MODULE-3

ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION

3.1 MEANING AND REASONS OF GROWTH OF ADMINISTRATIVE

ADJUDICATION

3.1 MEANING OF ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION

 Definition: Administrative adjudication means settling disputes through government
agencies, where these agencies act like courts and decide on legal matters.
 Process: Just like in regular courts, these agencies listen to both sides of a case, look
at the evidence, and then make a decision. They handle situations where legal rights
or obligations are involved, often when enforcing laws or regulations.
 Types of Bodies Involved: Agencies like tribunals or inquiry panels usually take on
this role. They might be set up permanently or just for a specific issue, such as
handling disputes related to a company’s internal regulations or standards.

REASONS FOR THE GROWTH OF ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION

1. Increasing Government Functions
o As the government takes on more responsibilities and tasks, traditional courts
get overloaded with cases.
o These tribunals are essential to ensure the effective functioning of the judicial
system, relieving the courts from handling all disputes.
2. Overburdened Traditional Courts
o Traditional courts face slow processing times due to the volume of cases.
Administrative tribunals, such as industrial tribunals and labor courts, have
been created to address more specialized issues like employer-employee
disputes.
o Administrative bodies are better equipped with expertise in these areas,
leading to quicker and more effective resolutions.
3. Complexity of Modern Problems
o Many contemporary issues cannot be easily resolved by applying traditional
legal principles. Administrative tribunals can incorporate broader policy
considerations and public interest into their decisions, unlike regular courts
that focus on individualistic legal norms.
 4. Need for Expert Knowledge
o Modern society's complex issues often require subject-matter expertise beyond
legal knowledge. Administrative tribunals are typically composed of panels
with varied expertise, enabling them to handle specialized cases more
effectively than a single judge in a traditional court.
5. Flexibility and Efficiency
o Administrative bodies are not bound by rigid rules of evidence and procedure,
allowing them to take a more practical approach to problem-solving. This
flexibility results in quicker and more realistic outcomes for complex cases.
o They also operate more rapidly, cheaply, and efficiently compared to
traditional courts, providing a streamlined system of justice.
6. Preventive and Remedial Powers
o Administrative authorities can take preventive measures like suspending or
revoking licenses, destroying hazardous materials, and enforcing regulations
in ways that ordinary courts cannot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.2 DISTINCTION BETWEEN QUASI-JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE

FUNCTIONS

Quasi-Judicial Functions definition: When a body, other than a court or tribunal, acts
judicially while exercising its legislative or administrative function, it is performing quasi-
judicial functions.

Characteristics:
 Existing Dispute: These functions start when there is already a disagreement or
conflict between two or more parties.
 Examining Facts and Applying Law: They involve looking at the facts of the case and
applying the relevant laws to make a decision.
 Partial Judicial Procedures: While they follow some of the processes used in courts
(like hearing both sides), they don’t follow all the strict rules that courts usually do.
Tests laid down by the Committee on Ministers' Powers (England): A true judicial function
requires:
 The presentation of cases by the parties involved.
 Evidence submitted by the parties to ascertain facts.
 Submission of legal arguments when the dispute involves questions of law.
 A final decision that resolves the matter entirely by ruling on facts and laws.

A quasi-judicial function involves only some aspects:

 It usually involves presentation and ascertainment of facts.
 May involve legal arguments, but does not necessarily resolve disputes based on legal
arguments.
 Does not involve the final legal determination, which is often left to administrative
discretion.

Administrative Functions definition: Administrative functions are non-judicial actions taken

by government officials or bodies, primarily focused on the execution of policies and
regulations.

Characteristics:
 These functions do not involve resolving disputes or applying the law based on a
specific case.
 Decisions in administrative functions often focus on policy considerations,
expediency, and governmental discretion rather than adherence to judicial principles.
 Unlike quasi-judicial functions, administrative actions may not follow procedures of
natural justice unless explicitly required by statute.
 Administrative actions are not contingent on disputes between parties, and the
decision-making process often involves following predetermined rules, policies, or
guidelines.
 Administrative functions often involve a level of discretion by authorities, particularly
ministers, where the outcomes are guided more by policy than judicial findings.

