DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIA

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERISTY

GENESIS AND CONTEMPORARY STATE OF

Submitted to Submitted by

Dr. Manoj Kumar Param Chaudhary

Assistant Professor Enrolment No. – 210101099

Administrative Law B.A. L.L.B (Hons.)

Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University 5th Semester, Section ‘B’

1
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that my project work titled “Genesis and Contemporary State of Principles of

Natural Justice” submitted to the Law department, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia National Law

University, Lucknow is a record of an original work done by me under the guidance of Dr.

Manoj Kumar and this project work is submitted in the partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the award of the degree of B.A. LLB.(hons). This project work has not been submitted to

any other University or Institute for the award of any degree or diploma.

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express profound gratitude to Dr. Manoj Kumar, Prof. (Law), who gave me

the opportunity to work on this project and allowed me to develop the skills and acquire the

necessary knowledge to complete this project. I would also like to express humble gratitude

for the exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant encouragement throughout the course of

this project.

I would also like to thank the faculty of Dr. Madhu Limaye Library who extended their

assistance to me by helping me consult relevant legal research material which was essential to

the completion of this project.

Lastly, I would like to thank my family for their constant encouragement without which this

project would not have been possible to complete.

3
 INDEX

S.NO. HEADING PAGE NO.

1 INTRODUCTION 5-6

2 HISTORY 7-8

3 PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE 9

4 NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA 10 - 13

5 AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM 14 - 18

6 ISSUANCE OF SPEAKING ORDERS OR REASONED 19

9 BIBLIOGRAPHY 26

4
 INTRODUCTION

The term ―Principles of Natural Justice, derived from the expression “Jus Natural” of the

Roman Law, does not have force of law as they may or may not form part of statute but they

are necessarily to be followed. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by

all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi judicial body embarks on

determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil

consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. Principles of natural justice are

those rules which have been laid down by the Courts as being the 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.

These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice. The rules of natural

justice do not supplant the law of the land but only supplement it. It is now firmly established

that in the absence of express provisions in any statute dispensing with the observance of the

principles of natural justice, such principles will have to be observed in all judicial, quasi-

judicial and administrative proceedings which involve civil consequences to the parties.

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. It is similar to the American concepts of

fair procedure and procedural due process, the latter having roots that to some degree parallel

the origins of natural justice.

Natural justice is another name for common sense justice rules of natural justice are not in

codified form these principles imbedded or ingrained or inbuilt in the conscience of human

being. It supplies the omission made in codified law and helps in administration of justice.

Natural justice is not only confined to ‘fairness’ it will take many shade and colour based on

5
the context. Thus natural justice apart from ‘fairness’ also implies reasonableness, equity and

equality. They are neither cast in a rigid mould nor can they be put in legal straitjacket. These

principles written by nature in the heart of mankind, they are immutable, inviolable, and

inalienable. The requirements of natural justice or a duty to act fairly depend on the context.

In Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 1, the Supreme Court of

Canada set out a list of non-exhaustive factors that would influence the content of the duty of

fairness, including the nature of the decision being made and the process followed in making

it, the statutory scheme under which the decision-maker operates, the importance of the

decision to the person challenging it, the person's legitimate expectations, and the choice of

procedure made by the decision-maker.

Natural justice is the essence of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in tradition and conscience,

to be ranked as fundamental. The purpose of following the principles of natural justice is the

prevention of miscarriage of justice.

1
1999 CANLII 699

6
 HISTORY

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. In the absence of any other law, the Principles of

Natural Justice are followed.

The Principles were accepted as early as in the days of Adam and of Kautilya’s Arthashastra.

According to the Bible, when Adam & Eve ate the fruit of knowledge, which was forbidden

by God, the latter did not pass sentence on Adam before he was called upon to defend

himself. Same thing was repeated in case of Eve. Later on, the principle of natural justice was

adopted by English Jurist to be so fundamental as to over-ride all laws It is said that

principles of natural justice are of very ancient origin and was known to Greek and Romans.

