Effect of Non-Compliance with Rules of Natural Justice | Administrative Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

Effect of Noncompliance with Principles of Natural Justice

Voidable vs. Void Decisions

• Voidable Order: An order that is legal and valid unless set aside by a competent court at the request of an aggrieved party.
• Void Order: An order that is not recognized by law and can be ignored, disregarded, disobeyed, or challenged in any court or tribunal. It is considered a nullity and void ab initio.

Judicial Perspectives

• India's Stance: Indian courts consistently view orders violating natural justice as null and void. For instance, cancelling the appointment of a government servant without a hearing is deemed invalid.
• Prejudice Test: Not every violation of natural justice renders an order null and void. The validity is assessed based on the test of prejudice or fair hearing.
• Operative Invalidity: An order deemed ultra vires and violating natural justice remains operative until declared invalid by a competent court. Once declared, it collapses automatically without needing to be quashed.

Landmark Cases

• Nawab Khan Abbaskhan v. State of Gujarat: The Supreme Court ruled that an order violating the Audi alteram partem rule is a nullity. In this case, an externment order was deemed invalid due to lack of hearing, highlighting that such violations constitute jurisdictional errors.
• Swadeshi Cotton Mills: The court established that an order violating natural justice rules is not a nullity that cannot be reviewed through a post-decisional hearing, contrasting with the Nawab Khan case.

Grounds on Which the Judgement Raised Before the Court

• Powers conferred under a statute can be classified as judicial,quasi-judicial, or executive.
• A judicial decision is made based on legal rules and principles, while an administrative decision is made according to administrative policy.
• The distinction between executive and quasi-judicial powers can be complex and is often difficult to determine.
• Certiorari or prohibition can be used to quash or restrain actions taken in excess of jurisdiction when dealing with quasi-judicial powers.
• Judicial and executive functions share similarities, as both involve a mental process, and there is overlap between the two.
• The case of Jay Engineering Works v. State of West Bengal illustrates the complexities of distinguishing between these powers.