Justice is the backbone of the law. Without Justice, law is vague, or we can say that law is useless. So, in any law, whether Civil or Criminal, there must be justice. In the absence of justice, the Civil law as well as Criminal law is vague. If we talk about natural Justice, it means just and fair treatment where all persons are treated equally in the court of law. As per the English Common Law, natural Justice runs on the same track. It reflects that the term “Natural Justice” came from the Judicial thoughts or precedents, and not from Statutes. Natural Justice is also termed as substantial justice, fundamental justice and universal justice.
The term “principles of natural justice” is derived from the Latin word “Jus Natural”, which means that it is a natural law. Natural justice serves the fundamentals of present day laws. All the laws made by the Parliament comply with the universal concept called “PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE”.
Major Principles of Natural Justice
Rule against Bias
It is based on the maxim ‘NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA’ it means that no man should be a Judge in his own case. The Judge must be impartial and not be inclined towards one of the parties in Court. This is known as the Rule against Bias.
Rule of Fair Hearing
It is based on the maxim ‘AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM’ it means that no one should be condemned unheard, which means that the judge should hear both the parties in the Court of Law to give fair justice. The observation made by J. R. Lucas is that “the principle of natural justice basically, if we may say go, emanates from the actual phrase “audi alteram partem” which was first formulated by St. Augustine.”
Precedential Roots of Natural Justice
The principles and essential elements have been decided in the case of Abbott v. Sullivan reported in (1952) 1 K.B.189 at 195, wherein, it is stated that “the Principles of Natural Justice are easy to proclaim, but their precise extent is far less easy to define”. It’s an English decision /precedent wherein the House of Lords held that there was no single definition of natural Justice. It was stated that Natural Justice is interchangeably used with natural law.
In another case the House of Lords is Maclean v. The Workers Union (1929) 1 Ch. 602, 624 stated as follows:
“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 wrongfully 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, every student has heard of compurgation and of ordeal; and it is hardly necessary to observe that (for example) 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”.
Natural Justice has been defined as in following Precedents namely;
1. In Drew v. Drew and Lebura (1855 (2) Macg. 1.8, Lord Cranworth defined it as “universal Justice”.
2. In Arthur John Specman v. Plumstead District Board of Works (1884-85 (10) App Case 229, 240), Earl of Selbourne, S.C. preferred the phrase ‘the substantial requirement of justice’.
3. In Vionet v. Barrett (1885 (55) LJRD 39, 41), Lord Esher, MR defined natural justice as ‘the natural sense of what is right and wrong’.
4. In Re R.N. (An Infaot) (1967 (2) B. 617, 530P, Lord Parker, C.J., preferred to describe natural justice as ‘a duty to act fairly’.
5. In Fairmount Investments Ltd., v. Secretary to State for Environment (1976 WLR 1255) Lord Russell of Willowan somewhat picturesquely, described natural justice as ‘a fair crack of the whip’.
6. Geoffrey Lane, LJ in Regina vs. Secretary of State for Home Affairs Ex Parte Hosenball (1977 (1) WLR 766) preferred the homely phrase ‘common fairness’.
7. Hookings v. Smethwick Local Board of Health (1890 (24) QBD 712), Lord Fasher, M.R. Instead of using the definition given earlier by him in Vionet’s case (supra) chose to define natural justice as ‘fundamental justice’.
So, as per the definitions given in aforementioned precedents, it simply means that natural justice is a universal justice. Thus, this concept follows all over the world. It is the substantial requirement of justice, which means a sufficient degree which specially satisfies the standard of fairness. In other words, we can say that natural justice adopts the fairness principle enshrined in this concept. Thus, while delivering justice, the Judge shall keep in mind that all the parties – Defense side or Complainant side (criminal case), Plaintiff or Defendant (civil case), all are equal before the eyes of Law. Judge shall perform his duty fairly without any bias. Whereas, natural Justice is also called as a “fair crack of the whip” which means that people are given equal chance to do something. Thus, it means that all the parties get an equal chance to speak in front of Court.
Natural Justice enshrined in Indian Constitution
The Constitution is the foundation of our legal system. All the laws shall be made in compliance with the Constitution of India. If any laws are made beyond the scope of Indian Constitution, then that law becomes INVALID in the eyes of laws. So, the concept of Natural Justice also sewn in the constitutional provisions:
Article 14: Equality Before Law
It means that all are treated with equality before law or with equal protection in the eyes of laws. This constitutional provision is given to every person in India, either citizens or non-citizens, natural persons all are treated equally.
Article 21: Protection to life and personal liberty
This right is given to all persons. It means that every person has a right to live with personal liberty. This reflects that the rule of fairness is seen in this provision, and hence, it is also an unbiased principle of natural justice.
Article 22: Protection against Arrest and Detention in certain cases
According to Article 22 of the Constitution, an arrested person has a right to inform that arrest. Secondly, he can also choose his legal practitioner. Such a person has to be produced before the Magistrate within twenty four hours. This is the natural justice principle: all persons are treated the same in the eyes of law.
Article 311: Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of person employed in all civil capacities under the union and state.
According to this provision, the Constitution provides protection for civil servants, including the right of fair hearing before being dismissed.
Exceptions to the Rule of Natural Justice
Statutory Exclusion
It means that if there is a provision given under the specific statute against observation of the principles of natural Justice, then the Courts may read the requirement of justice as per the applicable laws.
Emergency
In case of emergency, preventive action may be needed to not to follow the principle rule of Justice. This concept was elaborated under the famous case law called Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India, 1978
It was observed by the Supreme Court that a passport may be impounded in public interest without compliance with the principles of natural justice, but as soon as the order impounding the passport has been made, an opportunity of hearing, remedial in aim, should be given to the person concerned. In this case, we can say that public interest is a justifiable issue and the determination of authoritative decision is not final.
Interim Disciplinary Action
In the case of Abhay Kumar V. K. Srinivasan, 1981, an order was passed by the College Authorities debarring the student from entering the premises of the college and attending the classes till the pendency of criminal case against him for stabbing a student.
The Court held that the order was interim and not final. Thus, it was preventive in nature. It was passed with the objective of maintaining peace on campus. Thus, the rule of natural justice was not applicable in the above case.
Impracticability
In case of P. Radhakrishna v. Osmania University, 1974 the entire M.B.A entrance examination was cancelled on the grounds of mass copying. The Court held that it was not possible to give all the examinees the opportunity of being heard before the cancellation of the examination.
Conclusion
Principles of natural justice are the most important principle for administration of justice. It is used to apply in all courts of law, whether civil, criminal or Quasi courts. The soul of natural justice lies in fair play. Though natural justice is not expressly codified in law, but it is enshrined in the precedents. The Principles of Natural Justice have deep roots in the Judicial conscience of our people. The aim of natural justice is to secure justice and prevent the miscarriage of Justice. Hence, we can conclude that natural Justice does not the law of land, but supplements it. So, at last we can say that natural justice is the universally applicable principle and based on Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
The two Principles of Natural Justice have been explained by Advocate Aakash Poddar, who is interning at Lawgical Shots and assisting the team to bring the most informational and valuable legal blogs for the legal fraternity.