The notion of a natural justice system emerges from religious and philosophical beliefs about

how we see ourselves with respect to nature. Kluckhohn’s (1953) analysis provides one of the

most noted descriptions of the philosophical principles that govern our relationship with

nature. He claimed that humans think of themselves as being

1. Subjugated to nature,

2. an inherent part of nature, or

3. separate from nature.

Each of these views shapes a particular natural justice belief and thus a distinct moral stance

toward nature. Some cultures emphasize their submissiveness to nature and would tend to

adopt a morality of divinity. Others emphasize their harmonious relationship with nature and

7
would tend to adopt a morality of caring. Still others emphasize their control over nature and

would tend to adopt a morality of justice..

The principles of natural justice were associated with a few ‘accepted rules’ which have been

built up and pronounced over a long period of time. In the West, in the olden days of laissez-

fair practice, when industrial relations were governed and administered by the unscrupulous

and harsh weighted law of hire and fire, the management was in supreme command and at its

best with the passage of time, notions of social justice developed and the expanding horizons

of socio- economic justice necessitated statutory protection to the workmen. The freedom to

hire men/women is embedded in the management philosophy and thinking and the liberty is

restrained to firing them arbitrarily or at its own will. The passage demonstrates that the rule

against bias, like the hearing rule, was treated as an expression of the natural law regarded by

Roman legal scholars as 'that ideal body of right and reasonable principles which was

common to all human beings'. Those principles are said to have emerged from Cicero's Latin

renderings of Greek Stoic philosophy, written in the first century BC. They became the

underpinnings of Thomas Aquinas's philosophy and were regarded as divine law informing

creation and binding human beings.

The word ‘Natural Justice’ manifests justice according to one’s own conscience. It is derived

from the Roman Concept ‘jus - naturale’ and ‘Lex naturale’ which meant principle of natural

law, natural justice, eternal law, natural equity or good conscience. Lord Evershed, in Vionet

v. Barrett remarked, “Natural Justice is the natural sense of what is right and wrong.” But

Natural justice has meant different things to different peoples at different times. In its widest

sense, it was formerly used as a synonym for natural law. It has been used to mean that

reasons must be given for decisions; that a body deciding an issue must only act on evidence

of probative value.

8
 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 lose its validity if the instrumentalities of the State are not charged with the duty

of discharging these functions in a fair and just manner.

Natural Justice recognizes three principles:

(i) Nemo judex in causa sua

(ii) Audi alterem partem, and

(iii) Speaking orders or reasoned decisions.

The first two have come to us from the Roman Law and the third one is a recent Innovation

due to the rapid development of the constitutional as well as administrative law.

9
 NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA

The first principle of impartiality roughly translated into English means nobody shall be a

judge in his own cause or in a cause in which he is interested. This principle is more

popularly known as the Doctrine of Bias. That is the authority sitting in judgment should be

impartial and act without bias. To instill confidence in the system, justice should not merely

be done but seen to be done.

The first principle of natural justice consists of the rule against bias or interest and is based on

three maxims:

 No man shall be a judge in his own cause

 Justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done

and

 Judges should be above suspicion.

Nemo Judex In Causa Sua is popularly known as the rule against bias. It is the minimal

requirement of the natural justice that the authority giving decision must be composed of

impartial persons acting fairly, without prejudice and bias. It may be ground for

disqualification of the judge or juror in question.” It is also defined as, “A predisposition or a

preconceived opinion that prevents a person from impartially evaluating facts that have been

presented for determination; a prejudice.” But we have to keep in mind the observations of

Justice Frank of United States in re. Linahan : “If, however, bias and partiality be defined to

mean the total absence of preconceptions in the mind of the Judge, then no one has ever had a

fair trial, and no one ever will. The human mind, even at infancy, is no blank piece of paper.

We are born with the predispositions and the process of education, formal and informal,

10
create attitudes which precede reasoning in particular instances and which therefore, by

definition are prejudices.”