Key Differences Between Quasi-Judicial and Administrative Functions

1. Nature of Decision-Making:
 o Quasi-judicial functions involve an impartial examination of evidence and
facts, with the goal of resolving disputes between parties, often with some
adherence to judicial principles.
o Administrative functions focus on executing government policies and
enforcing regulations, often with wide discretion and without the procedural
formalities seen in judicial or quasi-judicial actions.
2. Procedures Followed:
o Quasi-judicial bodies are required to follow certain procedural norms,
especially those related to fairness, evidence evaluation, and (in some cases)
legal argumentation. However, they are not bound by strict judicial rules of
evidence.
o Administrative bodies do not necessarily follow these procedures. Their
actions are more administrative in nature and can be based on expediency or
policy considerations. They are less focused on resolving disputes and more
on efficient decision-making.
3. Role of Law and Policy:
o Quasi-judicial bodies operate within a legal framework, making decisions
based on an interpretation of law and facts.
o Administrative functions are largely policy-driven. While these decisions are
taken within the confines of legal powers, they do not necessarily involve
legal argumentation or rulings on legal questions.
4. Finality of Decisions:
o Quasi-judicial decisions are often conclusive and can directly affect the rights
and duties of parties. These decisions can sometimes be challenged in courts,
especially if they are seen to violate principles of natural justice.
o Administrative decisions, while final in terms of execution of policies, do not
carry the same weight of finality as quasi-judicial decisions in terms of
resolving disputes.
5. Independence and Bias:
o Quasi-judicial bodies are expected to operate with a certain level of
independence and impartiality, as they are tasked with resolving disputes.
 o Administrative bodies, on the other hand, may have a vested interest in the
outcome of their decisions, as they are part of the government machinery and
often operate under executive discretion.
6. Binding Nature of Decisions:
o Quasi-judicial decisions are legally binding on the parties involved, and failure
to comply can lead to legal consequences.
o Administrative decisions, while binding within the context of policy
enforcement, are less focused on resolving conflicts between parties and more
on ensuring compliance with laws and regulations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.3 PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

Origin:

The Principles of Natural Justice are a cornerstone of both judicial and administrative law.
These principles are crucial for ensuring fair decision-making, protecting individuals from the
arbitrary use of power, and maintaining public confidence in the legal and administrative
systems.

The principles of natural justice are so fundamental that their breach can prevent justice from
being served. If these principles are violated, the outcome of any decision, whether
administrative or judicial, can be rendered invalid because it is unfair to the affected party.

Natural justice doesn't have a single, universally accepted definition. Instead, it consists of
fundamental rules of judicial procedure that have developed over centuries. These rules
ensure fairness, impartiality, and reasonableness in decision-making processes.

Even in ancient Indian political treatises like Kautilya's Arthashastra, principles akin
to natural justice were present. These texts highlighted the importance of fairness, equity, and
just treatment in governance, showing that the concept of natural justice has been recognized
across different civilizations and periods in history.

Abbott v. Sullivan (1952): This English case emphasized that while the Principles of Natural
Justice can be easily declared in principle, they are hard to define with exactness. The
difficulty in defining natural justice arises because it is a flexible doctrine that adapts to the
context of each case. However, despite the flexibility, the core idea remains the
same: fairness in decision-making

The Principles of Natural Justice have been upheld and elaborated upon through key
judicial decisions.

1. Local Government Board v. Arlidge (1915):

o In this case, Viscount Haldane emphasized that the duty of decision-makers
(such as judges or administrative officers) is to act judiciously. This means:
 Acting without bias: Decision-makers must be neutral and objective.
 Providing a fair opportunity for all parties: Both parties in the dispute
must be given a fair opportunity to present their case, without
interference or unfair treatment.
 Responsible decision-making: The decision must be made in the spirit
of justice and with the full sense of responsibility expected from a
tribunal.

Some landmark judicial decisions in India have further expanded the understanding and
application of Natural Justice:

1. Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978):

o This case emphasizes that natural justice permeates every aspect of law—
whether legislative, administrative, or judicial. The Supreme Court of
India referred to natural justice as a "spiritual touch" that breathes life into the
legal system. The court recognized that natural justice has many forms and
applies whenever administrative or judicial authority affects the rights of
individuals.
o Fairness is the guiding principle, ensuring that no authority, whether
legislative or executive, can act arbitrarily.
2. Ridge v. Baldwin (1963):
o In this English case, the Court of Appeal equated natural justice with fair play
in action. The phrase signifies that fairness must be seen not just in words but
in the actual process of decision-making.
o The same principle was later cited by Justice Bhagwati in the famous Indian
case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). In this case, natural justice
 was connected with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees
the right to life and personal liberty. The court ruled that any procedure
affecting personal liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable.

