Unit-III

Judicial power of Administration – Tests to determine when an administrative authority required

to act judicially - Doctrine of Bias – Doctrine of Audi Alteram Partem – Reasoned decision –
Exceptions to Natural Justice – Effect of non-compliance with rules of Natural Justice – grounds
on which decision of quasi-judicial authority can be flagged before Supreme Court

Principles of Natural Justice

Natural justice is an important concept in Administrative law.

The term natural justice expresses the close relationship between the common law and moral
principles. It has an impressive history. It is also known as substantial justice, fundamental
justice and universal justice.

It is a great humanizing principle intended to invest law with fairness to secure justice and to
prevent miscarriage of justice.
It is not possible to define precisely and scientifically the expression of natural justice. It is a
vague and ambiguous concept and that natural justice is a branch of public law. It is a weapon
that can be used to secure justice for citizens. Rules of natural justice are basic values that a man
has cherished throughout the ages.

Principles of natural justice control all actions of the public authorities by applying rules relating
to reasonableness, good faith, justice, equity and good conscience.

Natural justice is a part of the law that relates to the administration of justice. The term natural
justice expresses the close relationship between the common law and moral principles and it
describes what is right and what is wrong. It has been recognised from the earliest times that it is
not judge-made law.

The Greeks had accepted the principle that “No man should be condemned unheard”.
In Kautilya’s Arthashastra, the rule of law has added the stamp of natural justice which makes it
social justice.

The traditional English law recognises two principles of natural justice:

1. Nemo debet esse judex inpropria causa: No man shall be a judge in his own cause or no
man can act as both a party or a suitor and also a judge for the deciding authority. The judge
must be impartial and must have no bias.

2. Audi alteram partem: Hear the other side or both the side must be heard or no man should
be condemned unheard or that there must be fairness on the part of the deciding authorities.

1. The first requirement of natural justice is that the judge should be impartial, neutral and must
be free from bias.

There are four types of bias:

[Link] bias
[Link] bias
[Link] bias
[Link] obstinacy

1. Pecuniary bias:
It is well settled that as regards pecuniary interest, even a little pecuniary interest in the subject
matter of the litigation will disqualify any person from acting as a judge. Pecuniary interest will
disqualify even though it is not proved that the decision is in any way affected.
Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper
interference with the course of justice.

Cases :
a. Bonham Case: Dr Bonham, a doctor of Cambridge University was fined by the college of
physicians for practising in the city of London without the licence of the college. The college
held that half the amount would go to the king and the other half to the college. The claim was
disallowed by Justice Coke as the college had a financial interest in its own judgement and was a
judge in its own cause.

b. In Visakhapatnam Corporation Motor Transport Company limited v. Bangaruraju, the

cooperative society had asked for a permit. The Collector was the president of that society and he
was also a chairman of the Regional Transport Authority which had granted the permit in favour
of the society. The court set aside the decision as being against the principles of natural justice.

c. In Mahapatra v. State of Orissa, some of the members of the committee, set up for selecting
books for educational institutions, were themselves authors whose books were to be considered
for selection. It was held by the Supreme court that there was a pecuniary bias.

2. Personal Bias: In this type, the judge may be a relative, a family friend, a business associate of
a party. This type of relationship may give rise to the second type of bias known as personal bias.

Cases:
a. In Cottle v. Cottle, the chairman of the bench was a friend of the wife's family who had
instituted matrimonial proceedings against her husband and the wife had told her husband that
the chairman would decide the case in her favour. The divisional court quashed the order.

b. R v. Handle, A magistrate who was beaten by the accused was held disqualified from hearing
a case filed against that accused.

c. In Ladies of the Sacred Heart of Jesus vs Armstrong, the decision was set aside on the ground
that the chairman was the husband of an executive officer of a body which was a party before the
tribunal.

The above principle is also accepted in India

a. Minglass Tea estate v. Workmen.
In this case, a manager conducted an enquiry against the workmen for the allegation that he had
beaten the manager. It was held that the enquiry was vitiated.

b. There existed political rivalry between M and the minister who had cancelled the licence of M.
A criminal case was filed by the Minister against M. It was held that there was a personal bias
against M and the minister was disqualified from taking any action against him.

c. A K Kripak v. Union of India

K was a candidate for selection to the IFS and was also a member of the selection board but did
not sit on the board when his name was considered. He was recommended by the body that he
was selected for by the public service commission. The candidates who were not selected filed a
writ petition questioning the selection of K on the ground that the principles of natural justice
were violated.
The SC upheld the contention made by the other candidates.