Types of bias:

Bias manifests itself variously and affects a decision in a variety of ways. It can broadly be

classified into six categories:

1. Personal Bias

2. Pecuniary Bias

3. Subject Matter Bias

4. Departmental Bias

5. Preconceived Notion Bias

6. Bias On Account of Obstinacy.

Personal Bias:

It arises out of the personal or professional relationship of friendship or hostility between the

authority and the parties. It’s the human nature that we try to give favorable decision to our

friends or relatives, whereas use the same as a weapon against the enemies.

Apex court’s decision in Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. V. State of Bihar2, serves as

a good illustration on the point. Here, the petitioners were granted a mining lease for 99 years

in 1947. But in 1955, government quashed the license. The petitioners brought an action

against the minister passing this order on the behalf of government, on the ground that, the

petitioner in 1952 opposed the minister in General election. Therefore, on the account of

political rivalry, the minister passed such an order, and hence the order was suffered from

personal bias. Supreme Court found the allegation to be true and thus quashed the said order.

2
AIR 1960 SC468.

11
Pecuniary Bias:

Any financial interest howsoever small it may be is bound to vitiate the administrative action.

The judicial opinion is unanimous as to it.

In R v. Hendon Rular District Council3, the court in England quashed the decision of the

planning commission, where one of the members was an estate agent who was acting for the

applicant to whom permission was granted.

Subject Matter Bias:

The situations where the deciding officer is directly or indirectly in the subject matter of the

case.

In R v. Deal Justices ex p. Curling4, the magistrate was not declared disqualified to try a case

of cruelty to an animal on the ground that he was a member of the royal society for the

prevention of cruelty to animals as this did not prove a real likelihood of bias.

Departmental Bias

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 Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. APSRTC the order of the government nationalizing road

transport was challenged in this case. One of the grounds for challenge was that the Secretary

of the Transport Department who gave the hearing was biased, being the person who initiated

the scheme and also being the head of the department whose responsibility it was to execute

3
(1933) 2 KB 696.
4
(1881) 45 LT 439.

12
it. The court quashed the order on the ground that, under the circumstances, the Secretary was

biased, and hence no fair hearing could be expected.

Preconceived Notion Bias

Bias arising out of preconceived notions is a very delicate problem of administrative law. On

the one hand, no judge as a human being is expected to sit as a blank sheet of paper, on the

other hand, preconceived notions would vitiate a fair trial.

Bias On Account of Obstinacy

The word Obstinacy implies unreasonable and unwavering persistence and the deciding

officer would not take ‘no’ for an answer. This new category of bias was discovered in a

situation where a judge of the Calcutta High Court upheld his own judgment while sitting in

appeal against his own judgment. of course a direct violation of the rule that no judge can sit

in appeal against his own judgment is not possible, therefore, this rule can only be violated

indirectly.

13
 AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM

Audi alteram partem means ‘ hear the other side’, or ‘no man should be condemned unheard’

or ‘both the sides must be heard before passing any order’.

The second fundamental principle of natural justice is audi alteram partem, i.e., no man

should be condemned unheard, or both the sides must be heard before passing any order. De

Smith says, ‘ no proposition can be more clearly established than that a man cannot incur the

loss of liberty or property for an offence by a judicial proceeding until he has had a fair

opportunity of answering the case against him’. A party is not to suffer in person or in purse

without an opportunity of being heard’. This is the first principle of civilized jurisprudence

and is accepted by laws of men and god. In short, before an order is passed against any

person, reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to him. Generally, this maxim

includes two elements: (i) Notice; and (ii) Hearing.

(A) Notice:

Before any action is taken, the affected party must be given a notice to show cause against the

proposed action and seek his explanation. It is a sine qua non of the right of fair hearing. Any

order passed without giving notice is against the principles of natural justice and is void ab

initio. Before taking any action, it is the right of the person to know the facts. Without

knowing the facts of the case, no one can defend himself. The right to notice means the right

of being known. The right to know the facts of the suit or case happens at the start of any

hearing. Therefore, notice is a must to start a hearing. A notice must contain the time, place

and date of hearing, jurisdiction under with the case is filed, the charges, and proposed action

against the person. All these things should be included in a notice to make it proper and

14
adequate. Whenever a statute makes it clear that a notice must be issued to the party and if no

compliance or failure to give notice occurs, this makes the act void. The article should

contain all the essentials to it. If it only contains the charges but not the ground or time or

date, then the notice must be held invalid and vague. Non-issue of the notice or any defective

service of the notice do not affect the jurisdiction of the authority but violates the principle of

natural justice.