Indian Constitution and Reflections of Natural Justice:

Although the Indian Constitution does not directly mention natural justice, its principles are
deeply ingrained in various constitutional provisions. These provisions ensure that all citizens
are treated fairly and equitably by the state.

1. Preamble:
o The Preamble to the Indian Constitution promotes social, economic, and
political justice, as well as libertyand equality. These ideals reflect the essence
of natural justice, especially fairness and equal treatment before the law. The
Preamble serves as a guiding light for interpreting the entire Constitution and
its guarantees.
2. Article 14:
o This article guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the
law to all citizens of India. This provision is the basis for ensuring that no
individual or group is discriminated against arbitrarily, thus upholding one of
the key tenets of natural justice: impartiality.
3. Article 19:
o Protects the right to freedom of speech, assembly, movement, and other
fundamental rights. These freedoms, however, are subject to reasonable
restrictions that must be fair, proportional, and in the public interest. The need
for fairness in imposing restrictions reflects the principles of natural justice.
4. Article 21:
o Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Over the years, Indian courts
have interpreted this article to include the right to fair procedures. This means
that any action by the state that affects an individual's liberty must be
reasonable, non-arbitrary, and in accordance with natural justice.
5. Article 22:
o Ensures fair hearing rights for individuals who have been arrested. This article
mandates that any detained person must be informed of the reasons for their
 detention and given an opportunity to defend themselves, aligning with the
principles of Audi Alteram Partem (right to be heard).
6. Articles 32, 136, and 226:
o These articles provide judicial remedies for violations of fundamental rights.
Article 32 allows individuals to directly approach the Supreme Court when
their rights are violated, while Article 226 allows similar redress through high
courts.
7. Article 39-A:
o This provision ensures free legal aid to the poor and disabled, ensuring equal
access to justice. It reflects the principle that no one should be denied justice
due to financial hardship.
8. Article 311:
o Provides protection to civil servants, ensuring that they cannot be dismissed or
removed without a fair hearing. This guarantees that the principles of natural
justice are followed in administrative proceedings involving government
employees.

The Principles of Natural Justice are procedural guidelines that every administrative and
judicial authority must follow when making decisions, particularly when those decisions
affect individual rights.

These principles ensure fairness, reasonableness, and equality in decision-making.

1. Nemo Judex in Re Sua:

o "No one should be a judge in their own cause." This is the rule against
bias and requires that any person involved in a dispute must not be in a
position to influence the outcome in their favor.
2. Audi Alteram Partem:
o "Hear the other side." This principle ensures that both parties in a dispute are
given an opportunity to present their case. A decision made without hearing
both sides is considered unjust.
3. Speaking Order:
 o Every decision made by a tribunal or administrative body must
include reasons for that decision. This ensures that decisions are transparent
and can be reviewed by higher courts if necessary.
4. Institutional Decision:
o In some administrative cases, the decision may not be made by an individual
but by an institution or department. Even in such cases, the principles of
natural justice must apply, ensuring that the process is fair and impartial.

1. Nemo Judex in Re Sua (Rule Against Bias):

This principle is essential for maintaining impartiality in decision-making processes. The

basic idea is that no one should be a judge in their own case because self-interest could
influence the outcome, leading to bias and unfairness.

 Impartial Decision-Making: The decision-maker must be impartial and objective,

relying solely on the evidence presented. Any potential for bias, whether financial,
personal, or otherwise, invalidates the decision.
 Test of Bias: The test for bias is whether a reasonable person in possession of all the
relevant facts would think that bias has likely affected the decision. This objective
standard ensures that decisions are not influenced by personal interests.
 Proof of Bias vs. Malafide: Bias can exist without malicious intent. It may arise
unconsciously, and thus proof of bias is not as stringent as proof of malafide (which
requires evidence of wrongful intent). Even unconscious bias, if demonstrated, can
invalidate a decision.

