Question Description
Read the following passage and answer the question.Rule of natural justice are placed so highthat it has been declared time and again by courts that “no human law are of any validity, if contrary to this”, and court of law could discard an act of parliament if it is contrary to natural justice. Generally no provision is found in any statute for observance of principle of natural justice by adjudicating authorities.Question then arises, whether the adjudicating authorities are bound to follow these principles. Law is well settled on this point, courts have observed that even though there is no positive words in a statuteor rules requiring that the parties shall be heard, yet the principles of natural justice will supply the omission of legislature. In other words if a statute or rule authorising interference with property, civil or fundamental rights was silent on question of hearing and notice, the courts will apply the rules as it is “of universal application and founded on plainest principle of natural justice”. Non-observance of principle will invalidate the exercise of power by any authority. Principle of natural justice are binding on all courts, judicial bodies and quasi judicial bodies. Question is -are they applicable to an administrative action? Earlier court took the view that it is inapplicable but as per lord denning “that heresy has been scotched”. Thus a statutory body irrespective of its nature or function has to act fairly and not in an arbitrary manner.Principles of natural justice differs from situation to situation but certain basic premises remain the same. For instance, accused should know the nature of accusation made, he should be given an opportunity to state his case and tribunal should act in good faith. Whenever, a complaint is made to court regarding non observance of principles of natural justice, court has to see whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just and fair decision as per the facts of the case. If it was necessary then court will declare the decision ultra vires the power of authority.Traditionally, there are 2 principles of natural justice.(i) No man shall be judge in his own cause, or no man can act as both at the one and the same time- a party or a suitor and also a judge, or a deciding authority must be impartial and without bias.(ii) Hear the other side, or both the side must be heard, or no man should be condemned unheard, or that there must be fairness on the part of deciding authority.Rule against bias simply means that, justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Anything which tends or may be regarded as tending to cause such person to decide a case otherwise than on evidence must be held to be biased. Judge is supposed to be indifferent to the parties in a controversy. He must be in position to decide the matter objectively. He cannot allow his personal prejudice to go into decision making. Object is not merely that scales be held even; it is also that they may not appear to be inclined. This rule also applies to administrative authorities required to act judicially.Right to be heard simply means that, a party is not to suffer in person or in purse without an opportunity of being heard. In short, before an order is passed against any person, reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to him. This maxim includes 2 elements- notice and hearing. Any action taken without notice is against principle of natural justice and is void ab initio. Notice must be clear, specific and unambiguous and charges should not be vague and uncertain. Moreover, notice must give reasonable opportunity to comply with requirement mentioned therein. Hearing simply means that no adverse action can be taken against any person without giving him an opportunity of being heard. It also means that, adjudicating authority must disclose all evidence and material placed before it in the course of hearing proceeding and must afford an opportunity to the person against whom the evidences are to be used to rebut it. Another rule of hearing is “he who hears should decide” or “one who decides must hear”.Q.Justice Nayan Mehta, decided in favour of a particular legal interpretation in a judgment. His was a majority judgment in a 3 judge bench. He while delivering the judgment knew that there was an existing judgment of another 3 judge bench which had decided in favour of another legal interpretation on the same issue. As per settled law, if there are two conflicting judgment on same issue which was decided by a bench of similar strength then the judgment which came earlier shall be given the preference in validity. But Nayan J. in his judgment wrote that, due to existence of an earlier judgment of 3 judge bench on same issue there remains a conflict of opinion thus the issue should be sent to a larger bench of 5 judges and hence he referred it to a 5 judge bench. Now when the matter came before5 judge bench, it was justice nayanmehta who presided the bench and judgment was delivered in favour of interpretation given by Nayan J in his 3 judge bench decision. Nayan J himself wrote the judgment for majority and case was decided by 3:2 in favour of Nayan J’s Interpretation. Decide whether there has been a violation of principle of natural justice in the 5 judge bench judgment?a)Yes, there is a clear bias which nayan J. Shows in favor of his version of legal interpretation and it is evident from the fact that he bypassed a settled law and referred the matter to a 5 judge bench and then ended up following his own decision.b)No, there were 4 more judges apart from Nayan J. thus it cannot be said that decision was of his alone, hence question of bias did not arise in this case.c)No, just because he had favoured an interpretation earlier does not mean that he will not decide the reference in just and fair manner.d)No, there is no bias, threshold of bias cannot be this low, if his interpretation was right then he can follow it in any number of cases he want to and not just in reference but in review too. For instance, judges who decided the death penalty for nirbhaya rape accused are the same who are also hearing their curative petition, and if they decide in favour of death penalty, would you then say that they were biased for they gave the same decision? No, right?Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Read the following passage and answer the question.Rule of natural justice are placed so highthat it has been declared time and again by courts that “no human law are of any validity, if contrary to this”, and court of law could discard an act of parliament if it is contrary to natural justice. Generally no provision is found in any statute for observance of principle of natural justice by adjudicating authorities.Question then arises, whether the adjudicating authorities are bound to follow these principles. Law is well settled on this point, courts have observed that even though there is no positive words in a statuteor rules requiring that the parties shall be heard, yet the principles of natural justice will supply the omission of legislature. In other words if a statute or rule authorising interference with property, civil or fundamental rights was silent on question of hearing and notice, the courts will apply the rules as it is “of universal application and founded on plainest principle of natural justice”. Non-observance of principle will invalidate the exercise of power by any authority. Principle of natural justice are binding on all courts, judicial bodies and quasi judicial bodies. Question is -are they applicable to an administrative action? Earlier court took the view that it is inapplicable but as per lord denning “that heresy has been scotched”. Thus a statutory body irrespective of its nature or function has to act fairly and not in an arbitrary manner.Principles of natural justice differs from situation to situation but certain basic premises remain the same. For instance, accused should know the nature of accusation made, he should be given an opportunity to state his case and tribunal should act in good faith. Whenever, a complaint is made to court regarding non observance of principles of natural justice, court has to see whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just and fair decision as per the facts of the case. If it was necessary then court will declare the decision ultra vires the power of authority.Traditionally, there are 2 principles of natural justice.(i) No man shall be judge in his own cause, or no man can act as both at the one and the same time- a party or a suitor and also a judge, or a deciding authority must be impartial and without bias.(ii) Hear the other side, or both the side must be heard, or no man should be condemned unheard, or that there must be fairness on the part of deciding authority.Rule against bias simply means that, justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Anything which tends or may be regarded as tending to cause such person to decide a case otherwise than on evidence must be held to be biased. Judge is supposed to be indifferent to the parties in a controversy. He must be in position to decide the matter objectively. He cannot allow his personal prejudice to go into decision making. Object is not merely that scales be held even; it is also that they may not appear to be inclined. This rule also applies to administrative authorities required to act judicially.Right to be heard simply means that, a party is not to suffer in person or in purse without an opportunity of being heard. In short, before an order is passed against any person, reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to him. This maxim includes 2 elements- notice and hearing. Any action taken without notice is against principle of natural justice and is void ab initio. Notice must be clear, specific and unambiguous and charges should not be vague and uncertain. Moreover, notice must give reasonable opportunity to comply with requirement mentioned therein. Hearing simply means that no adverse action can be taken against any person without giving him an opportunity of being heard. It also means that, adjudicating authority must disclose all evidence and material placed before it in the course of hearing proceeding and must afford an opportunity to the person against whom the evidences are to be used to rebut it. Another rule of hearing is “he who hears should decide” or “one who decides must hear”.Q.Justice Nayan Mehta, decided in favour of a particular legal interpretation in a judgment. His was a majority judgment in a 3 judge bench. He while delivering the judgment knew that there was an existing judgment of another 3 judge bench which had decided in favour of another legal interpretation on the same issue. As per settled law, if there are two conflicting judgment on same issue which was decided by a bench of similar strength then the judgment which came earlier shall be given the preference in validity. But Nayan J. in his judgment wrote that, due to existence of an earlier judgment of 3 judge bench on same issue there remains a conflict of opinion thus the issue should be sent to a larger bench of 5 judges and hence he referred it to a 5 judge bench. Now when the matter came before5 judge bench, it was justice nayanmehta who presided the bench and judgment was delivered in favour of interpretation given by Nayan J in his 3 judge bench decision. Nayan J himself wrote the judgment for majority and case was decided by 3:2 in favour of Nayan J’s Interpretation. Decide whether there has been a violation of principle of natural justice in the 5 judge bench judgment?a)Yes, there is a clear bias which nayan J. Shows in favor of his version of legal interpretation and it is evident from the fact that he bypassed a settled law and referred the matter to a 5 judge bench and then ended up following his own decision.b)No, there were 4 more judges apart from Nayan J. thus it cannot be said that decision was of his alone, hence question of bias did not arise in this case.c)No, just because he had favoured an interpretation earlier does not mean that he will not decide the reference in just and fair manner.d)No, there is no bias, threshold of bias cannot be this low, if his interpretation was right then he can follow it in any number of cases he want to and not just in reference but in review too. For instance, judges who decided the death penalty for nirbhaya rape accused are the same who are also hearing their curative petition, and if they decide in favour of death penalty, would you then say that they were biased for they gave the same decision? No, right?Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Read the following passage and answer the question.Rule of natural justice are placed so highthat it has been declared time and again by courts that “no human law are of any validity, if contrary to this”, and court of law could discard an act of parliament if it is contrary to natural justice. Generally no provision is found in any statute for observance of principle of natural justice by adjudicating authorities.Question then arises, whether the adjudicating authorities are bound to follow these principles. Law is well settled on this point, courts have observed that even though there is no positive words in a statuteor rules requiring that the parties shall be heard, yet the principles of natural justice will supply the omission of legislature. In other words if a statute or rule authorising interference with property, civil or fundamental rights was silent on question of hearing and notice, the courts will apply the rules as it is “of universal application and founded on plainest principle of natural justice”. Non-observance of principle will invalidate the exercise of power by any authority. Principle of natural justice are binding on all courts, judicial bodies and quasi judicial bodies. Question is -are they applicable to an administrative action? Earlier court took the view that it is inapplicable but as per lord denning “that heresy has been scotched”. Thus a statutory body irrespective of its nature or function has to act fairly and not in an arbitrary manner.Principles of natural justice differs from situation to situation but certain basic premises remain the same. For instance, accused should know the nature of accusation made, he should be given an opportunity to state his case and tribunal should act in good faith. Whenever, a complaint is made to court regarding non observance of principles of natural justice, court has to see whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just and fair decision as per the facts of the case. If it was necessary then court will declare the decision ultra vires the power of authority.Traditionally, there are 2 principles of natural justice.