Administrative Law

Project

Topic: What are the principles of natural justice? no one should be

judged in his own case. Explain this rule of natural justice with case
laws.

Submitted To : Submitted By:

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher who gave me the golden opportunity to
do this wonderful project on the topic 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 them.
Secondly, I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in finalizing this project
within the limited time frame.
 INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION
2. WHAT ARE THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE?
3. THE “AUDI ALTERUM PARTEM” PRINCIPLE - THE HEARING RULE
a. RIGHT TO NOTICE
b. RIGHT TO KNOW THE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM
c. RIGHT TO PRESENT CASE AND EVIDENCE
4. THE RULE AGAINST BIAS
5. Principles Of Natural Justice In Indian Constitution
6. CONCLUSION
 INTRODUCTION

Natural justice is a legal philosophy used in the determination of just, or fair processes in legal proceedings.
Natural justice imposes a code of fair procedure, including the right to be given a fair hearing and the right
to have a decision made by an unbiased decision-maker. The notion of natural justice has developed as a
common law concept: an obligation to provide a minimum level of fairness when an individual’s rights are
affected in any of a broad range of factual scenarios. The principles of natural justice have come out from
the need of man to protect himself from the excesses of organized power. These rules of natural justice as
they are called owe, largely, their development to the famous Dr. Bentley’s case of 1723 whose decision
hinged on the right to a fair hearing. In this paper therefore, I will endeavor to define to a precise extent what
is meant by natural justice while at the same time discussing the two pillars or essential headings that fall
thereunder. This paper will further illustrate, in the course of the discussion, the importance of the
statements issued in Dr. Bentley’s case with regard to the development of the rules of natural justice – as this
can only be achieved following a thorough understanding thereof. After these tasks have been completed a
conclusion will then be drawn.
 WHAT ARE THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE?

The rules of natural justice can be said to be rules of fair play. 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 individual1. Natural justice implies fairness, equity and equality. While the term natural
justice is often retained as a general concept, it has largely been replaced and extended by the general “duty
to act fairly”. The principles of natural justice concern procedural fairness and ensure a fair decision is
reached by an objective decision maker. The opportunity to be heard by an impartial decision maker is the
heart of the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness. Maintaining procedural fairness protects the
rights of individuals and enhances public confidence in the process. The principles of natural justice were
derived from the Romans who believed that some legal principles were natural or self-evident and did not
require a statutory basis. Generally, no provision is found in any statute for the observance of the principles
of natural justice by the adjudicating authorities. Then, the question then arises as to whether the
adjudicating authority is bound to follow the principles of natural justice. The law is well-settled after the
powerful pronouncement of Byles, J. in Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works2, wherein His Lordship
observed: “A long course of decisions, beginning with Dr. Bentley's case and ending with some very recent
cases, establish that, although there are no positive words in the statute requiring that the party shall be
heard, yet the justice of the common law will supply the omission of the legislature.”
In Administrative law natural justice is a well-defined concept which comprises two fundamental rules of
fair procedure: that a man’s defense must always be fairly heard (audi alterum partem); and that a man may
not be a judge in his own cause (nemo judex in rea sua)3. These principles have come to apply to the
exercise by administrative authorities of powers of a judicial nature. In other words, administrative
authorities, Ministers, public officials, local government authorities and so on are expected to observe the
principles of natural justice whenever they act judicially. There is authority for regarding the requirements of
“natural justice” as a special part of the ultra vires rule, on the ground that a decision made contrary to the
principles of natural justice, when the rights of particular individuals are adversely affected, is no decision
within the terms of the enabling Act. In essence, a decision maker must give a person who is the subject of
the decision an adequate opportunity to present their case (fair hearing rule) and must make a decision free
from actual or apprehended bias (no bias rule). The rules will apply when a decision is being made that
affects the rights, interests, status or legitimate expectations of a person. A legitimate expectation to an
entitlement is a right or liberty that will not be removed without providing an opportunity to the person to