Kinds of Bias: Several types of bias can affect decision-making processes:

 Personal Bias: This occurs when the decision-maker has a personal relationship
(either positive or negative) with one of the parties involved. Examples include cases
where a decision-maker is a friend, relative, or enemy of one of the parties.

Case Example: Iqbal Singh v. State of Hoshiarpur: In this case, bias was found
because the presiding officer had formed an opinion before the proceedings were
concluded.
  Pecuniary Bias:This type of bias arises when the decision-maker has a financial
interest in the outcome. Even a minor financial stake can lead to accusations of bias.

Case Example: R v. Hendon Rural District Council (1933): A planning committee’s

decision was overturned because one of its members, an estate agent, had a financial
interest in the outcome.

 Subject Matter Bias: This occurs when the decision-maker has a personal or
ideological interest in the subject matter itself.

Case Example: R v. Deal Justices ex p. Curling (1881): Here, a judge was associated
with an animal welfare group but was found not to be biased as his association did not
affect the fairness of the trial.

 Departmental Bias: In cases where an official is part of a government department,

there may be bias favoring the department’s objectives or policies. Such bias can
undermine fairness, especially when the official is both a policymaker and decision-
maker.

Case Example: Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. APSRTC (1959): The Supreme Court of
India quashed a decision made by the Secretary of the Transport Department, as he
was both responsible for policy formulation and decision-making, leading to bias.

 Policy Bias: Similar to departmental bias, policy bias occurs when the decision-maker
is influenced by the political goalsor policies of the department or institution they
represent. This can distort the fairness of the decision-making process.

Several cases have helped shape the understanding of bias and its implications for natural
justice:

1. State of Punjab v. V. K. Khanna (2001): In this case, the Supreme Court observed
that fairness is synonymous with reasonableness. The court explained that bias
includes the broader concept of malice, and that a mere apprehension of bias can
invalidate administrative actions if there is a real danger of bias.
2. Narinder Singh Arora v. State of Delhi (2012): The Supreme Court established that
any individual adjudicating a case must not only act fairly but must also be seen as
 acting without any suspicion of bias. Previous conduct that gives rise to doubts about
the fairness of the decision-maker can disqualify them from acting in a judicial
capacity.

2. Audi Alteram Partem (Hear the Other Side):

This principle is one of the pillars of Natural Justice and ensures that both parties to a dispute
are given a fair chance to be heard:

 Right to Be Heard: Every person whose rights are affected by a decision has the right
to be present when the case is being heard. This includes the right to respond to the
charges or claims made against them.
 Cross-Examination and Evidence: The affected party has the right to challenge the
opposing party's evidence, question witnesses, and present their own evidence in
defense.
 Right to Know the Reasons for the Decision: After the hearing, the party has the right
to know why a particular decision was made, ensuring transparency.

Case Example: Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985):

This case examined Articles 309, 310, and 311 of the Indian Constitution and clarified
that the principles of natural justice are protected under Article 14 (right to equality).
Even though the decision is related to service matters, it affirmed that every person is
entitled to fair treatment under natural justice.

Requisites of Fair Hearing:

 Notice: The party affected by the decision must be given prior notice of the hearing.
The notice should include details of the case, the charges or claims made, and the time
and place of the hearing.
 Right to Present Case and Evidence: The party has the right to present their case fully,
including any evidence that supports their position.
 Right to Rebut Evidence: The party must also have the opportunity to challenge the
evidence presented by the opposing party and cross-examine any witnesses.
  No Secret Evidence: No evidence should be considered or taken behind the back of
the affected party. Any material evidence must be shared with all parties to ensure
fairness.
 Speaking Order: The decision made must be a reasoned decision or speaking order,
meaning it must clearly explain the grounds on which the decision is based.

3. Speaking Order:

A speaking order is one that contains clear reasons for the decision made by an authority.
This is essential for ensuring transparency and fairness in the judicial and administrative
processes:

 Why Speaking Orders Matter: Speaking orders help ensure that decisions are made
based on objective reasoning. They allow the affected party to understand why a
decision was made and provide a basis for judicial review if the decision is
challenged.
 First Coined by Lord Chancellor Earl Cairns:The term speaking order was first used
by Lord Chancellor Earl Cairns in relation to the writ of certiorari, a legal instrument
used to quash unlawful decisions. Cairns referred to decisions with errors on the face
of the record as speaking orders, meaning that the order must speak for itself by
clearly showing its reasoning.