3. Official bias: This is a type of bias with reference to the subject matter. This may arise when
the judge has a general interest in the subject matter and when this happens, it will invalidate the
proceedings.

E.g.: Suppose a minister is empowered to frame a scheme after hearing the objections. The
procedure for hearing the objections is subject to the principles of natural justice in so far as they
require a fair hearing.

4. Judicial obstinacy (stubbornness)

There may be also a judicial bias and that is judicial obstinacy.
Cases:
In-State of West Bengal vs Shivananda Pathak, a writ of mandamus was filed by the petitioner
directing the government to promote him. A single judge upheld the petition ordering the
authorities to promote the petitioner but the order was set aside by the division bench. After two
years, a fresh petition was filed for payment of salary and other benefits. It was not in favour of
the petitioner/s by the Single bench judge, the order was challenged in an appeal which was held
by division beach to which one member was a judge who had allowed the earlier
petition(promotion). He allowed the appeal. The State approached the Supreme Court, setting
aside the order, the Supreme Court described the case of a new form of bias what is called
judicial obstinacy.

2. Audi alteram partem

Audi alteram partem means to hear the other side or no man should be condemned unheard or
both the sides must be heard before passing any order. This is the basic requirement of the rule of
law. It has been described as a foundational and fundamental concept. It lays down a norm that
should be implemented by all courts and tribunals at the National and International levels.

3. Notice
Before any actions are taken, the affected party must be given the notice to show cause against
the proposed action and seek his explanation. It is a sine qua non (essential condition) of the right
of a fair hearing. Any order passed without giving notice is against the principles of natural
justice and is void ab initio.

In R v. the University of Cambridge, Dr Bentley was deprived of his degrees by the Cambridge
University on account of his illegal misconduct without giving any notice or opportunity of
hearing. The Court of King's Bench declared the decision as null and void.
In Ghanshyam Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the court held that if the government servant is
placed under suspension and the enquiry is held at a different place from the place of his
residence and he is not able to attend the enquiry due to non-payment of subsistence allowance,
the enquiry is vitiated.

In Ajith Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corporation, the employee of the corporation had led an unruly
mob to the hospital run by the corporation, assaulted and beaten the chief medical officer. His
services were terminated under the relevant standing orders. The action was upheld.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the passport of the petitioner was impounded by the Indian
government in ‘public interest’. No opportunity was given to the petitioner before taking the
impugned order. The Supreme Court held that the order was violative of the principles of natural
justice.

In M S Bharat Engineering Company Limited v. the State of Bihar, a senior supervisor was
dismissed from service by the company for indulging in theft. The dispute was referred to the
labour court under the Industrial Disputes Act. The workman made an application to the labour
court stating that since he was residing at Haripur, it would be convenient for him if the case is
transferred to the labour court, Patna. The application was made without intimation to the
management. The government also without issuing notice and opportunity to the management,
accepted the request of the workmen and transferred the case to the labour court, Patna. The
petition filed by the management against the said order was dismissed by the Patna High court on
the ground that no prejudice was caused to the company.
The Supreme Court held that an opportunity of hearing ought to have been forwarded to the
company before passing the impugned order.

In Hiranath Mishra v. Rajendra Medical College, even though the statements of girl students
were recorded in the absence of the boys’ students and no opportunity was afforded to the boys’
students to cross-examine the girls’ students, the order of expulsion from college passed against
the boys’ students was upheld by the Supreme Court.
4. Disclosure of Material
An adjudicating authority must disclose all evidence and materials placed before it in the course
of proceedings and must afford an opportunity to the person against whom it is sought to be
utilised.

a. Dhakeshwari cotton mills limited v. CIT, the Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the
appellate tribunal on the ground that it did not disclose some evidence produced by the
department and used against the assessee.

b. In Bisham Bharath Kohli v. the State of U.P, Revision Proceedings, the Custodian General
accepted new evidence produced by one party but no opportunity was given to the other side to
meet with the same.
The Supreme Court set aside the order saying that principles of natural justice were violated.

