Introduction to the Natural Justice.pptx

efdkjfndslfndsf

1. Principles of Natural Justice

2. Introduction Important concept in Administrative law Megarry J (John v. Rees, 1970) called that It is “justice that is simple and elementary, as distinct from justice that is complex, sophisticated and technical.” Principles are neither fixed nor prescribed in any code. They are better known than described Easier proclaimed than defined.

3. Natural Justice De Smith, the term “natural justice” expresses the close relationship between the common law and moral law, moral principles and it has an impressive ancestry. Known as- Substantive Justice Fundamental justice Universal Justice Fair play in action Great humanizing principle- fairness, to secure justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice.

4. Wiseman v. Borneman , 1971 AC 297 The conception of natural justice should at all stages guide those who discharge judicial functions is not merely an acceptable but is an essential part of the philosophy of the law.

5. Principles of Natural Justice Developed with growth of civilization In order to protect himself against the excess of organized power , man has always appealed to someone beyond his creation. Origin- Someone could only be God and his laws, divine law or natural law , to which all temporal laws and actions must conform. Natural Justice- higher law of nature Nature justice implies fairness, reasonableness, equity and equality . It represent higher procedural principles developed by judges which every administrative agency must follow when taking any decision

6. Principles of Natural Justice Another name of common-sense justice Based upon natural sense of man of what is right and what is wrong Inherent rationality leads to all right conclusions Based on conscience of man Principle of universality Called as- Divine law, jus gentium , Common law of England Due process of USA Dharma of India Proportionality of the civil-law system

7. Definition No precise and scientific expression of concept Vague and ambiguous Criticize- Sadly lacking in precision Confused and unwarranted concept Not very clear and not possible to define Its flexible, pragmatic and relative concept

8. Natural Law and Positive Law Natural Law is- Fundamental Absolute Necessary Unchangeable Same everywhere and always Universal, for all men Known by reason Positive Law is- Additional Relatively necessary Changeable Different places and different times Restricted for some community Imposed by Authority

9. Effect of non-compliance with a statutory procedure The court will look to the purpose of the procedure and the effect of non-compliance on those affected by the decision. Influences might include: Whether the language of the statute is mandatory or directory Whether the rights of the individual are affected ( eg . By a failure to inform of a right of appeal); Whether a financial burden is being imposed on the citizen .

10. Ridge v Baldwin (1964) W here the police Watch Committee failed, when dismissing a Chief Constable, to act in accordance with disciplinary regulations issued under the Police Act 1919, the House of Lords found that the dismissal was void. A consequence of dismissal was loss of pension entitlements. A failure to comply with notice or consultation requirements, to inform of a statutory right of appeal or to comply with a statutory duty to give reasons will normally render a decision void.

11. R v Lambeth LBC ex parte Sharp (1988), In a deemed order for planning permission for the development of some six acres of parkland situated in a conservation area as an athletics track was quashed . The council had failed to specify in the required notice of the proposed development in a local newspaper the period during which objections should be made.

12. History of Development of Natural Law Initially define by Ancient Greek Philosopher- Aristotle and Plato Plato- No theory on natural law, but in his theories involves concept of Natural Law Aristotle- Distinction between law and nature Cicero- Something which is good for society Positive law- Safety of society

13. Development of Natural Law Heraclites (530-470 B.C )- three aspects- unlimited goals, stages and reason Socrates (470-399 ) Law is a product of correct reasoning ” ‘ Human insight’ - capacity to distinguish between good and bad and is able to appreciate the moral values. This human ‘insight’ is the basis to judge the law Plato (427-347 B.C ) “ ultimate” justice is discoverable through reason . supports the Socrates theory of Natural law. we live in an orderly universe .

14. Aristotle ( 385- 322 B.C ) Natural law has elements- reason , justice and ethics “ Universal and immutable standards discoverable through reason and man-made law should conform to these standards .” man is a part of nature in two ways: Firstly, part of the creatures of the god and secondly , he possesses insight and reason by which he can shape his will

15. Cicero Cicero believed in divine reason which governed every aspect of the universe divine mind designed and ordered the universe law in the proper sense is right reason in harmony with nature Cicero believed that humanity’s ultimate goal was justice . Cicero concluded that the principles of justice are fourfold: do not initiate violence without good reason; keep one’s promises; respect people’s private property and common property; be charitable to others within one’s means

16. Development of Natural Law Augustine (354-430 A.D) S tates without justice but robber hands enlarged (De civitas Dei)  (The city of god). (Without Justice, What Else is the State But a Great Band of Robbers ( St.Augustine ) N atural law as a part of natural foundation of Christianity due to its origins in the old Testament early church father . The reason why St. Augustine insisted on justice is that "justice is both the aim and the intrinsic criterion of all politics.”