(i) No man shall be judge in his own cause, or no man can act as both at the one and the same time- a party or a suitor and also a judge, or a deciding authority must be impartial and without bias.(ii) Hear the other side, or both the side must be heard, or no man should be condemned unheard, or that there must be fairness on the part of deciding authority.Rule against bias simply means that, justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Anything which tends or may be regarded as tending to cause such person to decide a case otherwise than on evidence must be held to be biased. Judge is supposed to be indifferent to the parties in a controversy. He must be in position to decide the matter objectively. He cannot allow his personal prejudice to go into decision making. Object is not merely that scales be held even; it is also that they may not appear to be inclined. This rule also applies to administrative authorities required to act judicially.Right to be heard simply means that, a party is not to suffer in person or in purse without an opportunity of being heard. In short, before an order is passed against any person, reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to him. This maxim includes 2 elements- notice and hearing. Any action taken without notice is against principle of natural justice and is void ab initio. Notice must be clear, specific and unambiguous and charges should not be vague and uncertain. Moreover, notice must give reasonable opportunity to comply with requirement mentioned therein. Hearing simply means that no adverse action can be taken against any person without giving him an opportunity of being heard. It also means that, adjudicating authority must disclose all evidence and material placed before it in the course of hearing proceeding and must afford an opportunity to the person against whom the evidences are to be used to rebut it. Another rule of hearing is “he who hears should decide” or “one who decides must hear”.Q.Justice Nayan Mehta, decided in favour of a particular legal interpretation in a judgment. His was a majority judgment in a 3 judge bench. He while delivering the judgment knew that there was an existing judgment of another 3 judge bench which had decided in favour of another legal interpretation on the same issue. As per settled law, if there are two conflicting judgment on same issue which was decided by a bench of similar strength then the judgment which came earlier shall be given the preference in validity. But Nayan J. in his judgment wrote that, due to existence of an earlier judgment of 3 judge bench on same issue there remains a conflict of opinion thus the issue should be sent to a larger bench of 5 judges and hence he referred it to a 5 judge bench. Now when the matter came before5 judge bench, it was justice nayanmehta who presided the bench and judgment was delivered in favour of interpretation given by Nayan J in his 3 judge bench decision. Nayan J himself wrote the judgment for majority and case was decided by 3:2 in favour of Nayan J’s Interpretation. Decide whether there has been a violation of principle of natural justice in the 5 judge bench judgment?a)Yes, there is a clear bias which nayan J. Shows in favor of his version of legal interpretation and it is evident from the fact that he bypassed a settled law and referred the matter to a 5 judge bench and then ended up following his own decision.b)No, there were 4 more judges apart from Nayan J. thus it cannot be said that decision was of his alone, hence question of bias did not arise in this case.c)No, just because he had favoured an interpretation earlier does not mean that he will not decide the reference in just and fair manner.d)No, there is no bias, threshold of bias cannot be this low, if his interpretation was right then he can follow it in any number of cases he want to and not just in reference but in review too. For instance, judges who decided the death penalty for nirbhaya rape accused are the same who are also hearing their curative petition, and if they decide in favour of death penalty, would you then say that they were biased for they gave the same decision? No, right?Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Read the following passage and answer the question.Rule of natural justice are placed so highthat it has been declared time and again by courts that “no human law are of any validity, if contrary to this”, and court of law could discard an act of parliament if it is contrary to natural justice. Generally no provision is found in any statute for observance of principle of natural justice by adjudicating authorities.Question then arises, whether the adjudicating authorities are bound to follow these principles. Law is well settled on this point, courts have observed that even though there is no positive words in a statuteor rules requiring that the parties shall be heard, yet the principles of natural justice will supply the omission of legislature. In other words if a statute or rule authorising interference with property, civil or fundamental rights was silent on question of hearing and notice, the courts will apply the rules as it is “of universal application and founded on plainest principle of natural justice”. Non-observance of principle will invalidate the exercise of power by any authority. Principle of natural justice are binding on all courts, judicial bodies and quasi judicial bodies. Question is -are they applicable to an administrative action? Earlier court took the view that it is inapplicable but as per lord denning “that heresy has been scotched”. Thus a statutory body irrespective of its nature or function has to act fairly and not in an arbitrary manner.Principles of natural justice differs from situation to situation but certain basic premises remain the same. For instance, accused should know the nature of accusation made, he should be given an opportunity to state his case and tribunal should act in good faith. Whenever, a complaint is made to court regarding non observance of principles of natural justice, court has to see whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just and fair decision as per the facts of the case. If it was necessary then court will declare the decision ultra vires the power of authority.Traditionally, there are 2 principles of natural justice.(i) No man shall be judge in his own cause, or no man can act as both at the one and the same time- a party or a suitor and also a judge, or a deciding authority must be impartial and without bias.