5. Cross-Examination
Cross-examination was never considered to be a part and parcel of the doctrine of natural justice
which always depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether an opportunity of
cross-examination should be given to a party against whom proceedings have been initiated.

In Warehousing Corporation v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee, an employee of the statutory

corporation was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses produced at the enquiry by the
management and he was dismissed from service.
Holding that right of cross-examination ought to have been extended, the Supreme Court set
aside the order as violative of rules of natural justice.

In-State of Kerala v. KT Shaduli Grocery Dealer, the returns filed by the respondent-assessee on
the basis of his books of account appeared to the sales tax officer to be incomplete and incorrect.
The entries in the books of the wholesale dealer and the respondent did not match and the
respondent applied to the sales tax officer for an opportunity to cross-examine the wholesale
dealer which was rejected by STO.
Holding the decision of the STO to be illegal, the Supreme Court held that respondents could
prove the correctness and completeness of his returns only by showing that the entries in the
books of accounts of the wholesale dealer were false and bogus and this the respondent could not
do unless he was allowed to cross-examine the wholesale dealer.

But in certain cases or in certain circumstances cross-examination will not be allowed to a person
against whom proceedings have been initiated. In the absence of express provision, the authority
or tribunal will consider whether cross-examination is an essential ingredient of natural justice, if
such provision exists such cross-examination cannot be denied

In Hiranath Mishra v. Rajendra Medical College, a complaint was made by some medical
students that some boys being naked entered into the compound of girls hostel at night. They
were rusticated from the college. Their access to cross-examine female students who had seen
them were denied, the Supreme Court upheld the action of refusing the cross-examination.

In Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, a probationary teacher in a co-ed education

institution was charged with sexual advances to a girl student. In spite of the warning, he did not
correct himself, at late night he went to the girls’ hostel and entered the room. Disciplinary action
was taken and was terminated from the service. He contended that he ought to have been given
an opportunity to cross-examine the girl student.
The Supreme Court upheld the termination and observing that the facts of the case justified
refusal of cross-examination by the school authorities.

6. One who decides must hear

As a general rule one who hears must decide. This is a statutory principle based on the proper
administration of justice.

7. Empty formality theory - Not permissible.

If the principles of natural justice are not observed and the action is taken, the action is liable to
set aside. A question however may arise whether such action can be sustained on the argument
that even if notice would have been issued or hearing afforded, “it would have made no
difference” or “no useful purpose would have been served”, it would have been an empty
formality.

As a general rule, no such plea is permissible

Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P v. Chitra Srivatsa, the Board cancelled
the examination of the petitioner on the ground that there was a shortage in attendance at lectures
but no notice was given to the student before taking the action. On behalf of the board, it was
contended that the facts were not in dispute and no useful purpose would have been served by
giving such notice.
The Supreme Court however did not uphold the contention. It was against the principles of
natural justice.

In Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan, the relevant rule provided automatic
termination of service on unauthorised absence of an employee for a certain period. Since M
remained absent for more than five years, the post was deemed to have been vacated. M
challenged the order being violative of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was afforded
before taking the action. The court refused to set aside the order observing that there was no
prejudice (partiality). According to the code, the only conclusion which could have been drawn
was that had M been given notice, it would not have made any difference.

8. Oral Personal Hearing

Every adjudicating authority must observe the principles of natural justice and must afford a
reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person against whom the action is sought to be
taken. It is a well-established principle that as per the principles of natural justice requirement of
personal hearing is not necessary.

It is well established that principles of natural justice do not require a personal hearing and if all
the relevant circumstances have been taken into account before taking the important action the
said action cannot be set aside only on the ground that personal hearing was not given as already
discussed. The principles of natural justice are flexible but whether they are observed in a given
case or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case.

9. Pre-decisional and Post-decisional hearing

Pre-decisions a hearing afforded before making a decision or placing an order. A
post-decisionalearing on the other hand is a hearing given by the adjudicating authority after
taking a decision for or making an order.

The Supreme Court of India in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India agreed that even though there
is no concept of post-decisional hearing but sometimes the doctrine is accepted in exceptional
cases. It laid down that wherein an emergency situation requiring immediate action, it is not
practicable to give prior notice for the hearing, the preliminary action should be soon followed
by a full remedial hearing.

