Exceptions to Natural Justice | Administrative Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

Exceptions to Principles of Natural Justice

The term "exceptions" in the context of natural justice can be misleading. In certain exclusionary cases, the principle of audi alteram partem is deemed inapplicable not as an exception to fair play, but because the absence of an opportunity to present or counter a case does not imply unfairness.

• The principles of natural justice are ultimately assessed based on fairness. Thus, the application of these principles is carefully considered in situations where their extension could lead to greater injustice than justice. For instance, a party may lose its right to a hearing if it is unfairly prolonging proceedings and undermining the objectives.
• Application of the principles of natural justice can be excluded either expressly or by necessary implication, subject to the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, if the statute, expressly or by necessary implication, precludes the rules of natural justice, it will not suffer in validation on the ground of arbitrariness, unless a person suffers adverse civil consequences. In such situation, fair hearing will be read into the law.

Doctrine of Necessity

• The doctrine of necessity serves as an exception to the principle of bias in the context of decision-making. It allows certain actions to be taken out of necessity, even if they would typically be considered improper from a judicial standpoint. When faced with bias, the doctrine of necessity compels the authority to make a decision, prioritizing the need for resolution over strict adherence to judicial propriety.
• This doctrine is invoked in situations where there is no alternative authority available to decide the issue at hand. If the doctrine of necessity is not applied in unavoidable circumstances, it could obstruct the course of justice, potentially benefiting the party at fault. When the options are to either allow a biased individual to make a decision or to halt the process entirely, the former is preferred to ensure decision-making continues.
• In the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav vs. Haryana, the court ruled that a member of the Public Service Commission could not completely remove himself from the selection process simply because some candidates were related to him. While he should recuse himself from the selection of candidates he is related to, he need not disassociate himself from the selection of other candidates. Although his involvement in the selection committee could create a potential bias in favor of his relatives, the constitutional nature of the Public Service Commission necessitates his participation. If substitution is possible, the doctrine of necessity would not apply.

Doctrine of Absolute Necessity

• The doctrine of 'absolute necessity' is also considered an exception to the principle of bias. It applies in situations where it is absolutely essential to address a case of bias and no other option is available.
• In the case of Election Commission of India vs. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy, the Supreme Court had to decide whether Chief Election Commissioner T.N. Seshan, who was allegedly biased in favor of Swamy due to their long friendship, could participate in providing the Election Commission's opinion. The opinion was regarding the disqualification of Jayalalitha, the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, under Article 191 of the Constitution.
• Swamy had petitioned the Governor, claiming that Jayalalitha was disqualified under Article 191 read with Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, due to her involvement in a contract with the Government at the time of her election. According to Article 192 of the Constitution, the Governor must obtain the Election Commission's opinion before making a decision on such disqualification matters.
• The Governor forwarded Swamy's petition to the Election Commission for its opinion. Jayalalitha filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to prevent Seshan from participating in the opinion-giving process due to his alleged bias against her. The High Court, through a single judge bench, ruled that Seshan should not provide his opinion because of his prejudice against Jayalalitha. The single judge also determined that Jayalalitha had not incurred any disqualification.
• On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court agreed that the preceding bench had erred in deciding Jayalalitha's disqualification, as that decision could only be made by the Election Commission. However, the Division Bench concurred with the single judge bench that Seshan was biased and should not give his opinion. The Division Bench noted that with the appointment of two additional members to the Election Commission, the Commission could provide its opinion without Seshan's involvement.

Exceptions in Case of Statute Provision

• Courts imply the principle of natural justice when the parent statute under which an administrative action is taken is silent about its application. The mere omission to mention the right to a hearing in the statutory provision does not automatically exclude the right to a hearing for the affected individual.
• Charan Lal Sahu vs. UOI(Bhopal Gas Disaster case) exemplifies this exception. In this case, the constitutional validity of the Bhopal Gas Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985, which authorized the Central Government to represent all victims in compensation matters, was challenged. The argument was that the Central Government, owning a 22% share in the Union Carbide Company, was a joint tortfeasor, creating a conflict of interest between the government and the victims.
• The court rejected this argument and held that even if the Central Government was a joint tortfeasor, the doctrine of necessity applied. If the government did not represent all gas victims, no other sovereign body could do so. Therefore, the principles of natural justice were not applicable in this situation.
• However, any statutory exclusion of procedural fairness is interpreted strictly. If a statutory provision does not expressly or by necessary implication exclude the right to legal professional's privilege, the provision is interpreted not to do so. If a statute conferring power to hold a hearing or conduct an inquiry does not specify a hearing, refusing to hold the inquiry may constitute a denial of natural justice if fairness clearly demands a hearing.