1
Oxford Dictionary of Law 7th edition
2
(1863), 14 C.B.N.S. 180
3
Wade, H.W.R, & Forsyth, C.F. Administrative law at p. 440
put their case to the decision maker4. In Local Government Board v. Alridge 5, Lord Haldane, L.C., said
“when the duty of deciding an appeal is imposed, those whose duty it is to decide it must act judicially. They
must deal with the question referred to them without bias, and they must give to each of the parties the
opportunity of adequately presenting the case made. The decision must be come to in the spirit and with the
sense of responsibility of a tribunal whose duty it is to mete out justice.”

a) THE “AUDI ALTERUM PARTEM” PRINCIPLE - THE HEARING RULE

The principle of audi alteram partem is the basic concept of the principles of natural justice. This
expression implies that a person must be given opportunity to defend himself. This principle is sine qua non
of every civilized society. This aspect of natural justice, to the effect that the “judge” must hear both sides,
must give each party a chance to state his case, and that any person who will or may be affected by an
administrative decision has a right to his “day in court”, is an essential characteristic of any legal process 6. It
is fundamental to fair procedure that both sides should be heard: audi alterum partem, ‘hear the other side’.
Each individual must have the opportunity to present his version of the facts and to make submissions on the
relevant principles of the Code of Conduct and the allegations against him This is the more far-reaching of
the principles of natural justice, since it can embrace almost every question of fair procedure, or due process,
and its implications can be worked out in great detail. It is also broad enough to include the rule against bias,
since a fair hearing must be an unbiased hearing7. Therefore, each party must have reasonable notice of the
case he has to meet; and he must be given an opportunity of stating his case, and answering (if he can) any
arguments put forward against it8. The general principle is not usually applied in an administrative context
so as to require a full investigation by the deciding body, but rather that the decision must not be arrived at
until the “judge” has heard both sides; the “judge” must “hear both sides and must not hear one side in the
absence of the other”9.

The courts took their stand several centuries ago on the broad principle that bodies entrusted with legal
power could not validly exercise it without first hearing the person who was going to suffer. This principle
was applied very widely to administrative as well as judicial acts. Even where an order or determination is
unchallengeable as regards its substance, the court can at least control the preliminary procedure so as to
require fair consideration of both sides of the case10. The numerous new administrative authorities, both
local and central, which came into being in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries opened up a large new

4
Phillips, O.H., & Jackson, P. Constitutional and Administrative Law at p. 603
5
(1915) A.C. 120, at p. 132
6
Garner, J. F. Administrative law at p. 113
7
Wade, H.W.R, & Forsyth, C.F. Administrative law at p. 476
8
Phillips, O.H., & Jackson, P. Constitutional and Administrative Law at p. 604
9
Per Greener, L.J., in Errington v. Minister of Health (1935) 1 K.B. 249, at p. 268
10
Supra note 5
territory for the principles of natural justice. The character of the authority was not what mattered: what
mattered was the character of the power exercised. If it adversely affected legal rights or interests, it must be
exercised fairly11. Thus in the old but yet highly relevant case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of
Works12, a builder who had erected a house without giving the Board of Works the required statutory notice
of his intention to do so was held to be entitled to damages for trespass when the Board, without giving him
an opportunity to be heard, exercised its statutory power to demolish any building erected in default of the
required statutory notice. In criminal cases this elementary principle of justice is expressed in the saying that
“no one ought to be condemned unheard”. One of the earliest cases in which the principle was expressly
formulated is R v. Cambridge University13, commonly known as Dr. Bentley’s Case, where the Court of
King’s Bench declared a decision of the University of Cambridge to be a nullity, because in depriving Dr.
Bentley of his degrees, they had first not given him an opportunity of appearing before them and stating his
case, although Dr. Bentley had first contemptuously put aside originating process and then accused the Vice-
Chancellor of the University of foolish behavior. It was quaintly stated in the above case by Fortescue, J,
when he said: “The laws of God and man both give the party an opportunity to make his defense, if
he has any. I remember to have heard it observed by a very learned man upon such an occasion,
that even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his defense.”
After Dr Bentley's Case the hearing rule was reinforced by Lord Kenyon CJ in R v. Gaskin14. It was Lord
Kenyon who apparently coined the Latin term 'audi alteram partem' to encapsulate the rule, of which he
said: It is to be found at the head of our criminal law that every man ought to have an opportunity of being
heard before he is condemned. This is how principle of audialterm partem evolved in common law system
and came to be an integral part or fulcrum of the rules of natural justice and the further development thereof.