17. Development of Natural Law Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274) ‘ unjust ’ law deserve no obedience’ man finds out natural law by applying ‘reason ’ and studying scriptures of the revelation of God. St . Thomas Aquinas four-fold classification of law’s Law of God or external law Law of nature (which revealed through nature) Human law (which we now called positive law Law of divine or the law of scripture

18. Development of Natural Law Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) Grotius built his legal theory on ‘Social Contract ’. political society rest on a ‘ social contract ’ It is the duty of the sovereign to safeguard the citizens because the form was given power only for that purpose. Thomas Hobbes (1558-1679) supporter of absolute power of the ruler and subjects had no right against the sovereign .

19. Development of Natural Law John Locke ( 1632- 1704)    recognized the existence of certain inalienable natural rights. ‘life , liberty and estate’ (property) liberalism . Rousseau (1712- 1778) S tate of nature- idyllic state and lived in absolute liberty with the free mind . Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) basis of social contract was ‘reason’ but Kant gave a sharp distinction between natural law rights and acquired rights and recognized only one natural right that is the right to freedom. Hegel (1770-1831) - state and law is a reason of growth of the human logic .

20. Dr Bonham’s Case (1610 ) The College of Physicians held a concession in their charter under an act of Parliament giving it the sole right to license anyone who would practice medicine in London. Thomas Bonham was a medical doctor educated in the University of Cambridge, who began to practice medicine in London in 1606 . He was examined by the College of Physicians, who refused to qualify him to practice. Bonham continued in practice and the censors fined him £5 and ordered him to stop . He continued and refused to obey the College’s orders. The president and censors of the college and their two servants arrested Bonham. Bonham sued them for false imprisonment.

21. History and development- UK Pre-1964 In Dr Bonham’s Case (1610), Coke CJ asserted that ‘ the common law will control Acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void : for when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it, and adjudge such Act to be void ’ T he power of judicial review of primary legislation remained dormant, the courts asserting instead the supremacy of Parliament. Despite classic decisions such as Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works(1863) , the development and application of the rules of natural justice in controlling governmental discretion remained piecemeal until well into the 20th century.

22. Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works(1863) A home that Mr. Cooper had constructed was issued a demolition order by the Wandsworth Board of Works. The Metropolis Management Act of 1855 obliged Mr. Cooper to give the Board seven days' notice of his intention to construct, which was the rationale for the order. Before the order was made, Mr. Cooper was not given a chance to make his case .

23. Post-1963 The 1960s saw a period of judicial revival in the field of control of the actions of the administration . The courts revived the jurisdiction of error on the face of the record, asserted a residual power to examine documents for which Crown Privilege was claimed.

24. Ridge v Baldwin (1964 ) The Chief Constable of Brighton was acquitted on a charge of conspiracy to obstruct the course of justice. The trial judge, on sentencing two police officers who were convicted, criticized the Chief Constable for failing to provide ‘professional and moral leadership’. The police Watch Committee exercised its power under s 191 of the Municipal Corporations Act 1882 to ‘... at any time ... dismiss any borough constable whom they think negligent in the discharge of his duty, or otherwise unfit for the same’. This had the effect of loss of pension entitlements. No specific charge was formulated against the Chief Constable who was given no opportunity to present his case to the Committee before its decision to dismiss.

25. Ridge v Baldwin (1964) An appeal to the Home Secretary (itself stated to be ‘final and binding on the parties’ under s 2(3) of the Police Appeals Act 1927) failed. On an application for a declaration that his dismissal was ultra vires , the Court of Appeal found that the Watch Committee were acting in an administrative or executive capacity and not a judicial capacity. As such, they were not bound by the rules of natural justice. The House of Lords, however, held that the police discipline regulations issued under the Police Act 1919 required notification of an alleged offence and an opportunity to be heard and that, in any case, a hearing was demanded by the rules of natural justice.

