Principles of Natural Justice Case Laws in India

If there are financial interests on the part of the judicial authority, this leads to bias on the part of the administrative authority, regardless of the amount. In Jeejeebhoy v. Sammler,[7] a bank was reconstituted when it was discovered that one of the members of the bank was a member of the cooperative for which the land had been acquired. In Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel,[3] the Supreme Court of India set out the essence of natural justice, namely that a good conscience must be used in a given situation; No more, no less. If a judicial authority violates the principle of “Nemo judex in causa sua”, the order made would be questionable, i.e. it could be challenged by any court. However, if a judicial authority violates the “adversarial principle”, the injunction is deemed null ab initio. Therefore, the decision-making authority must have sufficient knowledge of the principles of natural justice, i.e.

“Nemo Judex in causa sua” and “Audi alteram partem”, before rendering judgment. The Court held that natural justice requires that the authority seeking to find the offending officer guilty hear it. If the investigator believes that the allegations are proven, the report must be given to the offending officer, who can make a statement before the disciplinary authority takes further action to the detriment of the offending officer. The Supreme Court discovered new criteria for bias because of this inappropriate condition. This new category arose from a case in which a judge of the Supreme Court of Calcutta upheld his own judgment on appeal. There is a direct violation of the rules of bias because no judge can appeal in his or her own case. Case High Water Mark – Eurasian Equipment and Company Limited v. State of West Bengal: In this case, all senior engineers were blacklisted.

The Supreme Court has ruled that you cannot blacklist someone without giving a valid and reasonable reason, and that they must also be given a fair chance to be heard. The primary objective of the principles of natural justice is to ensure justice in the economic enterprises of society and individuals. It also defends individual freedom against arbitrariness. « The universal and absolute law is that natural justice which cannot be written, but which speaks to the heart of all. » Later, the concept of natural justice was accepted by the English jurist. The word natural justice is derived from the Roman words “jus-naturale” and “lex-naturale,” which provided for the principles of natural justice, natural law, and equality. The principles of natural justice are one of the fundamental elements that can sustain a free society. The sole purpose is to prevent a miscarriage of justice. A society that does not impose burdens on such important principles will make the administration of justice impossible and unpleasant. This type of bias can occur in cases where an administrator who expresses the official policy and then has to execute it is charged with the obligation to hear the objections of the persons concerned to the implementation of these policies. Submit your article via our online form Click here Note* we only accept original articles, we do not accept articles that have already been published on other websites. For more information, please contact: editor@legalserviceindia.com Second, the “bias rule” generally states that the panel should be free from bias in decision-making.

The decision should be made in a free and fair manner that can be consistent with the principle of natural justice. However, if the law does not prescribe a procedure or provides for a less strict procedure than the rule of natural justice, the rule must be followed. However, there are exceptions. In many cases, the law would provide for due process, and such a procedure could be stricter than the rule of natural justice if, in such a situation, the established procedure must be followed. Also in India, the drafters of the Constitution and the Indian judiciary, as well as Parliament, have recognized the importance of natural justice and its implementation in laws, procedures and the enforcement of those laws and procedures. Let us take an illustration: in a case involving the lawyer and his client, no one can force a lawyer to disclose the information that the client gives him in relation to the case. In emergencies, the principles of natural justice cannot be applied, but the fundamental structure of the constitution cannot be ignored. It is necessary to act immediately in the order of the authorities, as delays can cause harm to the public. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,[23] it was concluded that the passport may be seized in the public interest without the consent of natural justice, but the court held that the public interest is a justified matter and that its decision by the administrative authority is not final. In the case of the Ludhiana food product, the court held that if the party itself refuses to cross-examine the witness, this is not a miscarriage of justice of natural justice.

The right to legal assistance is one of the important features of Audi Alteram Partem and its refusal will constitute a breach of natural justice, as the party may not be able to effectively understand the legal issue – Krishna Chandra v. Indian Union.[18] In Hussainara v. Home Secretary[19] and M.H. Haskot v. In the state of Maharashtra,[20] it has been established that providing free legal aid to the poor is a fair and equitable process. The principle or doctrine of natural justice can be understood as a rule of law that protects individuals from the arbitrary exercise of power by ensuring fairness. There is no clear definition of natural justice that is not mentioned in the Constitution or any other statute, but it has been developed on the basis of various legal considerations. The Supreme Court has stated that obtaining a reasonable and justified judgment is the objective of judicial and administrative bodies.

The primary purpose of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice. (2) Without prejudice to the foregoing generally, the High Court may: (a) seek redress from such courts; (b) adopt and adopt general rules and prescribe forms governing the practice and procedure of such courts; and (c) require forms in which the books, registers and accounts must be kept by the officers of such tribunals. (3) The High Court may also fix schedules of fees to be paid to the Sheriff and to all clerks, clerks and officers practising therein: Any form or schedule required under subsection (2) or (3) of this section shall not be contrary to the provisions of any law in force and shall be approved in advance by the Governor. (4) Nothing in this section shall be construed as conferring on the Supreme Court powers of review over a court or tribunal constituted by or under an Armed Forces Act.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.