Exceptions in Case of Legislative Acts

• One ground for excluding the requirement of a hearing is when the administrative action in question is legislative rather than administrative in nature. Typically, an order of a general nature that does not apply to specific individuals is considered legislative.
• Legislative action, whether plenary or subordinate, is not bound by the rules of natural justice. This is because legislative actions establish policies without reference to specific individuals. Similarly, principles of natural justice can be excluded by provisions in the Constitution.
• The Constitution of India excludes the principles of natural justice in Articles 22, 31(A), (B), (C), and 311(2) as a matter of policy. However, if the legislative exclusion is arbitrary, unreasonable, and unfair, courts may invalidate such provisions under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Exception in Case of Confidentiality Clause

• In the case of Malak Singh v. State of Punjab and Haryana, the Supreme Court ruled that the Police's maintenance of the Surveillance Register is a confidential matter. Neither the individual whose name is recorded in the Register nor any other member of the public can access it.
• The Court further noted that adhering to the principles of Natural Justice in such cases could undermine the very purpose of surveillance, potentially thwarting the ends of justice instead of serving them.
• In the case of S.P. Gupta v. U.O.I, the Supreme Court determined that an additional judge of the High Court cannot be given an opportunity to be heard before his name is dropped from consideration for confirmation. This highlights the idea that in a country like India, where surveillance can significantly constrain individual liberty, the maintenance of the surveillance Register cannot be entirely administrative and non-judicial, making the application of natural justice rules challenging.

Exception in Case of Emergency

• In India, it is widely accepted that in situations of extreme urgency, where public interest would be compromised by the delay or publicity involved in a hearing, the requirement for a hearing before taking action may be waived. This is particularly true in exceptional cases of emergency where prompt preventive or remedial action is necessary. If the right to be heard would hinder the process, the law may exclude it.
• In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. CEC, the Supreme Court addressed whether notice and the right to be heard were mandatory. During the Firozpur Constituency Parliamentary Election, counting was in progress, and in some segments, counting had been completed. One candidate was leading significantly, but before the results were declared, a mob violence incident resulted in the destruction of ballot papers and boxes in certain segments.
• The Election Commission, acting under Articles 324 and 329 without providing notice or a hearing to the candidates, canceled the election and ordered a fresh election. The Supreme Court upheld the Commission's decision, stating that in cases of emergency, the requirement of audi alteram partem (hearing both sides) could be excluded.
• In the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, the Court ruled that the term "immediate" in Section 18AA of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act does not prevent the application of Natural Justice principles. Under Section 18AA, the Central Government can take over an industry after investigation. However, Section 18AA(1) allows the government to take over without notice and hearing if production has been or is likely to be affected, and immediate action is deemed necessary. The question was whether Section 18AA(1) excludes the principles of Natural Justice.

Exception in Case of Impracticability

• Natural justice can be applied when it is practicable to do so. However, in situations where it is impracticable to follow the principles of natural justice, they can be excluded. For instance, in the case of Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhash Chandra, the Board conducted the final tenth standard examination.
• At a particular examination center with over a thousand students, the principles of natural justice were not followed due to the impracticality of doing so.