26. Application of Natural Justice Principles Persons suffers a civil consequences or prejudice cause to him by administrative authority Loss of legitimate expectation Mere breach of the principles of natural justice is not sufficient for judicial intervention unless such breach entails unavoidable prejudice caused to the person Applicability is not dependent on any statutory provision Prejudice cause is necessary Example- Civil Consequences due to Administrative order or quasi-judicial order

27. Principles of Natural Justice 'Natural Justice‘- expression of English Common Law having origin in Jus natural (law of Nature.) It involves procedural requirement of fairness . In fact, Arthasastra of Kautilya has a reference to natural justice. In Ridge V Baldwin, 1964 the observance of natural justice was made applicable to the entire range of administrative action . Purpose- prevention of miscarriage of justice and applicable to administrative enquiries. I f there is no specific provision or rule to follow these principles, before taking action against an individual, the Court would read into the provision the requirement of natural Justice.

28. Nemo debet esse judex in propria Causa Meaning- No one should be a judge in his own cause . Dr . Bonham's case (1610): The Royal College of physicians was empowered to grant License to practice medicine . Dr. Bonham did not take out the License . He was fined and imprisoned. He filed a suit for false imprisonment. Chief Justice Coke decided in favor of Dr. Bonham, and held that the 'College could not be a judge, in its own cause '. The decision of the College was quashed. Half of the fine so collected was to go to the college itself. Hence Bias was complete. Absence of Bias is the essence of this doctrine. 'Judges like Caesar's Wife should be above suspicion'. Even a remote interest or Bias is enough.

29. Muzaffar Hussain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 567 “ A judge, like Caesar’s wife, must be above suspicion”. Showing undue favour to a party under the guise of passing judicial orders is the worst kind of judicial dishonesty .” T he appellant, while posted as the 11th Additional District Judge, Agra during the period from 23.05.2001 to 19.05.2003, had decided a batch of matters under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and had awarded enhanced compensation which was multiple times more than the investments made by the subsequent purchasers of the acquired lands; that such subsequent purchasers had no right to claim compensation for the acquired lands; that the appellant had determined the compensation in terms of square yards and not in terms of bighas , and had awarded such compensation in flagrant violation of the cardinal principles of law and equity and against all judicial norms and propriety, with a view to unduly favour such subsequent purchasers. It was therefore alleged that the appellant had failed to maintain absolute integrity and complete devotion to duty, and thereby had committed a misconduct within the meaning of Rule-3 of U.P. Govt. Servants Conduct Rules, 1956.

30. Dimes V. Grand Junction canal (1852) D ispute between the land owner and a Company. After hearing & decided in favour of the Company by the Vice-Chancellor. On appeal, the Lord Chancellor (Lord Cottonham ) heard and confirmed the decision. (Lord Cottonham retired). His decision was challenged before the House of Lords on the ground that Lord Cottonham was a shareholder of that company . Held, no one can suppose that Lord Cottonham could be, in the remotest degree, influenced by the 'interest' he had in this Company. But , no one should be a judge in his own cause is sacred. Hence , his decision was quashed. This is called legal interest i.e., the judge is in such a position that bias must be presumed.

31. Restrictive Approach of Judicial Review Before 1963, in Britain, the judicial attitude was very restrictive as regards the applicability of natural justice to administrative proceedings. R v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1953) 1 WLR 1150 N atural justice was denied to a cab driver whose licence was cancelled on grounds of misconduct; Nakkuda Ali v MF De S Jayaratne [1951] AC 66, PC ( C ancellation of a cloth dealer’s licence without giving him a hearing was upheld by the Privy Council saying that a licence was a privilege and not a right and no hearing need be given when a privilege, and not a right, was withdrawn

32. New Judicial Approach of Natural Justice Procedural fairness could be imposed on a large number of decision-making bodies without having to characterise their functions as quasi-judicial. The courts now take the position that whether a body discharges a ‘quasi-judicial ’ or ‘administrative’ function, in every situation it must act with fairness . ( Pergamon Press Ltd, In Re [1971] Ch 388) The next development has been to apply natural justice to administrative orders. As a result, hearing is now made applicable in a variety of administrative proceedings without charactering the function being discharged as administrative or quasi-judicial . ( A K Kraipak v Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150)

33. Two Principles of Natural Justice Nemo in propria causa judex , esse debet - No one should be a judge in his own cause, or the rule against bias. Audi Alteram Partem - Hear the other Party, or rule of fair hearing, or the rule that no one should be condemned unheard. Two principles now transparency and good-governance may be added as new dimension including Speaking orders . Foundation of Judicial control of administrative action The Rule of law demands that these principles should be followed.

