Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The principles of natural justice are fundamental to a fair legal system, ensuring impartiality and fairness in administrative actions. Rooted in common law, they are not explicitly enshrined in the Indian Constitution but are considered essential to the due process of law under Article 21. These principles, primarily “audi alteram partem” (hear the other side) and “nemo judex in causa sua” (no one should be a judge in his own cause), aim to prevent arbitrary decisions. However, their rigid application can sometimes hinder the pursuit of justice, leading to a recognition of their flexibility and potential deviation in specific circumstances. The recent emphasis on fairness and proportionality in judicial pronouncements further underscores this evolving understanding.
Understanding Natural Justice
Natural Justice encompasses two fundamental rules:
- Audi Alteram Partem: The rule of fair hearing, mandating that an individual affected by a decision must be given an opportunity to present their case. This includes notice of the allegations and a chance to rebut them.
- Nemo Judex in Causa Sua: The rule against bias, ensuring that the decision-maker is impartial and does not have a personal interest in the outcome.
Exceptions and Deviations – The Need for Flexibility
While these principles are paramount, their application isn’t inflexible. The Supreme Court has recognized situations where deviation is permissible to achieve substantive justice. The rationale is that strict adherence to these principles can sometimes obstruct the larger goal of fairness and equity.
Key Judgments & Rationale
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This landmark case expanded the scope of Article 21 and established that procedural fairness is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty. While not directly about deviations from natural justice, it underscored the importance of fair procedures.
Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India (2016): This case dealt with the issue of electoral malpractices and the power of the Election Commission. The Court acknowledged that while natural justice demands a hearing, it can be dispensed with in situations where immediate action is required to prevent further illegality or to ensure the integrity of the electoral process. The Court held that the E.C. can pass interim orders without providing a hearing, provided it gives an opportunity for a hearing before a final order is passed.
Mohd. Yasin v. Appellate Authority Under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act (1997): The court held that the principles of natural justice are not absolute and can be relaxed if the situation demands it. For example, in cases involving urgent matters or when adhering to natural justice would defeat the purpose of the legislation.
Circumstances Justifying Deviation
The Supreme Court has identified specific circumstances where deviation from natural justice might be justified:
- Urgency: When immediate action is necessary to prevent irreparable harm.
- Public Interest: When adherence to natural justice would significantly impede the achievement of a vital public objective.
- Preventing Abuse: When strict adherence would be susceptible to abuse and manipulation.
- Statutory Provisions: When a statute explicitly provides for a procedure that deviates from natural justice.
Limitations on Deviation
Even when deviation is permitted, it must be proportionate and justified. The decision-maker must still act fairly and reasonably, and the deviation should not result in an arbitrary or unfair outcome. The power to deviate is not absolute and is subject to judicial scrutiny.
| Principle | Deviation Permissible? | Justification |
|---|---|---|
| Audi Alteram Partem | Yes | Urgency, Public Interest |
| Nemo Judex in Causa Sua | Yes | To prevent abuse, when statutory provisions dictate |
Conclusion
The principles of natural justice are cornerstones of a fair and equitable legal system, but their application is not static. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized their flexibility, recognizing that rigid adherence can sometimes impede the pursuit of justice. The power to deviate from these principles, however, is a carefully circumscribed one, requiring justification based on urgency, public interest, or statutory provisions. The evolving understanding of fairness and proportionality ensures that while natural justice remains a guiding principle, it adapts to the demands of a dynamic and just society.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.