Exceptions in Case of Emergency

• In India, it is generally accepted that in situations of extreme urgency where public interest would be harmed by delays or the need for publicity in a hearing, a hearing before condemnation is not required by natural justice.
• In exceptional cases of emergency requiring prompt action, whether preventive or remedial, the need for notice and hearing may be waived. If the right to be heard would hinder the process, the law can exclude it.
• In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. CEC, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether notice and the right to be heard were necessary. During the Firozpur Constituency Parliamentary Election, counting was ongoing, and while one candidate had a significant lead, mob violence led to the destruction of ballot papers and boxes before the results were declared. The Election Commission of India (ECI), acting under Articles 324 and 329, canceled the election and ordered a fresh election without giving notice or hearing to the candidates. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, stating that in cases of emergency, the principle of Audi Alteram Partem(the right to be heard) can be excluded.
• In the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, the Court ruled that the term "immediate" in Section 18AA of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act does not prevent the application of natural justice principles. Under Section 18AA, the Central Government can take over an industry after investigation, but Section 18AA(1) allows the government to take over without notice and hearing if production is or is likely to be affected and immediate action is necessary. The question was whether Section 18AA(1) excludes natural justice principles. The government argued that Section 18AA(1) did not require adherence to natural justice.

Exception in Case of Impracticability

• Natural justice can be applied when it is practicable, but if it becomes impracticable to follow the principles of natural justice, then they can be excluded.
• In the case of Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhash Chandra, the Board conducted a final tenth standard examination. At one examination center with over a thousand students, there were allegations of mass copying. Even during evaluation, it was prima facie evident that mass copying had occurred as most answers were identical and received the same marks. Consequently, the Board cancelled the exam without offering any opportunity for hearing and ordered a fresh examination, requiring all students to retake the exam. Many students challenged this decision in the Patna High Court, arguing that they were not given a hearing before the exam was cancelled. The High Court ruled against the Board, citing a violation of Audi Alteram Partem.
• Unsatisfied with the High Court's decision, the Board appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's judgment, stating that conducting a hearing in this situation was impossible. Issuing notices to a thousand students and providing each with an opportunity for hearing, cross-examination, rebuttal, and presentation of evidence was not feasible. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that due to impracticability, a hearing could be excluded.

Exception in Case of Public Interest

• In Balco Employees' Union v. UOI, the Supreme Court opined that when making policy decisions in economic matters, the principles of natural justice are not applicable. In this instance, the employees contested the government's policy decision regarding disinvestment in a public sector undertaking. The court determined that the disinvestment decision could not be challenged on the grounds of natural justice unless it was found to be arbitrary, illegal, uninformed, or contrary to law.

Exception in Case of Administrative Matters

• When the authority's nature is purely administrative, there is no right to a hearing. In the case where a university student was removed from the rolls due to unsatisfactory academic performance without any pre-decisional hearing, the Supreme Court in Jawaharlal Nehru University v. B.S. Narwal ruled that the nature of academic adjudication negated the right to be heard. Therefore, if competent academic authorities assess a student's work over time and find it unsatisfactory, the principles of natural justice can be disregarded.
• Similarly, in Karnataka Public Service Commission v. B.M. Vijay Shanker, when the commission annulled a candidate's examination for violating rules by writing their roll number on every page of the answer sheet, the Supreme Court held that natural justice principles were not applicable. The Court emphasized that the hearing rule should be strictly interpreted in academic contexts, and ignoring it would not only be against public interest but also undermine the social sense of fairness. However, this exclusion would not apply in disciplinary matters or when the academic body carries out non-academic functions. Administrative actions like granting sanction for prosecution are purely administrative functions, thus not invoking natural justice principles. Likewise, cancellation of a bid for failure to execute a lease deed and deposit security amount would not invoke natural justice principles.

Conclusion

• The exceptions to the principles of natural justice in the UK and India primarily pertain to administrative proceedings. Courts in both countries, particularly in India, have established various exceptions to the requirement of natural justice principles and procedures, considering factors like time, place, and perceived danger during the decision-making process.
• It is crucial to note that these exceptions are circumstantial and not absolute. They do not apply uniformly to dissimilar situations and are flexible rather than rigid. Statutes, statutory rules, and the Constitution of the Tribunal deciding a matter can adopt and modify these rules.
• Every action by authorities considered an exception must be evaluated by the Courts based on prevailing circumstances. Instances where natural justice principles have been implicitly excluded suggest that Courts have acknowledged the doctrine even in the absence of explicit legislative wording. However, such cases are heavily dependent on their specific circumstances and do not establish a clear general principle.
• There are also instances where courts have determined that natural justice was unnecessary, highlighting the nuanced application of these principles. The exceptions, while providing flexibility, require careful consideration of the context and circumstances surrounding each case.