34. Necessity of Procedural Safeguard Natural justice is an important procedural safeguard against any discrimination, or arbitrary, wrong or undue use of administrative powers . Every case has to be considered on its own merits in order to decide whether in taking a particular action, the administration should give a hearing to the affected party.

35. Meaning of ‘quasi-judicial’ The proceeding is similar to a judicial proceeding and the person’s rights prejudicially affected by such proceedings any person or body having legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects and having the duty to act judicially acts in a quasi-judicial manner. Court Interference- cumulative effect of the nature of the right affected , the manner of the disposal provided, the objective criterion to be adopted, the phraseology used , the nature of the power conferred , of the duty imposed on the authority and the other indicia afforded by the statute.

36. Audi Alteram Partem Foundation and Fundamental Concept This principle is basic concept of natural justice. Doctrine is not cure to all ills in the process. A norms which should be implemented by all courts and tribunals Procedure adopted must be- Just, fair and reasonable. Lord Hewart - “it is merely of some importance, but is fundamental importance of justice should manifestly and undoubtedly be seem to be done. ” (R. v. Susexx Justice, 1923)

37. Audi alteram partem R ule ensures that no one is condemned unheard . Both the sides must be heard before passing any order. First principle of civilised jurisprudence Every person should given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself . Hearing means a fair hearing . This involves components, such as: notice ; an o pportunity to the concerned party to present his case ; and legal representation

38. Components of Fair Hearing The components of fair hearing are not fixed but- are flexible and variable and their scope and applicability differs from case to case, contracting into a brief, even post decisional opportunity or expanding into trial type trappings. the hearing procedure varies from tribunal to tribunal and from body to body

39. Natural justice/fairness may require • A hearing – public, private, oral or written; • notice of the allegations adequate in substance to prepare a defence ; • notice of the hearing adequate in time; • legal representation; • submission of evidence; • the calling of witnesses; • examination/cross-examination; • the giving of reasons

40. Notice First and an extremely important step in the hearing procedure Notice is regarded as the minimum obligatory condition. It is the sine quo non of a fair hearing For a notice to be valid and effective, it must be properly served on the concerned person It must give sufficient time to enable the individual to prepare his case

41. Valid Notice To be valid, a notice has to fulfil the following two attributes: it must be adequate ; and it must fully mention all the grounds on which the action is proposed to be taken against the concerned person Its court domain to decide whether notice is adequate or not. Vary from case to case depending upon factual position The courts conscience must be satisfied Nasir Ahmed v Assistant Custodian General, Evacuee Property, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow AIR 1980 SC 1157 A notice, in bare bone language of the statute that is, which merely repeats the statutory language without giving any facts and other particulars, is insufficient and inadequate.

42. Nasir Ahmed v Assistant Custodian General, Evacuee Property, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow AIR 1980 SC 1157 This appeal is from the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition in limine . The notice in question was issued by the Assistant Custodian, Evacuee Property, Deoria , to the appellant and his brother Bashir Ahmad on March 11, 1954 stating that there was "credible information in possession of the Custodian" that they were evacuees under clause (iii) of section 2(d) of the Act and calling upon them to show cause why orders should not be passed declaring them evacuees and their property as evacuee property. The notice purports to have been issued in accordance with rule 6 which requires a statement of the factual grounds on which the notice is based . The notice in this case appears to be merely a copy of the prescribed form without particulars.

43. Ingredient of Notice Time place and nature of hearing Legal authority under which hearing is to be held Statement of specific charges which the person has to meet Particular penalty or action which is proposed to be awarded or taken

44. Vague Notice Without mentioning the particulars ; or The notice does not mention the date, time and location of the incident; or Without mentioning the action proposed to be taken ; or The grounds on which action is proposed to be taken; or The notice mentions one ground but the action is taken on some other ground; or The action is taken on additional grounds, not mentioned in the notice ; or If the notice mentions several grounds without specifying the particular ground for the proposed adverse action against an individual .

