PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE (Unit 3)

Mrs. Gunjan Ahuja

INTRODUCTION

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.

Natural Law is of the 'higher law of nature' or 'natural law'. Natural Law does not mean the law
of the nature or jungle where lion eats the lamb and tiger eats the antelope but a law in which the
lion and lamb lie down together and the tiger frisks the antelope.

Natural Law is another name for common-sense justice.

Natural Laws are not codified and is based on natural ideals and values which are universal.

In the absence of any other law, the Principles of Natural Justice are followed.

Earliest form of natural law can be seen in Roman philosophical expressions (Jus Naturale). It is
used interchangeably with Divine Law, jus gentium and the common law of nations.

The Principles of Natural Justice are considered the basic Human Rights because they
attempt to bring justice to the parties naturally.

Giving reasoned decisions is a postulate and principle of Natural Justice.

'Natural Justice' is an expression of English common law. In one of the English decisions,
reported In (1915) AC 120 (138) HL, Local Government Board v. Arlidge, Viscount Haldane
observed, "...those whose duty it Is to decide 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 come to the spirit and with the sense
of responsibility of a tribunal whose duty it is to meet out justice."

In the early part of this century, in another case reported in (1906) AC 535 (539), Lapointe v.
L'Association, the Judicial Committee observed that the principle should apply to every tribunal
having authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequences. In the United States of
America, the expression 'natural justice' as such, is not so frequently heard of since due process
of law is guaranteed by the Constitution whenever an individual's life, liberty or property is
affected by State action. Though 'due process' is a vague and undefined expression, the

1
Implications of which are not finally settled even today, but observance of principles of natural
Justice is secured by taking advantage of the phrase 'due process'.

In Snyder v. Massachussets, (1934) 291 US 97(105) the Supreme Court of the United States
observed that there was a violation of due process whenever there was a breach of a "principle of
Justice so rooted. In the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental."
Hearing before decision was one of such fundamental principles as was observed in Hagar v.
Reclamation District, (1884) 111 US 701.

HISTORY

In India the principle is prevalent from the ancient times. We find it Invoked in Kautlilya's
Arthashastra. In this context, para 43 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court In the case
of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851, may be usefully
quoted:

Indeed, natural justice is a pervasive facet of secular law where a spiritual touch
enlivens legislation, administration and adjudication, to make fairness a creed of
life. It has many colors and shades, many forms and shapes and, save where valid
law excludes, it applies when people are affected by acts of authority. It is the
bone of healthy government, recognised from earliest times and not a mystic
testament of judge-made law. Indeed from the legendary days of Adam-and of
Kautllya's Arthashastra-the rule of law has had this stamp of natural justice, which
makes it social justice. We need not go into these deeps for the present except to
indicate that the roots of natural justice and its foliage are noble and not new-
fangled. Today its application must be sustained by current legislation, case law
or other extant principle, not the hoary chords of legend and history. Our
jurisprudence has sanctioned its prevalence even like the Anglo-American
system."

Aristotle, before the era of Christ, spoke of such principles calling it as universal law. Justinian
in the fifth and sixth Centuries A.D. called it the "'jura naturalia" i.e. natural law. Different jurists
have described the principle in different ways. Some called it as the unwritten law (jus non
scriptum) or the law of reason. It has, however not been found to be capable of being defined,
but some jurists have described the principle as a great humanizing principle intended to invest
law with fairness to secure justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice. With the passage of
time, some principles have evolved and crystallized which are well recognized principles of
natural justice.

BASIC PILLARS OF PRINCIPLE 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

2
follow while taking any decision adversely affecting the rights of a private individual. Natural
justice implies fairness, equity and equality.

The principle of natural justice encompasses following two rules: -

1. Nemo judex in causa sua - No one should be made a judge in his own cause or the rule
against bias.

2. Audi alteram partem - Hear the other party or the rule of fair hearing or the rule that no one
should be condemned unheard.

RULE AGAINST BIAS (NEMO JUDEX CAUSA SUA)

Bias means an operative prejudice, whether conscious or unconscious in relation to a party or

issue. The rule against bias flows from following two principles: -

a) No one should be a judge in his own cause

b) Justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Thus a
judge should not only be impartial but should be in a position to apply his mind objectively to the
dispute before him.

The rule against bias thus has two main aspects: -

1. The administrator exercising adjudicatory powers must not have any personal or proprietary
interest in the outcome of the proceedings.

2. There must be real likelihood of bias. Real likelihood of bias is a subjective term, which
means either actual bias or a reasonable suspicion of bias. It is difficult to prove the state of mind
of a person. Therefore, what the courts see is whether there is reasonable ground for believing
that the deciding factor was likely to have been biased.

