice implies fairness, equity and equality. In a welfare state like India, the role and jurisdiction of administrative agencies is increasing at a rapid pace. The concept of Rule of Law would loose its validity if the instrumentalities of the State are not charged with the duty of discharging these functions in a fair and just manner.

In India, the principles of natural justice are firmly grounded in Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution. With the introduction of concept of substantive and procedural due process in Article 21, all that fairness which is included in the principles of natural justice can be read into Art. 21. The violation of principles of natural justice results in arbitrariness; therefore, violation of natural justice is a violation of Equality clause of Art. 14. The principle of natural justice encompasses following two rules: - 1. Nemo judex in causa sua - No one should be made a judge in his own cause or the rule against bias. 2. Audi alteram partem - Hear the other party or the rule of fair hearing or the rule that no one should be condemned unheard.

RULE AGAINST BIAS (NEMO JUDEX CAUSA SUA)

Biasness implies an agent preference, regardless of whether cognizant or oblivious in connection to a gathering or issue. The manage against predisposition streams from following two standards: - a) No one ought to be a judge in his own particular reason b) Justice ought not exclusively be done yet clearly and without a doubt be believed to be finished. In this manner a judge ought not exclusively be fair yet ought to be in a situation to apply his mind equitably to the question before him. The run against inclination in this manner has two primary perspectives: - 1. The executive practicing adjudicatory forces must not have any close to home or restrictive enthusiasm for the result of the procedures. 2. There must be genuine probability of inclination. Genuine probability of inclination is an abstract term, which implies either real predisposition or a sensible doubt of predisposition. It is hard to demonstrate the perspective of a man. In this manner, what the courts see is whether there is sensible ground for trusting that the central factor was probably going to have been one-sided. Inclination can take numerous structures: - ¾ Personal Bias ¾ Pecuniary Bias ¾ Subject-matter predisposition ¾ Departmental predisposition ¾

AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM OR RULE OF FAIR HEARING

The principle of audi alteram partem is the basic concept of principle of natural justice. 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 pasees starting from notice to final determination. Right to fair hearing thus includes:-

1. Right to notice
2. Right to present case and evidence
3. Right to rebut adverse evidence (i) Right to cross examination (ii) Right to legal representation
4. Disclosure of evidence to party
5. Report of enquiry to be shown to the other party
6. Reasoned decisions or speaking orders.

POST DECISIONAL HEARING

Post decisional hearing means hearing after the decision is reached. The idea of post decisional hearing has been developed by the SC in Maneka Gandhi Vs. UOI to maintain the balance between administrative efficiency and fairness to the individual.

REQUIREMENT OF CROSS EXAMINATION

Cross-examination is used to rebut evidence or elicit and establish truth. In administrative adjudication, as a general rule, the courts do not insist on cross-examination unless the circumstances are such that in the absence of it, an effective defence cannot be put up.

RIGHT OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION

Lawful portrayal isn't considered as an imperative piece of the manage of reasonable hearing in managerial procedures. This disavowal of lawful portrayal is supported on the ground that –

a) the legal advisors have a tendency to muddle matters, draw out hearings and wreck the fundamental casualness of the hearings.

b) it gives and edge to the rich over the poor who can't bear the cost of a decent attorney. Regardless of whether lawful portrayal is permitted in regulatory procedures relies upon the arrangements of the statute

Production line laws don't allow legitimate portrayal, Industrial Disputes Act permits it with the consent of the council and a few statutes like Income Tax allow portrayal as an issue of right. The courts in India have held that in following circumstances, some expert help must be given to the gathering to make his entitlement to safeguard himself important:

• Illiterate
• Matter is specialized or confused
• Expert proof is on record
• Question of law is included
• Person is confronting prepared prosecutor

The courts have seen in few cases that it is inappropriate to deny legitimate portrayal to the distressed individual where the State is permitted to be spoken to through a legal counselor.

REQUIREMENT OF PASSING A SPEAKING OR REASONED ORDER

In India, except if there is particular necessity of giving reasons under the statute, it isn't obligatory for the regulatory organizations to give explanations behind their choices. Reasons are the connection between the request and brain of the producer. Any choice of the managerial expert influencing the privileges of the general population without appointing any reason tantamounts to infringement of standards of characteristic equity. The necessity of expressing the reasons can't be under accentuated as its fills the accompanying need: -

1. It guarantees that the authoritative specialist will apply its brain and impartially take a gander at the actualities and confirmation of the case.

2. It guarantees that all the applicable components have been considered and that the unessential elements have been forgotten.

3. It fulfills the bothered party as in his view focuses have been analyzed and considered preceding achieving an end.

4. The re-appraising experts and courts are in a superior position to think about the interests on the topic of law.

REPORT OF ENQUIRY REPORT TO BE SHOWN TO THE OTHER PARTY

Regardless of whether a duplicate of enquiry report must be submitted to the reprobate worker before passing the request? Until 1987, there was no point of reference or law which made it compulsory, in all cases, for the disciplinary expert to serve a duplicate of the enquiry give an account of the reprobate before achieving a ultimate choice. Without precedent for 1987, full seat of CAT held that inability to supply a duplicate of the enquiry answer to the reprobate before recording a finding against him is mandatory and inability to do as such would vitiate the enquiry. (P,K,Sharma Vs, UOI) The SC in 1973 considered this inquiry in Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. Versus UOI. Actualities Appellant Co. in the wake of working together for a long time shut down. 1200 people jobless - based on commission to enquire into the issues of the co. u/s 15 of IDRA, GOI passed a request u/s 18-A to assume control over the factory. Tested before SC on the ground that enquiry report not submitted Held ¾ Not conceivable to set down general standard on this Q. ¾ Answer relies upon actualities and conditions of each case ¾ If the non-revelation of the report makes any preference in any way the gathering, it must be uncovered, generally non-exposure would not add up to infringement of standards of common equity. In UOI Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1991) a seat of 3 makes a decision about held that non-outfitting of the enquiry report would add up to refusal of the standards of characteristic equity