It was established in Ridge v. Baldwin15 that failure to give a fair hearing renders the decision not merely
voidable, but void. The brief facts of that case were that following an acquittal in a trial on corruption
charges in which the judge criticized him, a Chief of Police (Ridge) was sacked without a hearing.  After
reconsideration by the Police Authority and an unsuccessful appeal to the Home Secretary, Ridge brought an
action for a declaration that the dismissal was unlawful.  The House of Lords granted the declaration.
Further, Lord Denning M.R. said in Schmidt v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs 16 that “the hard and
fast distinction between ‘judicial’ and ‘administrative’ functions for this purpose has been abandoned; a
person is entitled to be heard if he has some right, interest or legitimate expectation”. Therefore, if hearing is
not given by the adjudicating authority to the person concerned and the principles of natural justice are
violated the order is void and it cannot be justified on the ground that hearing ‘would make no difference’ or

11
Ibid
12
Supra note 2
13
(1723), 1 Str. 557.
14
(1799) 661
15
(1964) A.C. 40
16
(1969) 2 Ch. 149, 168
‘no useful purpose would have been served’. In General Medical Council v. Spackman17, Lord Wright
observed: “If the principles of natural justice are violated in respect of any decision, it is, indeed, immaterial
whether the same decision would have been arrived at in the absence of the departure from the essential
principles of natural justice. The decision must be declared to be no decision”. Natural justice allows a
person to claim the right to adequate notification of the date, time, and place of the hearing as well as
detailed notification of the case to be met. This information allows the person adequate time to effectively
prepare his or her own case and to answer the case against him or her.
In a nutshell, for a hearing to be said to be fair it must at least contain the following components;

(i) RIGHT TO NOTICE

Notice embodies the rule of fairness and must precede an adverse order. It should be clear enough to
give the party enough information of the case he has to meet. There should be adequate time for the
party, so that he can prepare for his defense. Thus notice is the starting point in the hearing. Unless a
person knows about the subjects and issues involved in the case, he cannot be in the position to defend
himself.

(ii) RIGHT TO KNOW THE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM

Every person before an administrative authority, exercising adjudicatory powers has right to know the
evidence to be used against him.

(iii) RIGHT TO PRESENT CASE AND EVIDENCE

The adjudicatory authority must provide the party a reasonable opportunity to present his case. This can
be done either orally or in written form. The requirement of natural justice is not met if the party is not
given the opportunity to represent in view of the proposed action.

17
[1943] K.B. 627
 b) “NEMO JUDEX IN REA SUA” -THE RULE AGAINST BIAS

The rule against bias (nemo judex in rea sua) is one of the two pillars of natural justice. Although
easily capable of being embodied in the hearing rule above, it has been settled that the hearing rule governs
the procedural features of decision making while the bias rule governs the attitude or state of mind of
the decision maker. A judge is disqualified from determining any case in which he may be, or may fairly be
suspected to be, biased18. The second rule states that no one ought to be judge in his or her case. This is the
requirement that the deciding authority must be unbiased when according the hearing or making the
decision. Additionally, investigators and decision makers must act without bias in all procedures connected
with making of a decision. A decision maker must be impartial and must make a decision based on the
balanced and considered assessment of the information and evidence before him or her without favoring one
party or another. Even when no actual bias exists, investigators and decision makers should be careful to
avoid the appearance of bias. Investigators should ensure that there is no conflict of interest which would
make it inappropriate for them to conduct the investigations.