Olga Tellis v Union of India, even though the statute imports the commissioner to remove the
construction without notice, the Supreme Court read the Audi alteram partem in observing that
reading the provisions as containing command or not to issue notice before the removal of
encroachment will make the law invalid.

10. Right of Counsel

The right of representation by a lawyer is never considered to be a part of natural justice and it
cannot be claimed as a right unless the said right is conferred by the statute.

Some statue does not permit the appearance of legal practitioners, e.g. Factory Act, some statues
require the appearance of advocates only with the permission of the tribunal concerned e.g.
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 while in some statutes the right to be represented through an
advocate is recognised e.g. Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961
confers an absolute right on every advocate to practice in all courts including the Supreme Court
and before any Tribunal.

11. Right of a Friend

In departmental proceedings and domestic enquiries, an employee or a workman is normally
allowed to represent his case through his friend, co-worker or representative of the union.
According to the Supreme Court, it is desirable that in domestic enquiry, an employee should be
given liberty to represent his case by persons of their choice if there is no standing order against
such a course being adopted and if there is nothing otherwise objectionable in the set request.

In A. K. Roy vs Union of India, it was contended that detinue has a right to represent his case
through a lawyer. The Supreme Court, negativing the contention, held that a lawyer cannot be a
next friend.

Speaking order
Speaking orders or reasoned decisions

Speaking order means an order speaking for itself or every order must contain reasons in support
of it.

Giving of reasons in support of an order is considered to be the third principle of natural justice.
According to this, a party has a right to know not only the result of the enquiry but also the
reasons in support of the decision.
There is no general rule of English law that reasons must be given for administrative or even
judicial decisions. In India, till very recently it was not accepted that the requirement to pass
speaking order is one of the principles of natural justice.

In order to provide a safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of powers by these authorities, the
condition of recording reasons is imposed on them. It is true that even the ordinary law courts do
not always give reasons in support of the orders passed by them when they dismiss appeals and
revisions summarily, but regular courts of law and administrative tribunals cannot be put at par.
Another rationale is that the effective party can know why the decision has gone against.

Whether Speaking Order is necessary?

If the statute requires a recording of reasons then it is the statutory requirement and therefore
there is no scope for further enquiry but even when the statute does not impose such an
obligation, it is necessary for the Quasi-judicial authority to record reasons as it is the only
visible safeguard against possible injustice and arbitrariness and the protection to the person
adversely affected.

The courts insist upon disclosure of reasons in support of the order on:
1. Party aggrieved has the opportunity to demonstrate before the appellate revisional court
that the reasons which persuaded the authority to reject his case were erroneous
2. The obligation to record reasons operates as a deterrent against possible arbitrary action
by the executive authority invested in them with judicial power
3. To give satisfaction to the party against whom the order is made.

No particular form of recording of reasons is necessary. It is enough if the adjudicating authority

records reasons which are proper, relevant, intelligible, germane (relevant), advanced points
raised, and conclusions recorded in support of the order or action taken.

In Raipur Development Authority v. Contractors, an award was made by an arbitrator under the
Arbitration Act, 1948, which did not contain reasons. The said award was challenged on the
ground that the arbitrator was bound to record reasons which was a requirement of natural
justice. Reliance was placed on Siemens engineering and manufacturing company of India
limited vs Union of India; the court considered for the first time that the rule requiring reasons in
support of an order is the third principle of natural justice.

For the first time in the Siemens Engineering case, the Supreme Court held that the rule requiring
reasons to be recorded by Quasi-judicial authorities in support of the orders passed by them must
be held to be a basic principle of natural justice.

In Union of India vs Nambodari, representation was made by a government servant against

certain adverse remarks made in a confidential record. The said representation was rejected
without recording reasons. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal against that order
and the tribunal set aside the order on the ground that it was vitiated since no reasons were
recorded. The Union of India approached the Supreme Court with an appeal, setting aside the
order of the tribunal, the Supreme Court observed, “Principles of natural justice do not require
the administrative authority to record reasons for the decision as there is no general rule that
reasons must be given for the administrative decision. Order of an administrative authority that
has no statutory or implied duty to state reasons for the grounds of its decision is not rendered
illegal nearly on account of the absence of reasons. It has never been a principle of natural justice
that reasons should be given for decisions”.