(ii) Hear the other side, or both the side must be heard, or no man should be condemned unheard, or that there must be fairness on the part of deciding authority.Rule against bias simply means that, justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Anything which tends or may be regarded as tending to cause such person to decide a case otherwise than on evidence must be held to be biased. Judge is supposed to be indifferent to the parties in a controversy. He must be in position to decide the matter objectively. He cannot allow his personal prejudice to go into decision making. Object is not merely that scales be held even; it is also that they may not appear to be inclined. This rule also applies to administrative authorities required to act judicially.Right to be heard simply means that, a party is not to suffer in person or in purse without an opportunity of being heard. In short, before an order is passed against any person, reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to him. This maxim includes 2 elements- notice and hearing. Any action taken without notice is against principle of natural justice and is void ab initio. Notice must be clear, specific and unambiguous and charges should not be vague and uncertain. Moreover, notice must give reasonable opportunity to comply with requirement mentioned therein. Hearing simply means that no adverse action can be taken against any person without giving him an opportunity of being heard. It also means that, adjudicating authority must disclose all evidence and material placed before it in the course of hearing proceeding and must afford an opportunity to the person against whom the evidences are to be used to rebut it. Another rule of hearing is “he who hears should decide” or “one who decides must hear”.Q.Justice Nayan Mehta, decided in favour of a particular legal interpretation in a judgment. His was a majority judgment in a 3 judge bench. He while delivering the judgment knew that there was an existing judgment of another 3 judge bench which had decided in favour of another legal interpretation on the same issue. As per settled law, if there are two conflicting judgment on same issue which was decided by a bench of similar strength then the judgment which came earlier shall be given the preference in validity. But Nayan J. in his judgment wrote that, due to existence of an earlier judgment of 3 judge bench on same issue there remains a conflict of opinion thus the issue should be sent to a larger bench of 5 judges and hence he referred it to a 5 judge bench. Now when the matter came before5 judge bench, it was justice nayanmehta who presided the bench and judgment was delivered in favour of interpretation given by Nayan J in his 3 judge bench decision. Nayan J himself wrote the judgment for majority and case was decided by 3:2 in favour of Nayan J’s Interpretation. Decide whether there has been a violation of principle of natural justice in the 5 judge bench judgment?a)Yes, there is a clear bias which nayan J. Shows in favor of his version of legal interpretation and it is evident from the fact that he bypassed a settled law and referred the matter to a 5 judge bench and then ended up following his own decision.b)No, there were 4 more judges apart from Nayan J. thus it cannot be said that decision was of his alone, hence question of bias did not arise in this case.c)No, just because he had favoured an interpretation earlier does not mean that he will not decide the reference in just and fair manner.d)No, there is no bias, threshold of bias cannot be this low, if his interpretation was right then he can follow it in any number of cases he want to and not just in reference but in review too. For instance, judges who decided the death penalty for nirbhaya rape accused are the same who are also hearing their curative petition, and if they decide in favour of death penalty, would you then say that they were biased for they gave the same decision? No, right?Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Read the following passage and answer the question.Rule of natural justice are placed so highthat it has been declared time and again by courts that “no human law are of any validity, if contrary to this”, and court of law could discard an act of parliament if it is contrary to natural justice. Generally no provision is found in any statute for observance of principle of natural justice by adjudicating authorities.Question then arises, whether the adjudicating authorities are bound to follow these principles. Law is well settled on this point, courts have observed that even though there is no positive words in a statuteor rules requiring that the parties shall be heard, yet the principles of natural justice will supply the omission of legislature. In other words if a statute or rule authorising interference with property, civil or fundamental rights was silent on question of hearing and notice, the courts will apply the rules as it is “of universal application and founded on plainest principle of natural justice”. Non-observance of principle will invalidate the exercise of power by any authority. Principle of natural justice are binding on all courts, judicial bodies and quasi judicial bodies. Question is -are they applicable to an administrative action? Earlier court took the view that it is inapplicable but as per lord denning “that heresy has been scotched”. Thus a statutory body irrespective of its nature or function has to act fairly and not in an arbitrary manner.Principles of natural justice differs from situation to situation but certain basic premises remain the same. For instance, accused should know the nature of accusation made, he should be given an opportunity to state his case and tribunal should act in good faith. Whenever, a complaint is made to court regarding non observance of principles of natural justice, court has to see whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just and fair decision as per the facts of the case. If it was necessary then court will declare the decision ultra vires the power of authority.Traditionally, there are 2 principles of natural justice.(i) No man shall be judge in his own cause, or no man can act as both at the one and the same time- a party or a suitor and also a judge, or a deciding authority must be impartial and without bias.