Not only is a person affected by an administrative decision entitled to have his case heard by the agency
seized with its determination, but he may also insist on his case being heard by a fair judge, one free from
bias. ‘Bias’ in this context has usually meant that the adjudicator must have no financial interest in the
matter under dispute, but is not necessarily so limited, and allegations of bias have been upheld in
circumstances where there was no question of any financial interest19. The classic example of an offence
against this rule in the regular courts of law is that of the case of Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal20 wherein
a decree of Lord Chancellor Conttenham, granting an injunction to a company and confirming its title, was
held voidable and set aside by the House of Lords on the ground that he was a shareholder in the company,
although it was not suggested that Lord Cottenham was influenced by the interest he had in the company;
the House of Lords though agreeing that the result was the same, nevertheless quashed Lord Cottenham’s
decision, although as Lord Campbell said: “No one can suppose that Lord Cottenham could be, in the
remotest degree, influenced by the interest that he had in this concern.” The appearance of bias is regarded
as seriously by the supervising court as is actual bias; the judge who appears to have or who has a bias may
have the most excellent and upright motives and may not in fact allow his judicial discretion to be impaired
in any way by the vitiating “interest”, but the courts will still find there has been a breach of natural justice.
Therefore, not only must the adjudicator be free from bias, but there must not even be the appearance of
bias21. The usual test is whether a real likelihood of bias has been created.

18
Wade, H.W.R, & Forsyth, C.F. Administrative law at p. 450
19
Garner, J. F. Administrative law at p. 118
20
(1852) 3 H.L.C. 759.
21
Supra note 2
In The King v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy22, Lord Hewart L.C.J. said that: “A long line of cases
shows that it is not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only
be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”

Therefore, in a nutshell, a person is barred from deciding any case in which he or she may be, or may fairly
be suspected to be, biased. This principle embodies the basic concept of impartiality, and applies to courts of
law, tribunals, arbitrators and all those having the duty to act judicially. A public authority has a duty to act
judicially whenever it makes decisions that affect people's rights or interests, and not only when it applies
some judicial-type procedure in arriving at decisions.

The basis on which impartiality operates is the need to maintain public confidence in the legal system. The
erosion of public confidence undermines the nobility of the legal system, and leads to ensuing chaos. The
essence of the need for impartiality was observed by Lord Denning, in Metropolitan Properties Co.
(F.G.C.) Ltd. v. Lannon23 wherein he said: “Justice must be rooted in confidence and confidence is
destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking: ‘The judge was biased.’”. The brief facts of this case
were that tenants of apartments asked the Rent Officer to fix the fair rents. On appeal, the rents were then set
at a rate lower even than they had requested. The rents would serve as a guide for other local rents. The
landlords now complained that the chairman of the Rent Assessment Committee had been assisting his own
father in negotiating a rent for such a local property, and had represented other tenants. They complained of
bias. It was held that he should not have sat on the committee. It was acceptable that he had no pecuniary
interest himself, and had acted scrupulously, but because of the impression which would be given to people
of a real likelihood of bias on his part his decision could not stand.

The two main aspects of this rule are that a person deciding on a dispute must have no pecuniary or
proprietary interest in the outcome of the proceedings and must not reasonably be suspected, or show a real
likelihood, of bias. Bias can take many forms: Personal Bias, pecuniary Bias, subject-matter bias,
departmental bias, preconceived notion bias and many others.

Principles Of Natural Justice In Indian Constitution

22
(1924) 1 K.B. 256, 259
23
[1968] EWCA Civ 5
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.

2. Constitutional Provisions relating to the ‘Principles of Natural Justice’

2 (a) 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 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.
There are several instances where Art 14 of the Constitution is invoked to protect individual from the
violation of natural justice principles, in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd v. Briojo Nath in
this case a government company made a service rule authorizing it to terminate the service of permanent
employee by merely giving him a three months’ notice or salary in lieu of notice. The rule was declared to
be invalid as being violative of Art. 14 on the ground that it was unconstitutional. The rule in question
constituted a part of the employment contract between the corporation and its employees. The Court ruled
that it would not enforce, and would strike down, an unfair and unreasonable clause in a contract entered
into between parties who were not equal in bargaining power. This was in conformity with the mandate of
the “great equality clause in Art. 14.”
The Court emphasized that the judicial concept of Art. 14 have progressed “from a prohibition against
discriminatory class legislation to an invalidating actor for any discriminatory or arbitrary state action.” The
Court also emphasized that the rule was “both arbitrary and unreasonable” and “as it also wholly ignored
and set aside the Audi alterum partum rule” violated Art. 14. This is of the view that “the principle of natural
justice has now come to be recognized as being a part of the constitutional guarantee contained in Art. 14.”
The rule in question was “both arbitrary and unreasonable,” and it also wholly ignored and set aside
the Audi alterm partum rule and, thus, it violated Art 14.
In Cantonment Board, Dinapore v. Taramani in this case the Commanding-in-chief of the cantonment
board cancelled the board’s resolution after giving it a hearing but not to the respondent to whom the
permission had been given. The Supreme Court ruled that Commanding-in-chief ought to have given a
hearing to the respondent as well before cancelling the permission given by the board. The Court
observed: audi alteram partum is a part of Art. 14 of the Constitution”. The real affected party in fact was the
party being ultimately affected by cancellation of the Board’s resolution. Because of Art.14 “no order shall
be passed at the back of a person, prejudicial in nature to him, when it entails civil consequences.”  This is
how Art 14 of the Constitution holds element of Natural justice into it. 
2 (b) Art. 21: Article 21 lays down that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except,
according to ‘procedure established by law’. The most important word under this Article is ‘procedure
established by law’ the question arises whether these words can be read as rules of natural justice. i.e.
whether ‘law’ U/Art 21 can be read as principles of natural justice? To this question The Supreme Court
ruled by majority that the word ‘law’ in Art. 21 could not be read as rules of natural justice. These rules
(natural justice principles) were vague and indefinite and the constitution could not be read as laying down a
vague standard. Nowhere in the constitution was the word ‘law’ used in the sense of abstract law or natural
justice.
            The word ‘law’ was used in the sense of state (lex) made law and not natural law (jus). The
expression ‘procedure established by law’ would therefore mean the procedure as laid down in an enacted
law. On the other hand, Fazal Ali, J., disagreeing with the majority view, held that the principle of natural
justice that ‘no one shall be condemned unheard’ was part of general law of the land and the same should
accordingly be read into Art 21. However, later on majority opinion of A.K. Gopalan was discarded; this is
because right to life does not mean mere animal existence. This right cannot be allowed to violate by law,
which is wholly unreasonable, such law must be reasonable, fair and just. These terminologies are similar in
content that of ‘due process’ clause of American constitution. Accordingly such law must prove substantive
reasonableness as well as procedural reasonableness, later one requires such procedure should be ‘fair’,
fairness requires reasonable notice, reasonable opportunity of hearing, legal representation, reasons for
decision, etc. which are the fundamental component of natural justice.
          In Meneka Gandhi v. Union of India, SC by realizing the implications of Gopalan during 1975
emergency took ‘U’ turn and held that “Art 21 would no longer mean that law could prescribe some
semblance of procedure however arbitrary or fanciful, to deprive a person of his personal liberty. It now
means that the procedure must satisfy certain requisites in the sense of being fair and reasonable. The
procedure “cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable”. The concept of reasonableness must be projected in
the procedure contemplated by Art.21. The Court has now assumed the power to adjudge the fairness and
justness of procedure established by law to deprive a person of his personal liberty. The Court has reached
this conclusion by holding that Arts. 21, 19 and 14 are mutually exclusive, but are inter-linked.
            Bhagawati, J., “the principle of reasonableness which legally as well as philosophically is an
essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades art 14 like a brooding omnipresence”. Thus, the
procedure in Art. 21 “must be right, just and fair” and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive, otherwise, it
would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Art. 21 would not be satisfied. In the same case Iyer, J.,
opined procedure in Art. 21, means fair, not formal, procedure; ‘law’ is reasonable law and not any enacted
piece. This makes the words “procedure established by law” by and large synonymous with the ‘procedural
due process’ in the U.S.A. this makes the right of hearing a component part of natural justice. Accordingly
as result of this epoch making judgment in Maneka Gandhi case Court came to conclusion that ‘as the right
to travel abroad falls under Art. 21, natural justice must be applied while exercising the power of
impounding a passport under the passport Act. Although the passport Act does not expressly provide for the
requirement of hearing before a passport is impounded, yet the same has to be implied therein’.

