Principles of Natural Justice

Principles of natural justice are basic rules of procedural fairness governing decisions that adversely affect a person. Their content is flexible and depends on the statute, nature of the power, circumstances and consequences. The core requirements are a fair hearing, an unbiased decision-maker and, ordinarily, a reasoned decision.

Constitutional and legal basis

Natural justice is not codified as a single constitutional code. Courts connect it with non-arbitrariness under Article 14 and just, fair and reasonable procedure under Article 21, particularly after Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.

• A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India recognised that natural justice may apply to administrative action affecting rights or producing civil consequences.
• S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India affirmed the general importance of recording reasons in quasi-judicial decisions, subject to the statute and nature of the proceeding.

Core requirements and limits

• Audi alteram partem, or hear the other side, ordinarily requires notice, access to relied-upon material and a reasonable opportunity to respond before an adverse decision.
• A hearing may be written or oral; cross-examination is required only when fairness in the particular proceeding demands it.
• Nemo judex in causa sua excludes a decision-maker affected by pecuniary, personal, official or another legally relevant bias; courts may examine a reasonable apprehension of bias without proof of actual bias.
• A speaking order restrains arbitrariness and enables appellate or judicial review.
• A violation may make the decision liable to be set aside, but courts also consider statutory design, urgency, public interest and whether real prejudice resulted.

Cancellation of a completed recruitment examination

Cancellation of an entire examination has serious consequences for candidates and therefore cannot rest on suspicion or an unexplained assertion. The authority must act on relevant material, follow the governing recruitment rules, give intelligible reasons and adopt a response proportionate to the demonstrated irregularity.

• Where misconduct is attributed to identifiable candidates, fairness ordinarily requires notice and an opportunity to answer before individual disqualification.
• Where credible material shows systemic malpractice that has vitiated the examination and separating tainted from untainted candidates is impracticable, individual hearings for every candidate may not be required.
• The authority should consider whether scrutiny, segregation or a limited re-examination can protect integrity before cancelling the whole examination.
• Judicial review examines legality, procedural fairness, relevant material, arbitrariness and proportionality; it does not substitute the court's view of administrative merits.
• Completion of an examination or inclusion in a select list does not by itself create an indefeasible right to appointment, but the State must still act fairly and non-arbitrarily.