In Bagg case5, James Bagg, a Chief Burgess of Plymouth had been disfranchised for

unbecoming conduct in as much as it was alleged that he had told the Mayor, ‘ you are a

cozening knave. I will make thy neck crack’ and by ‘turning the hinder part of his body in an

inhuman and uncivil manner’ towards the mayor, said, ‘come and kiss’ he was reinstated by

mandamus as no notice or hearing was given to him before passing the impugned order.

In the case of Punjab National Bank v. All India Bank Employees Federation 6, the notice

contained certain charges but the penalty was imposed on the charges other than those

mentioned in the notice. Thus, the charges on which the penalty was imposed were not

contained in the notice served on the person concerned. The notice was not proper and,

therefore, imposition of penalty was invalid. It is to be noted if the person concerned is aware

of the case against him and not prejudiced in preparing his defense effectively the

requirement of notice will not be insisted upon as a mere technical formalities and proceeding

will not be vitiated merely on the technical ground. That the person concerned was not served

notice before taking the action as in case of Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. V. Union of India7, The

notice is required to be clear and unambiguous. If it is ambiguous or vague, it will not be

treated as reasonable and proper notice. If the notice does not specify the action proposed to

be taken, it is taken as vague and, therefore, not. The notice will also be vague if it does not

5
A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 16 32.
6
A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 389.
7
A.I.R. 1973 Punj. 263 33.

15
specify the property proposed to be acquired as in case of Tulsa Singh v. State of Haryana8.

As regards the detention under any law providing for preventive, Clause (5) of Article 22

provides that in such condition the making the order for such detention must, as soon as may

be, communicate to the detenue the grounds on which the order has been made and must give

him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. The grounds

communicated to the detenue must not be vague or insufficient or irrelevant, vague or in

adequate, the detenue is entitled to be released.

(B) Hearing: - Oral or Personal Hearing:

The second ingredient of audi alteram partam rule is the rule of hearing. If the order is

passed by the authority without providing the reasonable opportunity of being heard to the

person affected by it adversely will be invalid and must be set aside as in the cases of

Harbans Lal v. Commissioner9and National Central Co-operative Bank v. Ajay Kumar10. The

reasonable opportunity of hearing which is also well known as 'fair hearing' is an important

ingredient of the audi alteram partem rule. This condition may be complied by the authority

by providing written or oral hearing which is the discretion of the authority, unless the statue

under which the action being taken by the authority provides otherwise. Thus like U.S.A. and

England, the Courts in India do not consider the right to oral or personal hearing as part of the

principle of Audi Alteram Partem unless the statue under which the action is taken by the

authority provides for the oral or personal hearing unless it is not indicated at without oral or

personal hearing the person cannot adequately present. Personal or oral hearing is important

when the context requires it was required in the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras. It is

8
(1970) Lab I.C. 1448.
9
A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 39
10
A.I.R. 1995 Raj. 15 35.

16
the duty of the authority who will ensure that the affected party may be given an opportunity

of oral or personal hearing if the context requires otherwise. However, the above rule of fair

hearing requires that the affected party should be given an opportunity to meet the case

against him effectively and this may also be achieved by providing opportunity to the

affected person by making 'written representation' instead of oral or personal hearing.

(C) Evidence:

Evidence is an important part which is to be brought properly before the Court in the

presence of both the parties and a judicial or quasi judicial authority must have to act on the

evidence produced as in the case of a R v. Bodmin and not merely on any information which

the authority may receive otherwise as in the case of Collector of Central Excise v.