Bias can take many forms: -

Personal Bias

Pecuniary Bias

Subject-matter bias

Departmental bias

Pre-conceived notion bias

A.K.Kraipak Vs. UOI

3
 In this case, Naquishband, who was the acting Chief Conservator of Forests, was a member of
the Selection Board and was also a candidate for selection to All India cadre of the Forest
Service. Though he did not take part in the deliberations of the Board when his name was
considered and approved, the SC held that `there was a real likelihood of a bias for the mere
presence of the candidate on the Selection Board may adversely influence the judgement of the
other members' SC also made the following observations: - 1. The dividing line between an
administrative power and quasi-judicial power is quite thin and is being gradually obliterated.
Whether a power is Administrative or quasi-judicial, one has to look into - a) the nature of power
conferred b) the person on whom it is conferred c) the framework of the law conferring that
power d) the manner in which that power is expected to be exercised. 2. The principles of natural
justice also apply to administrative proceedings, 3. The concept of natural justice is to prevent
miscarriage of justice and it entails - (i) No one shall be a judge of his own cause. (ii) No
decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing. (iii) The
quasi-judicial enquiries should be held in good faith and not arbitrarily or unreasonably.

J.Mohopatra & Co. Vs, State of Orissa

SC quashed the decision of the Textbooks' selection committee because some of its members
were also the authors of the books, which were considered for selection. The Court concluded
that withdrawal of person at the time of consideration of his books is not sufficient as the
element of quid pro quo with other members cannot be eliminated.

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Haryana

Issue

Whether the selection of candidate would vitiate for bias if close relative of a members of the
Public Service Commission is appearing for selection?

Held: The SC laid down the following propositions: -

1. Such member must withdraw altogether from the entire selection process otherwise all
selection would be vitiated on account of reasonable likelihood of bias affecting the process of
selection

2. This is not applicable in case of Constitutional Authority like PSC whether Central or State.
This is so because if a member was to withdraw altogether from the selection process, no other
person save a member can be substituted in his place and it may sometimes happen that no other
member is available to take the place of such a member and the functioning of PSC may be
affected.

3. In such a case, it is desirable that the member must withdraw from participation in interview
of such a candidate and he should also not take part in the discussions. The SC conceptualized

4
the doctrine of necessity in this case.

AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM OR RULE OF FAIR HEARING

The principle of audi alteram partem is the basic concept of principle of natural justice. The
expression audi alteram partem implies that a person must be given opportunity to defend
himself. This principle is sine qua non of every civilized society. This rule covers various stages
through which administrative adjudication pasees starting from notice to final determination.
Right to fair hearing thus includes:-

1. Right to notice

2. Right to present case and evidence

3. Right to rebut adverse evidence

(i) Right to cross examination (ii) Right to legal representation

4. Disclosure of evidence to party

5. Report of enquiry to be shown to the other party

6. Reasoned decisions or speaking orders

POST DECISIONAL HEARING

Post decisional hearing means hearing after the decision is reached. The idea of post decisional
hearing has been developed by the SC in Maneka Gandhi Vs. UOI to maintain the balance
between administrative efficiency and fairness to the individual.

Maneka Gandhi Vs. UOI

In this case the passport dated 01.06.1976 of the petitioner, a journalist, was impounded `in the
public interest' by an order dated 02.07.1977. The Govt. declined to furnish her the reasons for
its decision. She filed a petition before the SC under article 32 challenging the validity of the
impoundment order. She was also not given any pre-decisional notice and hearing.

The Govt. argued that the rule of audi alteram partem must be held to be excluded because
otherwise it would have frustrated the very purpose of impounding the passport. The SC held
that though the impoundment of the passport was an administrative action yet the rule of fair
hearing is attracted by the necessary implication and it would not be fair to exclude the

5
application of this cardinal rule on the ground of administrative convenience. The court did not
outright quash the order and allowed the return of the passport because of the special socio-
political factors attending the case. The technique of post decisional hearing was developed in
order to balance these factors against the requirements of law, justice and fairness. The court
stressed that a fair opportunity of being heard following immediately the order impounding the
passport would satisfy the mandate of natural justice.

The same technique of validating void administrative decision by post decisional hearing was
adopted in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Vs. UOI . Under section 15 of IDRA, an undertaking can be
taken over after making an investigation into its affairs. But u/s 18- AA, a take over w/o an
investigation is permitted where `immediate' action is required. The court validated the order of
the govt. which had been passed in violation of the rule of audi alteram partem because the govt.
had agreed to give post-decisional hearing. The ratio of the majority decision was as follows: - 1.
Pre-decisional hearing may be dispensed with in an emergent situation where immediate action
is required to prevent some imminent danger or injury or hazard to paramount public interest. 2.
Mere urgency is, however, no reason for exclusion of audi alteram partem rule. The decision to
exclude pre-decisional hearing would be justiciable. 3. Where pre-decisional hearing is
dispensed with, there must be a provision for post-decisional remedial hearing.

