INTRODUCTION
Administrative law holds the machinery of government to standards of fairness and reason. Its essence lies not in grand constitutional declarations alone, but in the humdrum of everyday decision a license revoked, a pension withheld, a tender rejected. In each of these, the invisible threads of natural justice run deep. They do not always demand a courtroom drama; they demand fairness that feels real.
Where Natural Justice Lives
Natural justice is not born of a statute. It flows from common law, deeply rooted in moral conscience. Indian courts have long recognised it as a fundamental check on arbitrary power. Even when a statute is silent, the courts read natural justice into the gaps, unless a law explicitly excludes it and even then, not always without resistance.
Two maxims form the backbone: audi alteram partem (hear the other side) and nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause). They sound old-fashioned in Latin but remain modern in spirit. They insist that no one should suffer without being heard and that bias real or perceive destroys fairness.
Hearing the Other Side
Take the first principle. The right to be heard means more than an invitation to speak. It requires notice, disclosure of material, reasonable opportunity to respond and sometimes even cross examine. In practice, this plays out in varied ways.
When a university cancels a student’s degree for misconduct, it must lay the charge plainly, give the student a chance to see the evidence and answer it. A blacklisting order against a contractor must come after the contractor knows what the government holds against him and gets a fair shot at explanation.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India in 1978 made this clear. Maneka’s passport was impounded without giving her any reasons or a hearing. The Court held that even if a law does not prescribe a hearing, fairness demands it. The passport law could not override Article 21’s promise of life and liberty without procedure established by law and that procedure had to be fair, just and reasonable.
Over time, Indian courts have broadened this idea. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel accepted that in some urgent situations say, where a civil servant’s presence is dangerous to state security a hearing may be excluded. But such exceptions are few and narrowly interpreted.
No Bias, No Favour
The second principle rule against bias speaks to impartiality. A judge who stands to benefit from the outcome cannot hear a case. This holds equally true for administrative officers who decide disciplinary proceedings or tender disputes. The bias need not be proven; even a reasonable likelihood suffices.
The classic test: Would a reasonable person suspect that the decision-maker might not act fairly? If so, the decision is tainted. In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, the Supreme Court struck down selections for forest service officers where the selection board included a candidate for the job. The Court reminded everyone that the line between administrative and quasi-judicial functions may blur, but fairness cannot be blurred away.
Bias may be personal, pecuniary or official. A minor financial interest in the subject matter can topple an entire process. So can personal animosity. Public bodies must scrupulously guard against situations that create suspicion, even if no real bias exists.
Flexible, Not Rigid
Natural justice does not bind administrators to the rituals of a court trial. It flexes to context. In Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, the Court observed that principles of natural justice are not embodied rules; they vary with the context and the statute.
Where facts are urgent, like detention under preventive laws, courts accept limited deviation. Even so, detention orders must be reviewed promptly, with the detainee allowed to make representations. In purely policy decisions say, fixing prices or policy matters affecting a broad class a hearing for every individual may not be practical or required.
Written Reasons Matter
Closely linked with natural justice is the duty to record reasons. When an administrative authority gives reasons, it shows that it has applied its mind. Reasons reassure the affected party that the decision is not arbitrary. They also make judicial review meaningful. Courts cannot test what they cannot see.
In Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan, the Supreme Court emphasised that recording reasons is part of natural justice. Whether it is a disciplinary authority dismissing a civil servant or a tribunal deciding an appeal, reasons build trust.
Judicial Review: The Safety Valve
Natural justice finds teeth in judicial review. When a government body violates fairness, courts step in. They do not sit as appellate authorities to weigh merits but check whether the process was reasonable, the hearing genuine, the mind applied. If a violation is found, the decision can be struck down and sent back for reconsideration.
Sometimes, courts apply the “useless formality” theory — if a hearing would make no difference to the outcome, the violation may not void the action. But this is sparingly used, for procedural fairness is not an empty ritual.
Modern Challenges
Today, natural justice faces new tests. Automated decisions, online hearings, algorithm-driven blacklists each brings unique questions. Can an algorithm be biased? Should a citizen have the right to know how an AI system decided to deny a benefit? The principles remain the same: fairness, transparency and accountability. How they fit into new technologies will shape administrative law for decades to come.
COVID-19 lockdowns showed another dimension. Physical hearings became impossible. Virtual hearings mushroomed overnight. Courts have generally held that virtual hearings can meet the test of natural justice if the essentials notice, opportunity to respond, disclosure remain intact.
Conclusion
Natural justice is not just a technical rule tucked away in administrative law textbooks. It is a promise of reasonableness woven into governance. It reminds every authority that the power to decide comes with a duty to listen and a duty to stay impartial.
For citizens, it is a quiet assurance that while the state may be mighty, it cannot be deaf. It must hear, explain and act fairly. Long after statutes fade and governments change, the spirit of natural justice endures as the simplest guarantee that power will not drown out the voice of the individual.
CONTRIBUTED BY: LAKSHAY NANDWANI (INTERN)