Sanwarma11l.Ordinarily, no evidence personal or oral should be received at the back of other

party and if any such evidence is recorded, it is duty of the authority that such evidence must

be made available to the other party. The principle is not confined to formal evidence but

extends to any material including information regarding previous conviction, upon which the

Tribunal may act, without giving opportunity to the affected party to rebut it. In case of

Keshav Mill Co. v. Union of India12 the Supreme Court was not ready to lay down an

inflexible rule that it was not necessary to show the report of enquiry committee to the

affected person. The court made it clear that whether the report of the enquiry committee

should be furnished or not depends in every individual case on merits of the case.

(D) Cross Examination;

The adjudicating authority in a fair hearing is not required only to disclose the person

concerned the evidence or material to be taken against him, but he should be provided an

11
[1978] 1 SCC 248 597 (SC).
12
[1992] 2 SCC 206.

17
opportunity to rebut the evidence or material. The important question before the authority is

that the witness should be cross-examined or not.

In another case of Kanungo & Co. v. Collector of Customs13 the business premises of a

person were searched and certain watches were confiscated by the authority under Sea

Customs Act. The said person was not allowed to cross-examine the persons who gave

information to the authority. There was no violation of the natural justice and the Court held

that the principles of natural justice do not require the authority to allow the person concerned

the right to cross examine the witnesses in the matters of seizure of goods under the Sea

Customs Act. If the person concerned is allowed the right to cross-examine, it is not

necessary to follow the procedure laid down in the Indian Evidence Act.

(E) Legal Representation;

An important question is whether right to be heard includes right to legal representation?

Fairly speaking, the representation through a lawyer in the administrative adjudication is not

considered as an indispensable part of the fair hearing. But, in certain situations if the right to

legal representation is denied, then it amounts to violation of natural justice. The denial of

legal representation will amount of violation of natural justice because in such conditions the

party may not be able to understand the question of law effectively and, therefore, he should

be given an opportunity of being heard fairly.

13
[1992] 2 SCC 620.

18
 ISSUANCE OF SPEAKING ORDERS OR REASONED DECISION

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.

19
 PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND

THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

In The Constitution of India, nowhere the expression Natural Justice is used. However,

golden thread of natural justice sagaciously passed through the body of Indian constitution.

Preamble of the constitution includes the words, ‘Justice Social, Economic and political’

liberty of thought, belief, worship... And equality of status and of opportunity, which not only

ensures fairness in social and economical activities of the people but also acts as shield to

individuals liberty against the arbitrary action which is the base for principles of Natural

Justice.

Apart from preamble Art 14 ensures equality before law and equal protection of law to the

citizen of India. Art 14 which strike at the root of arbitrariness and Art 21 guarantees right to

life and liberty which is the fundamental provision to protect liberty and ensure life with

dignity. Art 22 guarantees natural justice and provision of fair hearing to the arrested person.

Directive principles of state Policy specially Art 39-A takes care of social, economic, and

politically backward sections of people and to accomplish this object i.e. this part ensure free

legal aid to indigent or disabled persons, and Art 311 of the constitution ensures

constitutional protection to civil servants. Furthermore Art 32, 226, and 136 provides

constitutional remedies in cases violation of any of the fundamental rights including

principles of natural justice. With this brief introduction author undertakes to analyze some of

the important provision containing some elements of Principle of Natural Justice.

20
Constitutional Provisions relating to the ‘Principles of Natural Justice’

Article 14: as we know that this Article guarantees equality before law and equal protection

of law. It bars discrimination and prohibits both discriminatory laws and administrative

action. Art 14 is now proving to be bulwark against any arbitrary or discriminatory state

action. The horizons of equality as embodied in Art 14 have been expanding as a result of the

judicial pronouncements and Art 14 has now come to have a highly activist magnitude. It laid

down general preposition that all persons in similar circumstance shall be treated alike both in

privileges and liabilities imposed.

Art 14 manifests in the form of following propositions:

(i) A law conferring unguided and unrestricted power on an authority is bad for being

arbitrary and discriminatory.

(ii) Art. 14 illegalize discrimination in the actual exercise of any discretionary power.

(iii) Art. 14 strikes at arbitrariness in administrative action and ensures fairness and equality

of treatment.