(ii) Hear the other side, or both the side must be heard, or no man should be condemned unheard, or that there must be fairness on the part of deciding authority.Rule against bias simply means that, justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Anything which tends or may be regarded as tending to cause such person to decide a case otherwise than on evidence must be held to be biased. Judge is supposed to be indifferent to the parties in a controversy. He must be in position to decide the matter objectively. He cannot allow his personal prejudice to go into decision making. Object is not merely that scales be held even; it is also that they may not appear to be inclined. This rule also applies to administrative authorities required to act judicially.Right to be heard simply means that, a party is not to suffer in person or in purse without an opportunity of being heard. In short, before an order is passed against any person, reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to him. This maxim includes 2 elements- notice and hearing. Any action taken without notice is against principle of natural justice and is void ab initio. Notice must be clear, specific and unambiguous and charges should not be vague and uncertain. Moreover, notice must give reasonable opportunity to comply with requirement mentioned therein. Hearing simply means that no adverse action can be taken against any person without giving him an opportunity of being heard. It also means that, adjudicating authority must disclose all evidence and material placed before it in the course of hearing proceeding and must afford an opportunity to the person against whom the evidences are to be used to rebut it. Another rule of hearing is “he who hears should decide” or “one who decides must hear”.Q.Justice Nayan Mehta, decided in favour of a particular legal interpretation in a judgment. His was a majority judgment in a 3 judge bench. He while delivering the judgment knew that there was an existing judgment of another 3 judge bench which had decided in favour of another legal interpretation on the same issue. As per settled law, if there are two conflicting judgment on same issue which was decided by a bench of similar strength then the judgment which came earlier shall be given the preference in validity. But Nayan J. in his judgment wrote that, due to existence of an earlier judgment of 3 judge bench on same issue there remains a conflict of opinion thus the issue should be sent to a larger bench of 5 judges and hence he referred it to a 5 judge bench. Now when the matter came before5 judge bench, it was justice nayanmehta who presided the bench and judgment was delivered in favour of interpretation given by Nayan J in his 3 judge bench decision. Nayan J himself wrote the judgment for majority and case was decided by 3:2 in favour of Nayan J’s Interpretation. Decide whether there has been a violation of principle of natural justice in the 5 judge bench judgment?a)Yes, there is a clear bias which nayan J. Shows in favor of his version of legal interpretation and it is evident from the fact that he bypassed a settled law and referred the matter to a 5 judge bench and then ended up following his own decision.b)No, there were 4 more judges apart from Nayan J. thus it cannot be said that decision was of his alone, hence question of bias did not arise in this case.c)No, just because he had favoured an interpretation earlier does not mean that he will not decide the reference in just and fair manner.d)No, there is no bias, threshold of bias cannot be this low, if his interpretation was right then he can follow it in any number of cases he want to and not just in reference but in review too. For instance, judges who decided the death penalty for nirbhaya rape accused are the same who are also hearing their curative petition, and if they decide in favour of death penalty, would you then say that they were biased for they gave the same decision? No, right?Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Read the following passage and answer the question.Rule of natural justice are placed so highthat it has been declared time and again by courts that “no human law are of any validity, if contrary to this”, and court of law could discard an act of parliament if it is contrary to natural justice. Generally no provision is found in any statute for observance of principle of natural justice by adjudicating authorities.Question then arises, whether the adjudicating authorities are bound to follow these principles. Law is well settled on this point, courts have observed that even though there is no positive words in a statuteor rules requiring that the parties shall be heard, yet the principles of natural justice will supply the omission of legislature. In other words if a statute or rule authorising interference with property, civil or fundamental rights was silent on question of hearing and notice, the courts will apply the rules as it is “of universal application and founded on plainest principle of natural justice”. Non-observance of principle will invalidate the exercise of power by any authority. Principle of natural justice are binding on all courts, judicial bodies and quasi judicial bodies. Question is -are they applicable to an administrative action? Earlier court took the view that it is inapplicable but as per lord denning “that heresy has been scotched”. Thus a statutory body irrespective of its nature or function has to act fairly and not in an arbitrary manner.Principles of natural justice differs from situation to situation but certain basic premises remain the same. For instance, accused should know the nature of accusation made, he should be given an opportunity to state his case and tribunal should act in good faith. Whenever, a complaint is made to court regarding non observance of principles of natural justice, court has to see whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just and fair decision as per the facts of the case. If it was necessary then court will declare the decision ultra vires the power of authority.Traditionally, there are 2 principles of natural justice.(i) No man shall be judge in his own cause, or no man can act as both at the one and the same time- a party or a suitor and also a judge, or a deciding authority must be impartial and without bias.(ii) Hear the other side, or both the side must be heard, or no man should be condemned unheard, or that there must be fairness on the part of deciding authority.Rule against bias simply means that, justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Anything which tends or may be regarded as tending to cause such person to decide a case otherwise than on evidence must be held to be biased. Judge is supposed to be indifferent to the parties in a controversy. He must be in position to decide the matter objectively. He cannot allow his personal prejudice to go into decision making. Object is not merely that scales be held even; it is also that they may not appear to be inclined. This rule also applies to administrative authorities required to act judicially.Right to be heard simply means that, a party is not to suffer in person or in purse without an opportunity of being heard. In short, before an order is passed against any person, reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to him. This maxim includes 2 elements- notice and hearing. Any action taken without notice is against principle of natural justice and is void ab initio. Notice must be clear, specific and unambiguous and charges should not be vague and uncertain. Moreover, notice must give reasonable opportunity to comply with requirement mentioned therein. Hearing simply means that no adverse action can be taken against any person without giving him an opportunity of being heard. It also means that, adjudicating authority must disclose all evidence and material placed before it in the course of hearing proceeding and must afford an opportunity to the