45. Statutory Notice A statute may specifically prescribe a notice as a pre condition to any action Where a statutory provision expressly imposes the requirement of notice, the issue of notice is regarded as mandatory A statutory rule prescribed the following modes of serving a notice: by delivering to him; or by sending it to him through registered post; or by affixing it on the outer door of the residence, if both the abovementioned modes fail. In the absence of a notice , proceedings cannot be initiated against a person ( KA Abdul Khader v Deputy Director of Enforcement, Information Directorate, Madras AIR 1976 Mad 233)

46. KA Abdul Khader v Deputy Director of Enforcement, Information Directorate, Madras AIR 1976 Mad 233 T he petitioner had received a payment from a local person unauthorisedly as per the instructions of a person resident outside India, his person was searched under Section 19-A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 while he was travelling in a bus at Tambaram on 12th May, 1973. The search resulted in the seizure of Indian currency of Rs . 50,000 and two bus tickets . H e seizure of the documents under Section 19-G was effected on 12th May, 1973, but no notice commencing the proceedings under Section 3 was served on him within a period of one year and that, therefore, the respondent could not retain the money any longer. Accordingly, he was entitled for a return of the sum of Rs . 50,000. 

47. KA Abdul Khader v Deputy Director of Enforcement, Information Directorate, Madras AIR 1976 Mad 233 O n 10th April, 1974 a show cause notice bearing T4/26/M/74/(SGN) for alleged violation of Section 5(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 was issued by the Additional Director of Enforcement, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi, to the petitioner to his address at No. 297, Thambu Chetti Street Madras-1. This notice sent by registered post acknowledgment due was returned unserved with a note 'left' by the postal authorities. When the petitioner through his lawyer issued a notice on 16th July, 1974 for the return of the money since the period of one year had expired, the respondent replied by letter dated 20th July, 1974 addressed to the advocate for the petitioner that they had already sent a notice on 10th May, 1974 which was returned unserved with a note aforesaid and enclosed a copy of the said notice and stated that in those circumstances, the question of return of seized currency does not arise.

48. KA Abdul Khader v Deputy Director of Enforcement, Information Directorate, Madras AIR 1976 Mad 233 Though no objection could be taken for sending the registered notice to the last known address of the petitioner, when it was returned unserved, the department should have taken action to serve the petitioner by affixing it in the outer door or some conspicuous part of the premises in which that person last resided as provided under Rule 11(c). Unless such an affixture was effected notice could not be deemed to have been served on the petitioner and therefore, there was no commencement of the proceedings under Section 23. Compliance with the conditions prescribed in Section 19-G is mandatory, if the department wants to retain the amounts beyond the period of one year. Since notice as required by the Rules had not been effected, the extended period is not available to the department.

49. Ex parte proceedings If a show cause notice has been issued and the person concerned does not respond to it, the adjudicatory proceedings against him may proceed ex parte, without causing any violation of natural justice ( Roshan Lal Mehra v Ishwar Dass AIR 1962 SC 646) When adequate and reasonable grounds for failure to appear at the hearing are made out, the authority must restore the matter and hear the party. If no reasonable or adequate grounds for failure to appear are mentioned, the authority is not bound to rehear.

50. Why are reasons for decisions needed? To satisfy the parties that the decision is not purely arbitrary. To enable the parties to discern whether grounds of appeal or review exist. To avoid lengthy pre-trial procedures, eg . the absence of reasons may lead to pressure for greater discovery in judicial review proceedings . To demonstrate good practice and compliance with international standards, eg . Council of Europe Resolution 77(31) recommended that reasons be given for administrative acts which adversely affect the rights, liberties, or interests of persons

51. R v. University of Cambridge, 1723 Dr Bentley deprived of his degrees on the ground of his misconduct without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing Kings Bench declared this decision as null & void. Fortescue J, the first hearing in human history was given in the Garden of Eden. Even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his defence . Even if there is no provision for notice, it must be given. Notice must be clear, specific and unambiguous and charges should not be vague and uncertain.

