Sunteți pe pagina 1din 22



Roll No.-

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Mr. Vinod
Chauhan who gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the
topic Principles of Natural Justice which also helped me in doing a lot of Research
and I came to know about so many new things I am really thankful to him.
Secondly I would also like to thank my seniors and friends who helped me a lot in
finalizing this project within the limited time frame.

Hiba Nasir


Sem- VI

Roll no.


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 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.

1999 CANLII 699


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
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 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.


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.

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

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, 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:

# Personal Bias

# Pecuniary Bias

# Subject Matter Bias

# Departmental Bias

# Preconceived Notion Bias

# 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.

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.

AIR 1960 SC468.
(1933) 2 KB 696.

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 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.

(1881) 45 LT 439.

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 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 Federation6, 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 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:

A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 16 32.
A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 389.
A.I.R. 1973 Punj. 263 33.
(1970) Lab I.C. 1448.

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 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

A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 39
A.I.R. 1995 Raj. 15 35.
[1978] 1 SCC 248 597 (SC).

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 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.

[1992] 2 SCC 206.
[1992] 2 SCC 620.

Issuance of Speaking Orders or Reasoned

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.


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.

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
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 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 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

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

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 ‘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

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

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.


Book referred to :


Websites referred to: