Introduction
In India, the evolution of natural justice principles mirrored developments in England. The Ridge v. Baldwin case, known as the ‘Magna Carta of Natural Justice,’ marked a shift in judicial attitudes. Simultaneously, the Indian Supreme Court grappled with natural justice cases until the A.K. Kraipak case, signaling a transformation in Indian jurisprudence.
While natural justice principles remain uncodified in India, they are widely accepted, unlike the United States where the term ‘natural justice’ is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution. This article aims to establish a connection between natural justice principles and their role in solidifying their implementation in judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative functions through established principles and judicial precedents.
Background
The question of whether adjudicating authorities are obligated to follow natural justice principles has been settled in legal precedent. In Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works, it was determined that while there might be no statutory requirement for a party to be heard, fairness must prevail. Another debated question in Indian jurisprudence is whether natural justice applies to administrative authorities. In State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, the Supreme Court reasoned that even administrative orders must align with natural justice.
This article focuses on the evolution and scrutiny of three natural justice principles in India: ‘nemo debet esse judex in propria causa’ (no man can judge his own cause), ‘audi alteram partem’ (no one shall be condemned unheard), and ‘speaking order’ (every decision must have proper reasons). Siemens Engineering v. Union of India was the first case to emphasize the need for reasons in quasi-judicial orders.
Administrative Law and Natural Justice
Natural justice norms derive from basic administrative law rather than specific legislation. While legislation may outline decision-making steps, natural justice imposes parallel duties. Compliance with legislative processes satisfies natural justice if they align or exceed its requirements. However, the issue arises when legislative processes fall short, necessitating a balance between procedural codes and natural justice obligations.
Analysis
The A.K. Kraipak case highlighted the potential bias when a committee member recommends their name during absence. This case expanded the right to a fair hearing, transforming Indian Administrative Law. The challenge lies in reconciling the need for swift public action with administrative justice. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court deemed impounding passports a quasi-judicial action, emphasizing the essentiality of a fair hearing.
Various Supreme Court decisions constitutionalized administrative law in India, establishing the three natural justice principles as essential. However, a lack of consistency in applying these principles persists, raising concerns about excessive judicial interference.
Conclusion
The application of natural justice principles is no longer confined to courts, extending to national tribunals and administrative bodies. While administrative discretion is vital, legal requirements governing it are necessary. The absence of legislation does not excuse authorities from observing natural justice principles. Establishing laws akin to the United States may bring consistency but could constrain natural justice principles.
Natural justice has endured through time, serving as the foundation of legal principles. It complements law, guiding its direction. The principles of natural justice must continue to be a guiding force in shaping legal pathways.