52. Inquiry under Article 311, two notices should be given , first, for charges or allegation, and second, for proposed punishment. Where notice regarding one charge has been given, the person cannot be punished for a different charge for no notice or opportunity of being heard was given to him. - Lt. Col. K. D. Gupta v. UOI, 1989 Supp (I) SCC 416

53. Hearing State of Orissa v. Banapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269 Petitioner was compulsorily retired from service on the ground that she had completed the age of 55 years. No opportunity of hearing was given to her before the impugned order was passed. The Supreme Court set aside the order as it was violative of the principles of Natural Justice.

54. State of Orissa v. Banapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269 The petitioner was the Assistant Director of Health Services (Maternity and Child Welfare), Government of Orissa. Her date of birth is 10th April, 1910. She completed her 55th year on 10th of April, 1965 and 58th year on 10th April, 1968. The State Government asked her to show cause why her date of birth should not be accepted, as 4th April, 1907. After some correspondence, Government by their letter dated 27th of June, 1963 determined her date of birth as 16th April, 1907 and declared that she should be deemed to have retired on 16th April, 1962 subject, however, to extension of service granted from 16th April, 1962 till afternoon of July 15, 1963. Thus the petitioner was deemed to have retired on 15th July, 1963 though she should have retired on 10th April, 1968.

55. Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, AIR 1978 SC 597 The passport of the petitioner journalist was impounded by the Indian Government “in public interest”. No opportunity was given to the petitioner before taking the impugned action. The Supreme Court held that the order was violative of the principles of natural justice.

56. Mohinder Singh Gill v. CEC, AIR 1978 SC 851 The Election Commissioner cancelled the poll in certain constituencies on account of violence at the election. Before such action no hearing was afforded to the candidates. The order was challenged as violative of natural justice. The objective was upheld. It was observed by the Supreme Court that the soul of natural justice is fair play in action. “ Its essence is good conscience in a given situation; nothing more but nothing less .”

57. Hira Nath Mishra v. Rajendra Medical College, AIR 1973 SC 1260 Even though the statements of girls students were recorded behind the back of the boy students and no opportunity was afforded to the boy students to cross-examine the girls students, the order of expulsion from college passed against the boy students was upheld by the Supreme Court.

58. Hira Nath Mishra v. Rajendra Medical College, AIR 1973 SC 1260 The appellants were Second Year students of the college and lived in a Hostel attached to the college. There was another Hostel for girl students. On the night between 10th and 11th June, 1972 some male students of the college were found sitting on the compound wall of the girls Hostel. Later they entered into the compound and were seen walking without clothes of them. They went near the windows of the rooms of some of the girls and tried to pull the hand of one of the girls. Some five of these boys then climbed up along the drain pipes to the terrace of the girls Hostel where a f ew girls were doing their studies. On seeing them the girls raised an alarm following which the students ran away, The girls recognized four out of these male students-three of them being the present appellants and the fourth being one Upendra Prasad Singh.

59. Hira Nath Mishra v. Rajendra Medical College, AIR 1973 SC 1260 After making the necessary enquiry and considering the statements of the four students who did not intimate that they wished to lead any evidence, the Committee came to the unanimous conclusion that the three appellants and Upendra were four out of the students who had taken part in the raid that night. The Committee was of the view that the students were guilty of gross misconduct and deserved deterrent punishment. They further recommended that they may be expelled from the college for a minimum period of two calendar years and also from the Hostel.

60. Hira Nath Mishra v. Rajendra Medical College, AIR 1973 SC 1260 It was against this Order that the appellants and Upendra filed the Writ Petition in the High Court. Their chief contention was that rules of natural justice had not been followed before the Order was passed against them expelling them from the college. They submitted that the enquiry, if any, had been held behind their back; the witnesses who gave evidence against them were not examined in their presence, there was no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses with a view to test their veracity, that the Committee's report was not made available to them and for all these reasons the enquiry was vitiated and the order passed by the Principal acting on the report was illegal.