Supreme Court of India knowing the importance of ‘fair trial’ by liberal interpretation of Art. 21, made
several provision for the protection of accused and provided adequate safeguards to defend his case. SC is of
the opinion that conducting a fair trial for those who are accused of criminal offences is the cornerstone of
democracy. Conducting a fair trial is beneficial both to the accused as well as to the society. A conviction
resulting from an unfair trial is contrary to our concept of justice.

The Supreme Court has taken a gigantic innovative step forward in humanizing the administration of
criminal justice by suggesting that free legal aid be provided by the State to poor prisoners facing a prison
sentence. When an accused has been sentenced by a Court, but he is entitled to appeal against the verdict, he
can claim legal aid: if he is indigent and is not able to afford the counsel, the State must provide a counsel to
him. The Court has emphasized that the lawyer’s services continued an ingredient of fair procedure to a
prisoner who is seeking his liberation through the Court’s procedure, Bhagwati, J., has observed
in Hussainara Khatoon case. 

“Now, a procedure which does not make available legal service to an accused person who is too poor to
afford a lawyer and who would, therefore, have to go through the trial without legal assistance, cannot
possibly be regarded as ‘reasonable, fair and just”. Accordingly in India free-legal aid to indigent or disabled
person is considered to be essential component of Natural Justice. To ensure free legal aid to citizen of India
Art 39A is inserted in part IV of the constitution which states that, The State shall secure that the operation
of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free
legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing
justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. Accordingly sufficient
safeguard has been provided under Indian Constitution to get Legal representation.

CONCLUSION
Therefore in summary, the principles of natural justice have been developed and followed by the judiciary to
protect the right of the public against the arbitrariness of the administrative authorities. One can note that the
rules of natural justice relate to fairness: they exist to protect the fair dealing with individuals who find
themselves before a court, tribunal or any hearing to whose judgment an individual is subject. The concept
that natural justice should at all stages guide those who discharge judicial functions is not merely an
acceptable, but essential part of the philosophy of the law to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of
justice. Having discussed adequately the rules of natural justice and their relevance having been duly noted,
their development can be traced back centuries ago and credit accorded to Dr. Bentley’s case for a large
early contribution to their development into what they are today. That case is a nice example of the old
conception of natural justice as divine and eternal law.

It is important to note that any decision which violates natural justice would be found null and void, hence
one must always bear in mind that the doctrine of natural justice is important for any administrative
decision to be valid. It must further also be recollected that the rights to fair hearing and a judge
not adjudicating over a matter in which he has an interest is germane. The extent and application of
the rules of natural justice cannot be imprisoned within the strait jacket of a rigid formula. The application of
the doctrine depends upon the nature of the jurisdiction conferred on the administrative authority and upon
the character of the rights of the person affected.