Natural Justice Case Study

817 Words4 Pages
In india, the principles of natural justice are firmly grounded in Article 14 and Article 21 of the constitution.With the introduction of concept of substantive and procedural due process in Article 21, all that fairness which is included in the principles of natural justice can be read into Article 21 of the constitution.The two basic principles are (i) Nemo judex in causa sua – means no man shall be a judge in his own cause,or the rule against bias and (ii)Audi alteram partem – no one shall be condemned unheard, or the rule of hearing. So the first principle is rule against bias.When it comes to answering what matters for bias whether actual or perceived we can look at the case of A.K Kraipak- “The real question is not whether he was biased.…show more content…
There must be a reasonable likelihood of bias. In deciding the question of bias we have to take into consideration human probabilities and ordinary course of human conduct.”There are different kinds of bias ; personal bias , pecuniry,(financial interest) subject matter and judicial obstinacy . where there is reasonable likelihood of bias.Anything that would lead to a predisposition either against or in favour of one of the parties to a case : family,friendship and rivalry.pecuniary bias (J Mohapatra and Co V State of Orissa (1984)) and lastly subject matter bias (GN Rao v State of AP (1958)) was held bias is relevant even if the ultimate decision being made by someone…show more content…
She was also not given a notice. The government asserted that the rule of audi alteram partem is excluded in this case. If this exclusion does not take place the purpose of impounding the passport would be frustrated or hindered. According to the SC this action of seizing her passport was an 'administrative action'. The SC held that though the impoundment of the passport was an administrative action yet the rule of fair hearing is attracted by the necessary implication and it would not be fair to exclude the application of this cardinal rule on the ground of administrative convenience. The court did not outright quash the order and allowed the return of the passport because of the special socio-political factors attending the case.The court stressed that a fair opportunity of being heard following immediately the order impounding the passport would satisfy the mandate of natural justice.It was also mentioned that mere urgency is no reason for exclusion of audi alteram partem rule and to exclude pre-decisional hearing would be

More about Natural Justice Case Study

Open Document