CCS Rules & Principles of Natural justice
1. NATURAL
JUSTICE
It
is an important concept in administrative law. It is known as "substantial
justice", "fundamental justice", "universal justice"
or "fair play in action".
ii.
As laid down in the case of A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150,
the aims of rules of natural justice is to secure justice į or to put it
negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules operate only in areas
not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the
law of the land but supplement it.
iii.
Generally, no provision is found in any statute for the observance of the
principles of natural justice by the adjudicating authorities. But it is
well settled that where the exercise of power results in civil consequences to
citizens, unless the statute specifically rules out, the principles of natural
justice would apply, has been held in State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani, AIR
1967 SC 1269; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 (1) SCC 248; Mohinder Singh
Gill v. Chief Election Commr. AIR 1978 SC 851, Union of India, v. Tulsiram
Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416; Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480.
iv.
It is imperative that even where there is no specific provision in a statute or
rules made thereunder for showing cause against action proposed to be taken
against an individual which affects the rights of that individual, the duty to
give reasonable opportunity to be heard will be implied from the nature of the
function to be performed by the authority which has the power to take punitive
or damaging action.
2.
Against whom Natural Justice may be
enforced
It
is settled law and there is no dispute that the principles of natural justice
are binding on all the courts, judicial bodies and quasijudicial authorities.
But whether these principles are applicable to administrative authorities also
has been settled in the Kraipak case wherein it has been held that "if the
purpose of rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice one
fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable to administrative
enquiries."
3.
Rules of Natural Justice not rigid
rules
The
Supreme Court in R.S. Dass v. Union of India has observed :
It
is well established that rules of natural justice are not rigid rules; they are
flexible and their application depends on the setting and the background of
statutory provision, nature of right which may be affected and the consequences
which may entail. Its application depends upon the facts and circumstances of
each case.
[R.S.
Dass v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 593]
ii.
The essential logic and justification of the principles of natural justice has
been brought about by Krishna Iyer, J, thus :
Natural
justice is no unruly horse, no lurking land mine, nor a judicial cure-all. If
fairness is shown by the decision maker to the man proceeded against, the
forms, features and fundamentals of such essential processual propriety being
conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each situation, no breach of
natural justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice
without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given
case can be u exasperating. We can neither be finical nor fanatical but should
be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction. No man shall be hit below the
belt.........that is the conscience of the matter"
[The
Chairman, Board of Mining Examination v. Ramjee, AIR 1977 SC 965.]
Sir
ReplyDeleteJudgements regarding principles of natural justice quoted excellent,🙏