Law and You > Administrative Law > Exceptions to Principles of Natural Justice
The principles of natural justice can be excluded either expressly or by necessary implication, subject to the provisions of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
During Emergency:
In India, it has been generally acknowledged that in cases of extreme urgency, where interest of the public would be jeopardized by the delay or publicity involved in a hearing, a hearing before condemnation would not be required by natural justice or in exceptional cases of emergency where prompt action, preventive or remedial, is needed, the requirement of notice and hearing may be obviated. Therefore, if the right to be heard will paralyze the process, the law will exclude it. No one can claim the right to be heard during the time of an emergency. The Emergency Power Act, 1934 authorized the Government to make a regulation under the Act through which a person can be detained without any reason for the safety and security of the country.
In Mohinder Singh Gill vs. CEC, 1978 SCR (3) 272 case, in Firozhpur Constituency Parliamentary Election counting was been going on. One candidate was having a very good lead but before the declaration of the results, in mob violence in some segments ballot papers and boxes were been destroyed. The ECI acting under Article 324, 329 without giving any notice or hearing to the candidates cancelled the Election and ordered for fresh Election. The SC rejected the claim of notice and Audi alteram partem and held that in case of emergency, Audi Alteram Partem can be excluded.
In Swadeshi Cotton Mills V. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 818 case, the court held that the word “immediate” in section 18-A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act cannot stand in the way of the application of the rules of natural justice.
Statutory Exclusion:
A ground on which hearing may be excluded is that the action of the Administrative in question is legislative and not administrative in character.
In Charan Lal Sahu vs UOI, [1990] 1 SCC 613 (Bhopal Gas Disaster case) the constitutional validity of the Bhopal Gas Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985, which had authorized the Central Government to represent all the victims in matters of compensation award, had been challenged on the ground that because the Central Government, owned 22 percent share in the Union Carbide Company and as such it was a joint tortfeasor and thus there was a conflict between the interests of the government and the victims. The court negative the contention and observed that even if the argument was correct the doctrine of necessity would be applicable to the situation because if the government did not represent the whole class of gas victims no other sovereign body could so represent and thus the principles of natural justice were no attracted.
Confidentiality:
Exclusion of natural justice can also take place when confidentiality is demanded and is necessary to be maintained.
In Malak Singh v. State of P&H, [1981] 1 SCC 420 case, the SC held that the maintenance of Surveillance Register by the Police is a confidential document and neither the person whose name is entered in the Register nor any other member of the public can have excess to it. Furthermore, the Court observed that observance of the principles of Natural justice in such a situation may defeat the very purpose of surveillance and there is every possibility of the ends of justice being defeated instead of being served.
Impracticability:
Natural justice can be followed and applied when it is practicable to do so but in a situation when it is impracticable to apply the principle of natural justice then it can be excluded.
In Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhash Chandra, AIR 1970 SC 1269 case, the Board conducted the final tenth standard examination. At a particular centre, where there were more than a thousand students, it was alleged to have mass copying. Even in evaluation, it was prima-facie found that there was mass copying as most of the answers were the same and they received the same marks. For this reason, the Board cancelled the exam without giving any opportunity of hearing and ordered for fresh examination, whereby all students were directed to appear for the same. Many of the students approached Patna HC challenging it on the ground that before cancellation of the exam, no opportunity of hearing had been given to the students. The HC struck down the decision of the Board in violation of Audi Alteram Partem. The Board unsatisfied with the decision of the Court approached the SC. The SC rejected the HC judgment and held that in this situation, conducting hearing is impossible as a thousand notices have to be issued and everyone must be given an opportunity of hearing, cross-examination, rebuttal, presenting evidence, etc. which is not practicable at all. So, the SC held that on the ground of impracticability, hearing can be excluded.
In R. Radhakrishnan V. Osmania University, where the entire MBA entrance examination was cancelled by the university because of mass copying, the court held that notice and hearing to all candidates is not possible in such a situation, which had assumed national proportions. Thus the court sanctified the exclusion of the rules of natural justice on the ground of administrative impracticability.
Legislative actions:
When the law-making body itself propounds that this principle will not be applicable in the said statute, then this principle is not applicable in the cases which will come under the particular statute.
In Charan Lal Sahu vs. UOI, [1990] 1 SCC 613 case, the constitutional validity of the Bhopal Gas Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 was involved. This legislation provides for details of how to determine claims and pay them. The affected parties approached the SC and contended that no hearing was provided to them and it was violative of Audi Alteram Partem. The SC held, “For legislation by Parliament no principle of natural justice is attracted, provided such legislation is within the competence of the Legislature.”
Academic Evaluation:
Where the nature of authority is purely academic, then no right of hearing can be claimed. The academic administration can take any action towards the students or the staff members if they feel that things are not working properly inside the institution. And it cannot be challenged until and unless the contrary is proved.
In Jawaharlal Nehru University v. B.S. Narwal, [1980] 4 SCC 480 case, B.S Narwal, a student of JNU was removed from the rolls for unsatisfactory academic performances without being given any pre-decisional hearing. The Supreme Court held that the very nature of academic adjudication appears to negative any right of an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, if the competent academic authorities examine and asses the work of a student over a period of time and declare his work unsatisfactory, the rules of natural justice may be excluded. The Supreme Court held the suspension valid.