Characteristics of a valid Speaking Order are:

 Adequate Reasons: The decision must include sufficient reasons that explain the basis
of the ruling. This ensures transparency and helps the affected party understand the
outcome.
 No Prescribed Format: There is no specific format required for a speaking order.
What matters is the clarity and sufficiency of the reasoning behind the decision.
 Applicability: Speaking orders are applicable to both public law and private
law cases. This means that any decision, whether in government or private disputes,
should ideally include a reasoned explanation.
  Need for Best Practices: A speaking order represents best practices in decision-
making because it promotes fairness, reduces arbitrariness, and
provides satisfaction to the affected party by explaining the reasons behind the
decision. This also allows the party to use their right to appeal more effectively.

General Rules Related to Speaking Orders:

 Statutory Requirement: If a statute requires reasons to be recorded, then it becomes

the legal obligation of the decision-maker to provide those reasons. However, even if
the law does not explicitly demand it, recording reasons is still considered good
practice.
 Judicial Scrutiny: Reasons provided in speaking orders are subject to judicial scrutiny.
Courts review these reasons to ensure that the decision was fair, rational, and lawful.
 Appeal and Revision: If the order is subject to appeal or revision, providing clear
reasons becomes all the more important. Failure to provide reasons may deprive the
affected party of their right to appeal.
 Confidential Proceedings: Even in confidential matters, the reasons must be recorded
to ensure transparency and accountability.
 Fair Play: Fair play in action requires that reasons for decisions be clearly
documented. This ensures that decision-making processes are not arbitrary or unjust.

Validity of Orders: The validity of an order depends on several factors:

 Irrelevant Reasons: If the reasons recorded for a decision are totally irrelevant to the
case, the exercise of power becomes invalid, and the order can be set aside.
 Judgment Based on Reasons Given: The validity of the order is judged based on the
reasons provided at the time of the decision. The decision-maker cannot offer post-
facto explanations or reasons after the decision is challenged.
 Lower and Appellate Authorities: If a lower authority does not provide reasons for a
decision, and the appellate authority affirms that decision without giving reasons, the
decision can be declared invalid. However, if the appellate authority reverses a lower
court’s decision, it must provide detailed reasons to explain why it overturned the
ruling.

Case Example: Siemens Engg. & Mfg. Co. of India v. Union of India (1976):
  The court held that giving reasons in support of an order is a fundamental part of
natural justice. It’s not enough to make a decision—there must be a rationale behind
it.

4. Institutional Decisions

In administrative law, institutional decisions refer to cases where the decision-making

process is divided among multiple individuals or entities. This type of decision-making is
common in large organizations, where different people might handle different aspects of a
case.

 One Who Decides Must Hear: A central tenet of natural justice is that the person who
hears a case must also make the decision. However, in institutional decisions, this
principle is often breached because one person might hear the case, and another
person or group might make the decision. This raises concerns about the fairness of
the process.

Case Example: Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. APSRTC (1959): The Supreme Court of
India ruled that having one person hear a case and another person decide it violates the
principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that the decision-maker must hear both
sides directly.

Unlike judicial proceedings, where the person who hears the case must make the decision, in
many administrative processes, the decision is often a collective or institutional decision. This
may involve one person hearing the case while another person or group makes the final
decision.

Key Aspects:

1. Ordinary Judicial Proceedings:

o In regular court cases, the person who hears the matter is also the one who
makes the decision. This is because fairness requires that the judge or
decision-maker has firsthand knowledge of the arguments, evidence, and
witnesses presented.
 2. Institutional Decision in Administrative Proceedings:
o Administrative decisions, especially in large organizations or government
bodies, are often made by a group or institution rather than a single individual.
For example, one person may conduct the hearing while another person or
committee issues the final ruling.
o These decisions are considered institutional decisions and are seen as
decisions of the entire department or institution, rather than any one
individual.

3. Fairness in Institutional Decisions:

o Even when the decision is made by multiple individuals, the principles of
natural justice must still apply. The administrative body must ensure that
decisions are made fairly and without bias, and that all parties have had an
opportunity to present their case.