person against whom the evidences are to be used to rebut it. Another rule of hearing is “he who hears should decide” or “one who decides must hear”.Q.Justice Nayan Mehta, decided in favour of a particular legal interpretation in a judgment. His was a majority judgment in a 3 judge bench. He while delivering the judgment knew that there was an existing judgment of another 3 judge bench which had decided in favour of another legal interpretation on the same issue. As per settled law, if there are two conflicting judgment on same issue which was decided by a bench of similar strength then the judgment which came earlier shall be given the preference in validity. But Nayan J. in his judgment wrote that, due to existence of an earlier judgment of 3 judge bench on same issue there remains a conflict of opinion thus the issue should be sent to a larger bench of 5 judges and hence he referred it to a 5 judge bench. Now when the matter came before5 judge bench, it was justice nayanmehta who presided the bench and judgment was delivered in favour of interpretation given by Nayan J in his 3 judge bench decision. Nayan J himself wrote the judgment for majority and case was decided by 3:2 in favour of Nayan J’s Interpretation. Decide whether there has been a violation of principle of natural justice in the 5 judge bench judgment?a)Yes, there is a clear bias which nayan J. Shows in favor of his version of legal interpretation and it is evident from the fact that he bypassed a settled law and referred the matter to a 5 judge bench and then ended up following his own decision.b)No, there were 4 more judges apart from Nayan J. thus it cannot be said that decision was of his alone, hence question of bias did not arise in this case.c)No, just because he had favoured an interpretation earlier does not mean that he will not decide the reference in just and fair manner.d)No, there is no bias, threshold of bias cannot be this low, if his interpretation was right then he can follow it in any number of cases he want to and not just in reference but in review too. For instance, judges who decided the death penalty for nirbhaya rape accused are the same who are also hearing their curative petition, and if they decide in favour of death penalty, would you then say that they were biased for they gave the same decision? No, right?Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Read the following passage and answer the question.Rule of natural justice are placed so highthat it has been declared time and again by courts that “no human law are of any validity, if contrary to this”, and court of law could discard an act of parliament if it is contrary to natural justice. Generally no provision is found in any statute for observance of principle of natural justice by adjudicating authorities.Question then arises, whether the adjudicating authorities are bound to follow these principles. Law is well settled on this point, courts have observed that even though there is no positive words in a statuteor rules requiring that the parties shall be heard, yet the principles of natural justice will supply the omission of legislature. In other words if a statute or rule authorising interference with property, civil or fundamental rights was silent on question of hearing and notice, the courts will apply the rules as it is “of universal application and founded on plainest principle of natural justice”. Non-observance of principle will invalidate the exercise of power by any authority. Principle of natural justice are binding on all courts, judicial bodies and quasi judicial bodies. Question is -are they applicable to an administrative action? Earlier court took the view that it is inapplicable but as per lord denning “that heresy has been scotched”. Thus a statutory body irrespective of its nature or function has to act fairly and not in an arbitrary manner.Principles of natural justice differs from situation to situation but certain basic premises remain the same. For instance, accused should know the nature of accusation made, he should be given an opportunity to state his case and tribunal should act in good faith. Whenever, a complaint is made to court regarding non observance of principles of natural justice, court has to see whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just and fair decision as per the facts of the case. If it was necessary then court will declare the decision ultra vires the power of authority.Traditionally, there are 2 principles of natural justice.(i) No man shall be judge in his own cause, or no man can act as both at the one and the same time- a party or a suitor and also a judge, or a deciding authority must be impartial and without bias.(ii) Hear the other side, or both the side must be heard, or no man should be condemned unheard, or that there must be fairness on the part of deciding authority.Rule against bias simply means that, justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Anything which tends or may be regarded as tending to cause such person to decide a case otherwise than on evidence must be held to be biased. Judge is supposed to be indifferent to the parties in a controversy. He must be in position to decide the matter objectively. He cannot allow his personal prejudice to go into decision making. Object is not merely that scales be held even; it is also that they may not appear to be inclined. This rule also applies to administrative authorities required to act judicially.Right to be heard simply means that, a party is not to suffer in person or in purse without an opportunity of being heard. In short, before an order is passed against any person, reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to him. This maxim includes 2 elements- notice and hearing. Any action taken without notice is against principle of natural justice and is void ab initio. Notice must be clear, specific and unambiguous and charges should not be vague and uncertain. Moreover, notice must give reasonable opportunity to comply with requirement mentioned therein. Hearing simply means that no adverse action can be taken against any person without giving him an opportunity of being heard. It also means that, adjudicating authority must disclose all evidence and material placed before it in the course of hearing proceeding and must afford an opportunity to the person against whom the evidences are to be used to rebut it. Another rule of hearing is “he who hears should decide” or “one who decides must hear”.Q.Justice Nayan Mehta, decided in favour of a particular legal interpretation in a judgment. His was a majority judgment in a 3 judge bench. He while delivering the judgment knew that there was an existing judgment of another 3 judge bench which had decided in favour of another legal interpretation on the same issue. As per settled law, if there are two conflicting judgment on same issue which was decided by a bench of similar strength then the judgment which came earlier shall be given the preference in validity. But Nayan J. in his judgment wrote that, due to existence of an earlier judgment of 3 judge bench on same issue there remains a