In some cases, the Courts insisted, with a view to control arbitrary action on the part of the

administration, that the person adversely affected by administrative action be given the right

of being heard before the administrative body passes an order against him. It is believed that

such a procedural safeguard may minimize the chance of the Administrative authority passing

an arbitrary order. Thus, the Supreme Court has extracted from Art. 14 the principle that

natural justice is an integral part of administrative process.

Art. 14 guarantee a right of hearing to the person adversely affected by an administrative

order. In Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Union, SC held that “the audi

alteram partem rule, in essence, enforce the equality clause in Art 14 and it is applicable not

only to quasi-judicial bodies but also to administrative order adversely affecting the party in

21
question unless the rule has been excluded by the Act in question.” Similarly in Maneka

Gandhi v. Union of India SC opined that Art 14 is an authority for the proposition that the

principles of natural justice are an integral part of the guarantee of equality assured by Art. 14

an order depriving a person of his civil right passed without affording him an opportunity of

being heard suffers from the vice of violation of natural justice.

Art. 22: gives protection to arrested person against arrest and detention in certain cases which

within its ambit contains very valuable element of natural justice,

(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon

as maybe, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be

defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.

(2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest

magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary

for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall

be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate.

Art 32, 226 and 227:Art 32 and 226 of the constitution provides for constitutional remedies

for violation of fundamental Rights and other legal rights respectively remedies, Under Art

32 and 226 can be exercised by issuing appropriate Writ, Direction and Orders. Writs in the

nature of Habeas Corpus mandamus, prohibition quo-warranto and certiorari. Writ of Habeas

Corpus is invoked to prevent unlawful detention and Mandamus is invoked to compel public

official to perform his legal duties. Whereas Writ of Prohibition and Certiorari are used to

22
prevent Judicial and quasi-judicial bodies from acting without jurisdiction, in excess of

jurisdiction, or where error of law apparent on face of record, violation of Fundamental Right

and on the ground of violation of Principles of Natural Justice. However, in recent time it is

new development that Writ of Certiorari can also be invoked against Administrative authority

exercising adjudicatory function.

Art.227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court

(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the

territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may

(a) Call for returns from such courts;

(b) Make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and

proceedings of such courts; and

(c) Prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any

such courts

Art 311 deals with Dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil

capacities under the Union or a State, though Art. 310 of the constitution adapts ‘doctrine of

Pleasure’ Art 311 constitution provides sufficient safeguards against misuse of such power,

(1) of Art 311 declares that no person who is a member of civil service of the Union or an all-

India service of State or holds a civil post under Union or a State shall be dismissed or

removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed and Clause (2) of

Art.311 declares no such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in

rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and

given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. The word

23
‘reasonable opportunity of being heard’ includes all the dimension of principles of natural

justice, accordingly no dismissal, removal, or reduction of rank of civil servant can be made

without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard.

24
 CONCLUSION

The principle of natural justice has evolved through civilization. It has not evolved from the

constitution but from mankind itself. Natural justice means that justice should be given to

both the parties in a just, fair and reasonable manner. Before the court, both the parties are

equal and have an equal opportunity to represent them.

In a welfare state like India, the role and jurisdiction of administrative agencies is increasing

at a rapid pace and with rapid expansion of state liability and civic needs of the people

conferment of administrative discretion became need of an hour. With expansion in scope of

discretionary power of administrative authority the regulatory measures are to be equipped

with sufficient power to prevent abuse of discretion. In this regard Constitutionalzed rule of

law country like India, component of natural law, i.e. fair play in action must be found and

reproclaimed by judiciary to keep intact the supremacy of rule of law in India. In this regard

author submits that “the rules of natural justice can operate only in areas not covered by law

validly made” such old judicial decisions of Apex Court and other High Court must be

reconsidered and correct view would be declaring principles of natural justice necessary

corollary of Law, they must operate in presence of and even in contravention to the

established law where the interest of justice demands.

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.

25
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Book referred to :

I.P. MASSEY, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (EIGHTH ED.)

Websites referred to:

www.lawctopus.com

www.civilsdaily.com

www.legalserviceindia.com

26