4. Problems Arising from Institutional Decisions:

o One key issue is that the person who makes the final decision may not have
been present for the hearing. This creates a potential breach of the Audi
Alteram Partem rule, as the decision-maker might not have heard both sides of
the case directly.

Case Example: Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation:

The Supreme Court of India ruled that this practice (where one person hears and another
decides) goes against the rule of fair hearing. However, administrative practices often
continue to permit this separation of hearing and decision-making roles, which raises ongoing
concerns about fairness.

3.4 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL

Administrative Appeals and Post-Decisional Hearings

Sometimes, decisions need to be made quickly, without giving the affected party a chance to
be heard beforehand. In such cases, the principle of Audi Alteram Partem can be satisfied by
providing a post-decisional hearing.

A post-decisional hearing is a hearing that takes place after a decision has been made. This is
often done to balance administrative efficiency with fairness to individuals affected by the
decision.

Key Aspects:

1. Post-Decisional Hearing:

 A post-decisional hearing occurs after the initial decision is made. In Maneka Gandhi
v. Union of India, the Supreme Court developed this concept to maintain a balance
between administrative efficiency and individual fairness.
 Post-decisional hearings are used in situations where pre-decisional hearings (hearing
before the decision) may not be possible or practical, especially in cases
of emergency or public interest.

2. Why Post-Decisional Hearings are Important:

 These hearings give affected individuals the opportunity to challenge or provide

feedback on a decision, even after it has been made. This ensures that administrative
efficiency (such as making quick decisions when necessary) does not come at the cost
of fairness to the individual.

3. Purpose of Administrative Appeals:

 Administrative appeals serve as a check and balance on decisions made by

administrative bodies. An aggrieved party can appeal to a higher administrative
authority if they believe the decision was unfair, biased, or made in error.

Emphasizing Post-Decisional Hearings' role in administrative law:

Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation: This landmark case
reinforced that a hearing by one person and a decision by another is contrary to the principles
of natural justice. The Supreme Court ruled that such a practice is against the rule of fair
hearing and should not be allowed in administrative adjudication. However, despite this
ruling, the practice continues in certain cases.

Public Interest and Expediency: In some cases, public interest or emergencies may require an
administrative body to make a quick decision without affording a pre-decisional hearing. In
such instances, the court insists that a post-decisional hearing be conducted to ensure fairness
once the immediate issue is resolved.

This rule strikes a balance between public safety and individual rights.

Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India:

o The Supreme Court further elaborated on post-decisional hearings, stating that

if a statute does not explicitly exclude pre-decisional hearings, it should be
interpreted as allowing for a post-decisional review. This means that even if
no hearing is given before the decision, the affected party must be allowed a
full review of the original order after the decision is made.

Chief Justice P. N. Bhagwati's Opinion:

o Justice Bhagwati, known for his expansive views on natural justice,

emphasized that post-decisional hearings are a critical component of fairness
in administrative law. When pre-hearing procedures are impractical or
unnecessary, post-decisional reviews ensure that individuals can challenge the
decisions affecting their rights.

Exclusion of Natural Justice

There are some circumstances where the application of natural justice principles can
be excluded. These exceptions arise in specific situations where adherence to natural justice
is either impractical or unnecessary:
1. Emergency:
o In situations requiring immediate action, such as threats to public safety or
national security, it may not be possible to provide a full hearing before a
decision is made.
2. Confidentiality:
o In cases involving state secrets, sensitive information, or matters of national
security, the need for confidentiality can justify bypassing the normal hearing
process.
3. Routine Matters:
o For routine administrative decisions that do not significantly affect individual
rights, the full process of natural justice may not be required.
4. Impracticability:
o If following the full procedure of natural justice is impractical due to time
constraints or logistical difficulties, the process may be streamlined.
5. Interim Preventive Action:
o Temporary decisions made to prevent harm (e.g., restraining orders,
suspensions) may not require full hearings, as their purpose is to protect the
public or prevent immediate danger.
6. Legislative Action:
o Decisions made by legislatures (as opposed to judicial or administrative
bodies) may not be subject to the principles of natural justice.
7. No Infringement of Rights:If the decision does not infringe on any legal or
constitutional right of an individual, there may be no need to follow the principles of
natural justice