In Srilekha Vidyarthi vs the State of U.P, the State Government by a circular terminated
appointment of all government counsels. When the validity of the said circular was questioned in
the supreme court, it was contended that the appointments were liable to be terminated at any
time “without assigning any cause”. Construing the expression in the light of the ratio laid down
in Liberty oil Mills, the court observed that non-communication may be based on public policy
but termination of an appointment without the existence of any event reason in furtherance of the
object for which the power is given would be arbitrary and therefore against public policy.

Exclusion of Natural Justice

or
Exceptions to the Rule of Natural Justice

It is a general rule that every person whose rights are affected by onadministrative actions is
entitled to claim natural justice. The courts have generally read into the provisions of the relevant
sections for the requirement of giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any order
is made which would have adverse civil consequences for the parties affected. However, there
are certain exceptions to this general rule. In such an exceptional circumstance, the requirement
of natural justice is excluded. Those exceptional circumstances are:
1. Exclusion by Statutory provisions
2. Exclusion by the Constitutional provisions
3. Exclusion in case of legislative Act
4. Exclusion in Public Interest
5. Exclusion in case of the need for prompt action or emergency or necessity
6. Exclusion on the ground of impracticability
7. Exclusion in case of confidentiality
8. Exclusion in cases of academic adjudication
9. Exclusion when no right of the person is infringed
[Link] in the cases of interim preventive action
[Link] in case of fraud

1. Exclusion by statutory provisions

The statute expressly or by necessary implication excludes the application of the principles of
natural justice. The exclusion will be effective provided that the statute is not unconstitutional.
The exclusion should be based on reasonable ground and should not be arbitrary. If the exclusion
is without any reasonable ground, it would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

Example: The Land Acquisition Act

2. Exclusion by Constitutional provisions

The principles of natural justice may be excluded by the express provision of the Constitution.
The principles of natural justice are implicit in Article 14 and Article 21 however Article 311 (2)
is notable.
Article 310 incorporates the Doctrine of Pleasure and developed and applied in England. In
England, the rule is that a civil servant of the Crown holds office during the pleasure of the
Crown and his services can be terminated by the crown at any time without assigning any reason
and without giving any compensation except where it is otherwise provided by a statute. The
crown is not bound by the contract of employment between it and a civil servant.

Article 310 of the Constitution of India which incorporate the doctrine of pleasure provides that
except as expressly provided by the Constitution, every person who is a member of a defence
service or a civil service of the union or of an all India service or holds any post connected with
defence or any civil post under the union, holds office during the pleasure of the President and
every person who is a member of a civil service of a state or hold any post-civil under state
government does so during the pleasure of the Governor of the state.

The doctrine of pleasure is subject to article 311

The second proviso to Article 311(2) to create some exceptions to the rule of Audi alteram
partem. According to this provision the aforesaid provisions of Article 311(2) are not applicable
in the conditions stated below:
a. Where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which
has led to his conviction on a criminal charge or
b. Where an authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is
satisfied that for some reason to be recorded by that authorities in writing it is not reasonably
practicable to hold such enquiry or
c. Where the President or Governor as the case may be is satisfied that in the interest of the
security of the State, it is not expedient to hold such enquiry.

In-State of Haryana vs Piara Singh, the Supreme court has held that if a municipal corporation is
established, the government is not required to hear the residents of the municipal area before
making decisions for its establishment because the establishment of a municipal corporation is a
legislative act, and the rules of natural justice are not applicable to the legislative act.

If the action of government is of a legislative character, the rules of natural justice would not be
attracted, however, it must be done in accordance with the statutory provisions. In short, in the
discharge of legislative functions, the observance of the principles of natural justice is not
required, however, it must be discharged in accordance with the statutory provisions.

3. Exclusion in case of a legislative act

It is well established that legislative function or legislative act is not subject to the principles of
natural justice. The legislative act or function includes making rules and regulations. (i.e., the
delegated or subordinate legislation).

In M.R.F ltd vs Inspector, Kerala Government, the court has made it clear that the principles of
natural justice cannot be imported in the matter of legislative action if the legislative in the
exercise of its plenary power under Article 245 of the Constitution proceeds to enact a law.
Those who would be affected by that law cannot legally raise grievance that before the law was
made, they should have been given an opportunity of hearing.