In Karnataka Public Service Commission v. B. M. Vaidya Shankar, AIR 1992 SC 952 case, where a candidate appearing for a civil service examination wrote her number, not only on the first page of the answer book but also on all the pages of the answer book contrary to the specific instructions given to candidates, which were also printed on the first page of the answer book. The Court held that the Public Service Commission is justified in not evaluating her answer book. No hearing was required to be given to such a candidate.
In Board of High School v. Kumari Chitra Srivastava, AIR 1970 SC 1039 case, where student was not allowed to appear at an examination on the ground of shortage of attendance, the Court set aside the order on the ground that no notice was given to her before taking action in the matter. The Court brushed aside the Board’s argument that “no useful purpose would have been served”.
Contractual Arrangement:
In case of termination arrangement in contract, principle of natural justice are not applicable.
In State of Gujarat V. M.P. Shah Charitable Trust, 1994 SCC (3) 552 case, the Supreme Court held the principles of natural justice are not attracted in case of termination of an arrangement in any contractual field. Termination of an arrangement/agreement is neither a quasi-judicial nor an administrative act so that the duty to act judicially is not attracted.
Inter-Discliplinary Action:
In Inter-Disciplinary action like suspension etc. there is no requirement to follow the principle of natural justice.
In S. A. Khan vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1993 SC 1152 case, Mr. Khan an IPS Officer holding the post of Deputy Inspector General of Haryana; Haryana Govt., was suspended by the Haryana Government due to various complaints against him. Thus, he approached the Supreme Court on the ground of violation of the principle of natural justice as he was not given an opportunity to be heard. The SC held that the suspension being interim-disciplinary action, there is no requirement to afford hearing. It can be ordered without affording an opportunity of hearing.
Government Policy Decision:
For developmental policy decision, there is no need to follow principles of natural justice.
In Balco Employees’ Union Vs UOI, [2002] 2 SCC 333 case, the Supreme Court was of the view that in taking of a policy decision in economic matters at length, the principles of natural justice have no role to play. In this case, the employees had challenged the government’s policy decision regarding disinvestment in public sector undertaking. The court held that unless the policy decision to disinvest is capricious, arbitrary, illegal or uninformed and is not contrary to law, the decision to disinvest cannot be challenged on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.
No Right Of The Person Is Infringed
Where no right has been conferred on a person by any statute nor any such right arises from common law the principles of natural justice are not applicable.
In Andhra Steel Corpn. V. A.P. State Electricity Board, AIR 1991 SC 1456 case, the Electricity Board had withdrawn the concession in electricity rate without any notice and hearing to the appellant. The Court held that a concession can be withdrawn at any time without affording any opportunity of hearing to affected persons except when the law requires otherwise or the authority is bound by promissory estoppels. Therefore, where an order of extension was cancelled before it became operational or the order of stepping up salary was withdrawn before the person was actually paid or the services of the probationer terminated without charge the principles of natural justice are not attracted.
In J.R. Vohra v. Indian Export House, AIR 1985 SC 475 case, the Court held that where no right has been conferred upon a person by any statute nor any such right arises from common law, the principles of natural justice are not applicable.
Interim Preventive Action:
If the action of the administrative authority is a suspension order in the nature of preventive action and not a final order, the application of the principles of natural justice may be excluded.
In Abhay Kumar V.K. Srinivasan, AIR 1981 Delhi 381 case, the institution passed an order debarring the student from entering the premises of the institution and attending classes till the pendency of a criminal case against him for stabbing a co-student. This order was challenged on the ground of denial of natural justice. The Delhi High Court rejecting the contention held that such an order could be compared with an order of suspension pending enquiry which is preventive in nature in order to maintain campus peace and hence the principles of natural justice shall not apply.
Public interest:
Any act or thing done against the interest of the general public will be held void ab initio. As being a democratic country, the laws are made for the benefit of the public. Hence, if there is a hidden interest of the public in any issue, then the principle of Audi Alterem Partem will be excluded.
‘Useless Formality’ Theory:
‘Useless formality’ is yet another exception to the application of the principles of natural justice. Where on the admitted or undisputed facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the Court may not insist on the observance of the principles of natural justice because it would be futile to order its observance. Therefore, where the result would not be different, and it is demonstrable beyond doubt, order of compliance with the principles of natural justice will not be justified.
In Aligarh Muslim University v. Manssor Ali Khan, AIR 2000 SC 2783 case, a rule provided that if an employee remained absent without permission for a particular period of time, it would result in automatic termination of his employment. As Manssor remained absent for more than five years without permission, his post was deemed to have been vacated. Manssor challenged this on the ground that the rules of natural justice were violated, as he was not given an opportunity to be heard before the post was declared to be vacant. The Supreme Court rejected the argument and held that there was no prejudice to Manssor in the facts of the case. If Manssor had been heard it would not have made any difference.
Related Topics:
- Introduction to Principles of Natural Justice
- First Principle of Natural Justice: Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa
- Personal Bias
- Pecuniary Bias and Subject Matter Bias
- Second Principle of Natural Justice: Audi Alterem Partem
- Third Principle of Natural Justice: Speaking Order