In K.I.Shephard Vs. UOI certain employees of the amalgamated banks were excluded from
employment. The Court allowing the writs held that post-decisional hearing in this case would
not do justice. The court pointed out that there is no justification to throw a person out of
employment and then give him an opportunity of representation when the requirement is that he
should be given an opportunity as a condition precedent to action.

In H.L.Trehan Vs. UOI, a circular was issued by the Govt. on taking over the company
prejudicially altering the terms and conditions of its employees w/o affording an opportunity of
hearing to them. The SC observed that "In our opinion, the post decisional opportunity of hearing
does not subserve the rules of natural justice. The authority who embarks upon a post-decisional
hearing will normally proceed with a closed mind and there is hardly any chance of getting
proper consideration of the representation at such a post decisional hearing." Thus in every case
where pre-decisional hearing is warranted, post-decisional hearing will not validate the action
except in very exceptional circumstances.

PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE UNDER 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

6
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.

The Constitutional Provisions relating to the Principles of Natural Justice

Under Article 14 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

7
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.
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 is 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 alteram 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 alteram 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 boards 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 that 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
Boards 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.

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 under 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

8
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 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 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.

Bhagwati, 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,

9
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 lawyers services continued an ingredient of fair procedure to a prisoner who is seeking his
liberation through the Courts 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.

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.

Article 22 (1) and (2) confers four following fundamental rights upon a person who has
been arrested:
i) Right to be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest.
ii) Right to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.

10
iii) Right to be produced before the nearest magistrate within twenty-four hours of his arrest
excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Court of Magistrate.
iv) Right not to be detained in custody beyond the period of twenty four hours without the
authority of the Magistrate.

2 (c) (i): Right to be informed of the Grounds of Arrest:

The object underlying the provision that the ground for arrest should be communicated to the
person arrested appears to be this. On knowing about the grounds of arrest, the detenue will be in
a position to make an application to the appropriate court for bail or move the High Court for a
writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court observed that Article 22 (1) embodies a rule which
has always been regarded as vital and fundamental for safeguarding personal liberty in all legal
systems where the Rule of Law prevails. Information as to the grounds of arrest provide
reasonable opportunity to prepare a case by detenu, such grounds must be precise clear and
unambiguous, if the grounds are not fully disclosed to accused than it would amount to denial of
fair hearing and results into violation of Natural Justice.
The Supreme Court observed that Article 22 (1) embodies a rule which has always been
regarded as vital and fundamental for safeguarding personal liberty in all legal systems where the
Rule of Law prevails. The court further observed that the two requirements of Clause (1)
of Article 22 are meant to afford the earliest opportunity to the arrested person to remove any
mistake, misapprehension or misunderstanding in the minds of the arresting authority and, also
to know exactly what the accusation against him is so that he can exercise the second right,
namely of consulting a legal practitioner of his choice and to be defended by him. Those who
feel called upon to deprive other persons of liberty in the discharge of what they conceive to be
their duty must, strictly and scrupulously, observe the forms and rules of law.

Right to consult and to be defended by Legal Practitioner: we have already dealt under Art.
21 that principle of fair hearing requires adequate legal representation, this principle is carried
forward by Art. 22 (1). Art 22(1) guarantees right of legal representation by advocate of his
choice. The Articledoes not require the state to extend legal aid as such but only requires to allow
all reasonable facilities to engage a lawyer to the person arrested and detained in custody. The
choice of counsel is entirely left to the arrested person. The right to consult arises soon after
arrest.

In Joginder Kumar V. State of U.P. The Supreme Court held that right of arrested
person upon request, to have someone informed about his arrest and right to consult privately
with lawyers are inherent in Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court observed
that no arrest can be made because it is lawful for the Police officer to do so. The existence of the
power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The Police
Officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in
police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a

11
person. No arrest should be made by Police Officer without a reasonable satisfaction reached
after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable
belief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest.

The Supreme Court issued the following requirements:

(1) An arrested person being held in custody is entitled, if he so requests, to have one friend,
relative or other person who is known to him or likely to take an interest in his welfare told as far
as practicable that he has been arrested and where is being detained.
(2) The Police Officer shall inform the arrested person when he is brought to the police station of
this right.
(3) An entry shall be required to be made in the Diary as to who was informed of the arrest.
These protections from power must be held to flow from Articles 21 and 22 (1) and enforced
strictly. The above requirements shall be followed in all cases of arrest till legal provisions are
made in this behalf.

CONCLUSION

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 a 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 Art14.

12