conflict of opinion thus the issue should be sent to a larger bench of 5 judges and hence he referred it to a 5 judge bench. Now when the matter came before5 judge bench, it was justice nayanmehta who presided the bench and judgment was delivered in favour of interpretation given by Nayan J in his 3 judge bench decision. Nayan J himself wrote the judgment for majority and case was decided by 3:2 in favour of Nayan J’s Interpretation. Decide whether there has been a violation of principle of natural justice in the 5 judge bench judgment?a)Yes, there is a clear bias which nayan J. Shows in favor of his version of legal interpretation and it is evident from the fact that he bypassed a settled law and referred the matter to a 5 judge bench and then ended up following his own decision.b)No, there were 4 more judges apart from Nayan J. thus it cannot be said that decision was of his alone, hence question of bias did not arise in this case.c)No, just because he had favoured an interpretation earlier does not mean that he will not decide the reference in just and fair manner.d)No, there is no bias, threshold of bias cannot be this low, if his interpretation was right then he can follow it in any number of cases he want to and not just in reference but in review too. For instance, judges who decided the death penalty for nirbhaya rape accused are the same who are also hearing their curative petition, and if they decide in favour of death penalty, would you then say that they were biased for they gave the same decision? No, right?Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Read the following passage and answer the question.Rule of natural justice are placed so highthat it has been declared time and again by courts that “no human law are of any validity, if contrary to this”, and court of law could discard an act of parliament if it is contrary to natural justice. Generally no provision is found in any statute for observance of principle of natural justice by adjudicating authorities.Question then arises, whether the adjudicating authorities are bound to follow these principles. Law is well settled on this point, courts have observed that even though there is no positive words in a statuteor rules requiring that the parties shall be heard, yet the principles of natural justice will supply the omission of legislature. In other words if a statute or rule authorising interference with property, civil or fundamental rights was silent on question of hearing and notice, the courts will apply the rules as it is “of universal application and founded on plainest principle of natural justice”. Non-observance of principle will invalidate the exercise of power by any authority. Principle of natural justice are binding on all courts, judicial bodies and quasi judicial bodies. Question is -are they applicable to an administrative action? Earlier court took the view that it is inapplicable but as per lord denning “that heresy has been scotched”. Thus a statutory body irrespective of its nature or function has to act fairly and not in an arbitrary manner.Principles of natural justice differs from situation to situation but certain basic premises remain the same. For instance, accused should know the nature of accusation made, he should be given an opportunity to state his case and tribunal should act in good faith. Whenever, a complaint is made to court regarding non observance of principles of natural justice, court has to see whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just and fair decision as per the facts of the case. If it was necessary then court will declare the decision ultra vires the power of authority.Traditionally, there are 2 principles of natural justice.(i) No man shall be judge in his own cause, or no man can act as both at the one and the same time- a party or a suitor and also a judge, or a deciding authority must be impartial and without bias.(ii) Hear the other side, or both the side must be heard, or no man should be condemned unheard, or that there must be fairness on the part of deciding authority.Rule against bias simply means that, justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Anything which tends or may be regarded as tending to cause such person to decide a case otherwise than on evidence must be held to be biased. Judge is supposed to be indifferent to the parties in a controversy. He must be in position to decide the matter objectively. He cannot allow his personal prejudice to go into decision making. Object is not merely that scales be held even; it is also that they may not appear to be inclined. This rule also applies to administrative authorities required to act judicially.Right to be heard simply means that, a party is not to suffer in person or in purse without an opportunity of being heard. In short, before an order is passed against any person, reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to him. This maxim includes 2 elements- notice and hearing. Any action taken without notice is against principle of natural justice and is void ab initio. Notice must be clear, specific and unambiguous and charges should not be vague and uncertain. Moreover, notice must give reasonable opportunity to comply with requirement mentioned therein. Hearing simply means that no adverse action can be taken against any person without giving him an opportunity of being heard. It also means that, adjudicating authority must disclose all evidence and material placed before it in the course of hearing proceeding and must afford an opportunity to the person against whom the evidences are to be used to rebut it. Another rule of hearing is “he who hears should decide” or “one who decides must hear”.Q.Justice Nayan Mehta, decided in favour of a particular legal interpretation in a judgment. His was a majority judgment in a 3 judge bench. He while delivering the judgment knew that there was an existing judgment of another 3 judge bench which had decided in favour of another legal interpretation on the same issue. As per settled law, if there are two conflicting judgment on same issue which was decided by a bench of similar strength then the judgment which came earlier shall be given the preference in validity. But Nayan J. in his judgment wrote that, due to existence of an earlier judgment of 3 judge bench on same issue there remains a conflict of opinion thus the issue should be sent to a larger bench of 5 judges and hence he referred it to a 5 judge bench. Now when the matter came before5 judge bench, it was justice nayanmehta who presided the bench and judgment was delivered in favour of interpretation given by Nayan J in his 3 judge bench decision. Nayan J himself wrote the judgment for majority and case was decided by 3:2 in favour of Nayan J’s Interpretation. Decide whether there has been a violation of principle of natural justice in the 5 judge bench judgment?a)Yes, there is a clear bias which nayan J. Shows in favor of his version of legal interpretation and it is evident from the fact that he bypassed a settled law and referred the matter to a 5 judge bench and then ended up following his own decision.b)No, there were 4 more judges apart from Nayan J. thus it cannot be said that decision was of his alone, hence question of bias did not arise in this case.c)No, just because he had favoured an interpretation earlier does not mean that he will not decide the reference in just and fair manner.d)No, there is no bias, threshold of bias cannot be this low, if his interpretation was right then he can follow it in any number of cases he want to and not just in reference but in review too. For instance, judges who decided the death penalty for nirbhaya rape accused are the same who are also hearing their curative petition, and if they decide in favour of death penalty, would you then say that they were biased for they gave the same decision? No, right?Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Read the following passage and answer the question.Rule of natural justice are placed so highthat it has been declared time and again by courts that “no human law are of any validity, if contrary to this”, and court of law could discard an act of parliament if it is contrary to natural justice. Generally no provision is found in any statute for observance of principle of natural justice by adjudicating authorities.Question then arises, whether the adjudicating authorities are bound to follow these principles. Law is well settled on this point, courts have observed that even though there is no positive words in a statuteor rules requiring that the parties shall be heard, yet the principles of natural justice will supply the omission of legislature. In other words if a statute or rule authorising interference with property, civil or fundamental rights was silent on question of hearing and notice, the courts will apply the rules as it is “of universal application and founded on plainest principle of natural justice”. Non-observance of principle will invalidate the exercise of power by any authority. Principle of natural justice are binding on all courts, judicial bodies and quasi judicial bodies. Question is -are they applicable to an administrative action? Earlier court took the view that it is inapplicable but as per lord denning “that heresy has been scotched”. Thus a statutory body irrespective of its nature or function has to act fairly and not in an arbitrary manner.Principles of natural justice differs from situation to situation but certain basic premises remain the same. For instance, accused should know the nature of accusation made, he should be given an opportunity to state his case and tribunal should act in good faith. Whenever, a complaint is made to court regarding non observance of principles of natural justice, court has to see whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just and fair decision as per the facts of the case. If it was necessary then court will declare the decision ultra vires the power of authority.Traditionally, there are 2 principles of natural justice.(i) No man shall be judge in his own cause, or no man can act as both at the one and the same time- a party or a suitor and also a judge, or a deciding authority must be impartial and without bias.(ii) Hear the other side, or both the side must be heard, or no man should be condemned unheard, or that there must be fairness on the part of deciding authority.Rule against bias simply means that, justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Anything which tends or may be regarded as tending to cause such person to decide a case otherwise than on evidence must be held to be biased. Judge is supposed to be indifferent to the parties in a controversy. He must be in position to decide the matter objectively. He cannot allow his personal prejudice to go into decision making. Object is not merely that scales be held even; it is also that they may not appear to be inclined. This rule also applies to administrative authorities required to act judicially.Right to be heard simply means that, a party is not to suffer in person or in purse without an opportunity of being heard. In short, before an order is passed against any person, reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to him. This maxim includes 2 elements- notice and hearing. Any action taken without notice is against principle of natural justice and is void ab initio. Notice must be clear, specific and unambiguous and charges should not be vague and uncertain. Moreover, notice must give reasonable opportunity to comply with requirement mentioned therein. Hearing simply means that no adverse action can be taken against any person without giving him an opportunity of being heard. It also means that, adjudicating authority must disclose all evidence and material placed before it in the course of hearing proceeding and must afford an opportunity to the person against whom the evidences are to be used to rebut it. Another rule of hearing is “he who hears should decide” or “one who decides must hear”.Q.Justice Nayan Mehta, decided in favour of a particular legal interpretation in a judgment. His was a majority judgment in a 3 judge bench. He while delivering the judgment knew that there was an existing judgment of another 3 judge bench which had decided in favour of another legal interpretation on the same issue. As per settled law, if there are two conflicting judgment on same issue which was decided by a bench of similar strength then the judgment which came earlier shall be given the preference in validity. But Nayan J. in his judgment wrote that, due to existence of an earlier judgment of 3 judge bench on same issue there remains a conflict of opinion thus the issue should be sent to a larger bench of 5 judges and hence he referred it to a 5 judge bench. Now when the matter came before5 judge bench, it was justice nayanmehta who presided the bench and judgment was delivered in favour of interpretation given by Nayan J in his 3 judge bench decision. Nayan J himself wrote the judgment for majority and case was decided by 3:2 in favour of Nayan J’s Interpretation. Decide whether there has been a violation of principle of natural justice in the 5 judge bench judgment?a)Yes, there is a clear bias which nayan J. Shows in favor of his version of legal interpretation and it is evident from the fact that he bypassed a settled law and referred the matter to a 5 judge bench and then ended up following his own decision.b)No, there were 4 more judges apart from Nayan J. thus it cannot be said that decision was of his alone, hence question of bias did not arise in this case.c)No, just because he had favoured an interpretation earlier does not mean that he will not decide the reference in just and fair manner.d)No, there is no bias, threshold of bias cannot be this low, if his interpretation was right then he can follow it in any number of cases he want to and not just in reference but in review too. For instance, judges who decided the death penalty for nirbhaya rape accused are the same who are also hearing their curative petition, and if they decide in favour of death penalty, would you then say that they were biased for they gave the same decision? No, right?Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.