Example: Spraying of disinfectant in a locality.

4. Exclusion in Public Interest

The observance of the principles of natural justice may be excluded in case if such observance
would cause injury to the public interest.

In Union of India vs Tulsiram Patel, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the rules of natural
justice can be avoided if its observance will paralyze the administrative process. The cases of
public interest include the defence of the country and maintenance of State secret. Thus, the
authorities are not required to disclose the information relating to the defence policy and other
defence of the country for keeping safe.

In Satyaveer Singh vs Union of India, the Supreme Court has expressed the view that natural
justice must be confined within its proper limits and must not be allowed to run wild.
a. Union of India vs Tulsiram Patel, the permanent auditor in the Regional Audit Office was
convicted under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code for causing head injury by an iron rod to
his superior officer, Regional Audit Officer. He was compulsorily retired by the disciplinary
authority under rule 19(1) of the Central Civil Service Classification Control and Appeal Rules,
1965 without holding an enquiry and giving an opportunity of being heard under Article 311(2).
The Supreme Court held the order of compulsory retirement valid.
b. In Union of India vs Sadanand Jha, the supreme court upheld the dismissal under Article 311.
In this case, some members of the Central Industrial Security Force broke down the discipline in
force and deliberately disobeyed the orders of the superior. The military was called to control the
situation. There had been an exchange of fire between the military and members of the CISF for
few hours. The situation was very violent and there was mass terror and threat to the loyal staff.
The respondents who were members of the said CISF were dismissed from service without
holding an enquiry Article 311(2) and Rule 37(b) of the CISF on the ground that it was not
necessary and practicable to hold an enquiry.

In another leading case decided by the Supreme Court along with the case of Tulsi Ram Patel,
the railway employees were dismissed from service under Article 311(2) and Rule 14 of the
Railway Servant Rules for participating in illegal all India strike of the railway employees. The
order of dismissal was upheld and to be valid. The railway service was paralyzed, loyal workers
and superior officers were assaulted and intimidated, public interest and public good were
prejudicially affected. In such a situation, there was a great need for prompt and immediate
action to bring the situation to normal. In these circumstances, the enquiry was not reasonably
practicable hence the order of dismissal without enquiry was held valid.

In another leading case, the members of M.P. District Police stationed at the annual Mela at
Gwalior indulged in violent demonstration and rioting. They were dismissed by the order of the
Governor without making an enquiry and giving the petitioners reasonable opportunity of being
heard. The court held the order of dismissal was valid on the ground that in the circumstances
prompt and urgent action was necessary and holding an enquiry would not have been in the
interest of the security of the State. The Supreme Court also held that the order was valid and
properly applied in the dismissal of the officers.

5. Exclusion in case of the need of prompt action or emergency or necessity

The rules of natural justice may be excluded where prompt action is required to be taken in the
interest of public safety or public morality or public health.
For example, where a person who is dangerous to peace in the society is required to be detained
or where a building which is dangerous to human lives is required to be demolished or a trade
which is dangerous to the society is required to be prohibited, prompt action is required to be
taken in the interest of public and hearing before the action may delay the administrative action
and thereby cause injury to the public interest and public safety.
Necessity
In Tata Cellular vs Union of India, the tender of the company in which the son of Director
General of Communication and Telecom Authority was employed. The DG’s involvement in the
approval and selection of the tender was indispensable (requisite) and his involvement was
necessary for the view of section 36 of the Telegraph Act. He could not be dissociated from the
decision-making process. In such circumstances, the Court applied the doctrine of necessity and
held that the acceptance of the tender of the company could not be vitiated because the said
officer was a member of the tender evaluation committee.

6. Exclusion on the ground of Impracticability

When the authority deals with a large number of persons, it is not practicable to give them an
opportunity of being heard and therefore in such condition, the court does not insist on the
observance of the rules of natural justice.
In. Radhakrishnan vs Osmania University, the entire MBA entrance examination was cancelled
on the ground of mass copying. The court held that it was not possible to give all the examinees
the opportunity of being heard before the cancellation of the examination.
In Bihar School Examination Board vs Subhash Chandra, the examination of all subjects at once
was cancelled on the ground of mass copying and the examinee was permitted to reappear at the
supplementary examination. Before the order was passed, an opportunity of hearing was not
given to the examinees and the court held that the number of examinees was very large, and it
was not practicable to give all of them the opportunity of hearing before passing the order.