61. Hira Nath Mishra v. Rajendra Medical College, AIR 1973 SC 1260 Rules of natural justice cannot remain the same applying to all conditions. We know of statutes in India like the Goonda Acts which permit evidence being collected behind the back of the goonda and the goonda being merely asked to represent against the main charges arising out of the evidence collected. Care is taken to see that the witnesses who gave statements would not be identified. In such cases there is no question of the witnesses being called and the goonda being given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The reason is obvious. No witness will come forward to give evidence in the presence of the goonda. However unsavory the procedure may appear to a. judicial mind, these are facts of life which are to be faced. The girls who were molested that night would not have come forward to give evidence in any regular enquiry and if a strict enquiry like the one conducted in a court of law were to be imposed in such matters, the girls would have had to go under the constant fear of molestation by the male students who were capable of such indecencies. Under the circumstances the course followed by the Principal was a wise one.

62. Disclosure of materials An adjudicating authority must disclose all evidence and material placed before it in the course of proceedings and must afford an opportunity to the person against whom it is sought to be utilized. Objet - enable him to prepare his defense Dhakeswari C otton Mills Ltd v. CIT, AIR 1955 SC 65 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 assesse.

63. Cross- Examination Never to be part and parcel of the doctrine It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case If a statute permits cross-examination of witnesses, the opposite party can claim right to cross-examine them U.P. Warehousing Corpn . V. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee, AIR 1980 SC 840 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.

64. Oral (personal) hearing In US, in absence of statutory provisions, an administrative authority is not bound to give the person concerned an oral hearing . The same principle is applied in India. A person is not entitled to an oral hearing, unless such a right is conferred by the statute. It is well settled that principles of natural justice do not require personal hearing and if all the relevant circumstances have been taken into account before taking the impugned action , the said action cannot be set aside only on the ground that personal hearing was not given. ( State of Maharashtra v. Lok Shikshan Sanatha , AIR 1973 SC 588 )

65. Post-Decisional Hearing A hearing given by the adjudicating authority after taking a decision or making an order. H.L. Trehan v. UOI, (1989) 1 SCC 764 A circular was issued by the govt. company to altering the terms and conditions of its employee without giving opportunity to heard. Company argued that that after the issuing circular, opportunity was given to them regarding alteration made by the circular. The Supreme Court stated that, the post decisional opportunity of hearing does not subserve the rules of natural justice . the authority who embarks upon a post-decisional hearing will normally proceed with a closed mind and there is hardly any chance of getting consideration of the representation at such as a post-decisional opportunity.

66. Right to Consel When a matter involves complicated questions of law and fact or involves presentation of elaborate evidence , the non-appearance of a lawyer may result in injustice. In disciplinary proceedings against the students, legal representation has been invariably denied. K S Cyriac v Vice Chancellor, Kerela University, Trivandrum AIR 1975 Ker 158 It is to be decided in the context of the specific factual situation in each case.

67. K S Cyriac v Vice Chancellor, Kerela University, Trivandrum AIR 1975 Ker 158 The petitioner was a degree student of the Newman College, Thodupuzha . He sat for the University examination held in April-May 1972 at that college. On 6-6-1972. When he was writing Mathematics Paper I the invigilators detected the petitioner committing malpractice. They reported the matter to the Chief Superintendent, who immediately came to the scene, and took the petitioner's answer book into custody; but the petitioner ran away with the paper from which he was copying. The Chief Superintendent appointed the third respondent, who is the Professor of Chemistry in that college, to enquire into the above misconduct . The third respondent framed charges against the petitioner and issued a notice Ext. R-l dated 9-8-1972. calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation, and show cause why he should not be punished. The petitioner submitted an explanation Ext. R-2 dated 14-8-1972 denying the charges, and requesting that he may be allowed to engage a lawyer to cross-examine the witnesses. He also objected to the competency of the third respondent to conduct the enquiry on the ground of bias.

68. Reasoned Decisions Earlier, adjudicatory bodies were not obligated to give reasons in support of their decisions. The condition to give reasons introduces clarity and transparency in administration and minimises arbitrariness for compulsion of disclosure guarantees consideration. Reasoned decisions by adjudicatory bodies promote public confidence in the administrative process.

69. Speaking Orders A speaking order means an order speaking for itself. Every order must contain reasons in support of it. This 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 the support of the decision Lord Denning, “ the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administrator .”

70. Speaking Orders Right to reason is an indispensable part of sound judicial system. In indicates an application of mind of the authority before the court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. Collector, (2012) 4 SCC 407