7. Exclusion in case of Confidentiality

Sometimes the observance of the rule of natural justice is excluded in case of confidentiality.
In Malak Singh vs the State of Punjab, the surveillance register maintained by the police is a
confidential document and neither the person whose name has been entered in the register nor
any other person can claim access to it. The observance of the rule of natural justice in such a
case would defeat the very purpose of surveillance and it is very possible at the end of justice
being defeated instead of being served.

8. Exclusion in cases of Academic Adjudication

JNU v. B.L. Narwal, the supreme court held that the very nature of the academic adjudication
appears to negative any right of hearing. In this case, a Student of the University was removed
from the roll on the ground of unsatisfactory academic performance without giving them an
opportunity of being heard. It was held valid by the supreme court and made it very clear that if
the competent academic authority assesses the work of a student over a period of time and
thereafter declares his work unsatisfactory, the rule of natural justice may be excluded.

9. Exclusion when no right of the person is infringed

If the right of a person is not prejudicially affected, the application of the rules of natural justice
is not attracted.
J.R. Vohra v Indian Export House ltd.
The Delhi Rent Control Act, a limited tenancy can be created and it can be terminated on the
expiry of its term. If the term of the limited tenancy expires and a warrant of possession is issued
to the tenant without any notice of hearing to him, the warrant of possession cannot be held to be
invalid on the ground that no hearing has been given to the tenant before the issue of the said
warrant. The reason is that after the expiry of the period of limited tenancy, a person has no right
to retain the position and therefore by the issue of the said warrant no right has been violated and
the application of the rule of natural justice is not attracted.

10. Exclusion in the cases of interim preventive action

The rule of natural justice is not attracted in the case of interim preventive orders.
The order of suspension of an employee pending an enquiry against him is not final but interim
order and application of the rules of natural justice are not attracted in the case of such order.
Abhay Kumar v Srinivasan, in this case, an order was passed by the college authority debarring
the student from entering the premises of the college and attending the classes till the pendency
of a criminal case against him for stabbing student. The court held that the order was interim and
not final. It was preventive in nature, it was passed with the object to maintain peace on the
campus. The rules of natural justice were not applicable in such an order.

11. Exclusion in case of fraud

The principles of natural justice do not have a place when there is fraud committed.

In the case of U.P. Junior Doctors Action Committee vs Dr B. Shital Nandwani, the admission
obtained by fraud was cancelled without providing an opportunity of hearing to the affected
candidates and was held valid by the Supreme Court as the rules of natural justice were not
attracted. In this case, some student secured admission to post-graduation medical course in the
medical college by producing fake order from the court. Their admission was cancelled without
giving them an opportunity of being heard. The court held that the circumstances in which such
benefit has been taken by the candidates concerned do not justify the attraction of the application
of the rule of natural justice and therefore the cancellation of the admission could not be
challenged on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to the affected candidates.

Effect of non-compliance of natural justice

1. Manika Gandhi v. Union of India, the passport of the petitioner was impounded by the Indian
government in ‘public interest and no opportunity was given to the petitioner before taking the
impugned order. The Supreme Court held that the order was violative of the principles of natural
justice.

2. Dhakeshwari cotton mills limited v. CIT, the Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the
court on the ground that it did not disclose some evidence produced by the department and used
against the assessee.
3. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P v. Chitra Srivatsa, the Board cancelled
the examination of the petitioner on the ground that there was a shortage in attendance at
lectures, but no notice was given to the student before taking the action. On behalf of the board,
it was contended that the facts were not in dispute and no useful purpose would have been served
by giving such notice.
The Supreme Court however did not uphold the contention. It was against the principles of
natural justice.

4. Olga Tellis v. Union of India, even though the statute imports the commissioner to remove the
construction without notice, the Supreme Court read the Audi alteram partem in observing that
reading the provisions as containing command or not to issue notice before the removal of
encroachment will make the law invalid.

5. A K Kripak v. Union of India

K was a candidate for selection to the IFS and was also a member of the selection board but did
not sit on the board when his name was considered. He was recommended by the body that he
was selected for by the public service commission, the candidates who were not selected filed a
writ petition questioning the selection of K on the ground that the principles of natural justice
were violated.