Written by Titiksha kakran ,
Intern-Lex Lumen Research Journal,
June 2025
Introduction
The principles of natural justice, though rooted in English common law with a limited scope, have evolved into a foundational part of Indian legal and administrative systems. While not expressly mentioned in the Constitution, they are intertwined with Article 14, ensuring fairness, non-arbitrariness, and equality before the law. Over time, Indian courts have expanded the reach of natural justice through judicial interpretation, making it an essential part of administrative law and procedural fairness.
The origin of Natural Justice: Recognition and distinction
In this context ‘natural’ is equivalent to ‘universal’ or ‘universally valid’[1]; Natural justice is rooted in moral fairness and universal principles Initially; It was like Graeco-Roman notion of natural law. Aristotle believed natural justice is that which is universally valid, it does not depend on laws or customs of any society but arises from nature and reason. It is immutable and applies to all human beings regardless of time or place. Natural justice is misunderstood as being the same as legal justice. While they may appear similar, they are not the same. Where Natural Justice aligns with morality and universally valid notions, legal Justice are set up by Human laws and varies from one society to another. Hence, true justice involved aligning manufactured laws with deeper, universal principle of natural justice.
Natural Justice in Indian Judicial Veins
Indian judiciary implements principles of Natural Justice in a very contested role, applied not through explicit constitutional provisions but through evolving judicial discretions. Justice Krishna Iyer in Meneka Gandhi case [2] quoted ‘Natural Justice is the essence of fair adjudication deep rooted in constitutional conscience not just in judicial courtesy.’ While his contribution undeniably expanded the moral scope of jurisprudence, this interpretation was leaned heavily on judicial idealism rather than legal clarity. Justice Iyer’s approach was progressive, but it sometimes blurred the lines between what law is and what the law ought to be.
There are innumerable reasons for adopting a cautious approach when interpreting natural justice. One explanation is that the judiciary has supported a conservative stance in expanding the interpretation of natural justice, like its approach towards fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, particularly Article 21.
Dr. Ambedkar defined Fundamental rights as the rights for every citizen who must be able to claim those. However, if the constituent Assembly had employed the term ‘Natural rights’ instead of Fundamental rights, the imperative for a binding application of the principles of Natural justice would have been infinitely more pressing. This is because Natural Rights is an ontological condition of a human, they exist by virtue of human existence. Therefore, Natural rights are inalienable rights, which can neither be taken away by any authority, including Indian constitution on the other hand in the explicitly detailed debates of constituent assembly fundamental rights were never pronounced with the adjective ‘inalienable’ hence, the ‘absoluteness’ of Natural rights and natural justice could be hard to maintain. But on a word of caution, Natural Justice could find a free place in the constitution where the court accept to apply the law according to the spirit of the constitution. Despite natural justice being an integral part of our constitution and legal system, the supreme court denied its very existence in A.K Gopalan case, even though American courts accepted it previously.
Application of Natural Justice
Now we come to its application by the supreme court of India, they have often used the principle of Natural Justice since independence. The supreme court of India has not deviated from the above principles of natural justice and has in substance adopted them. There are decided cases in which the supreme court applied natural justice as fundamental basis of its decision. While we thought that natural justice had little to no place in our jurisprudence in view of the judgement given in Gopalan’s case, the supreme court made a reference to it in a case in 1952 where the judges said that when an inferior tribunal commits , ‘apparent on the face of the proceeding or any irregularity , it is a case which goes contrary to the principles of natural justice’[3]
Chief justice Mahajan in a concurring judgement made a very cryptic reference to Natural Justice and with justification in the case of Mukhtar Singh v. State of U.P.
‘The principle of Natural Justice are those rules which have been laid down by the courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial or quasi-judicial authorities while making an order, affecting those rights…. these rules intend to prevent such authority from doing injustice.’[4]
In the case of Nagendra Nath Bose v. The commissioner of Hill division. J. Sinha observed that.
‘The rules of natural Justice are contravened and should be decided not under any preconceived notion but in the light of statutory rules and provisions…. The rules vary with the varying circumstances of statutory bodies and the rules prescribed by the act under which they function…’
In the light of the above case, it becomes plain that the principles of natural justice applied by the supreme court are not one sided. There are some instances of cases where the Supreme court did not apply these rules of Natural Justice for instance, in AK Gopalan case Justice Fazal Ali reported ‘No procedure is known or can be said to have been established by such vague and uncertain concepts as the immutable and universal principles of natural justice’
Article 14 and Natural Justice
The Indian judiciary, though cautious, has often turned to natural justice to uphold citizens’ rights with remarkable outcomes. A clear reflection seen in the evolving interpretation of Article 14, which requires not just reasonable classification, but one that is just, fair, and aligned with natural justice. These two are cemented together, without natural justice Article 14 loses its essence. Natural justice has an expanding content and is not stagnant. It is, therefore, open to the courts to develop new principles of natural justice in appropriate cases[5]
Why not ONLY Natural Justice?
Most esteemed constitutions around the world are primarily the foundation of legal justice, laws tailored to suit the need of their respective societies with natural justice serving a guiding moral influence. A society crafted purely on the principles of Natural Justice, they would prioritize fairness, morality and reason above rigid procedure and technicalities. Every individual would be guaranteed a fair hearing, unbiased judgement and protection against arbitrary action sounds ideal?
The catch is, relying solely on natural justice can lead to ambiguity and inconsistency. A country cannot function solely on the intuition or discretion of a leader, as natural justice can often swayed by the leader’s own sense of fairness. What feels ‘natural just’ can differ from person to person, culture to culture. Natural justice equates to absence of written rules; decisions might become biased, and judgements driven through personal perspective will ironically defeat the principle of Natural justice.
Natural justice does not always provide a clear guideline for complex modern issues. Legal systems need structure, precision and enforceability something moral principles alone may not deliver. Famous instances where the principle of natural justice taken into consideration have led to notable conclusions. In the Tulsi Ram Patel case[6], the Supreme Court held that natural justice can be excluded in exceptional circumstances such as public interest or national security, thereby setting up that natural justice is not an absolute right, it can be bypassed when necessary. This illustrates a crucial truth: natural justice is not always sufficient. In complex situations, legal justice steps in to ensure structure, enforceability, and consistency. A clear example is the Bhopal Gas Tragedy compensation case[7], where victims were denied the opportunity of a fair hearing, and the government settled the matter unilaterally. Though the intent may have been to act swiftly, natural justice failed in that instance. After all, in situations involving mass grievances or national emergencies, a fair hearing for every individual is not always feasible. This is why a country cannot rely solely on natural justice; a functional legal system requires a balanced blend of both natural and legal justice to ensure fairness without compromising on order or efficiency.
Conclusion
Natural justice has a rich and evolving legacy, shaped by the need to check arbitrary power. It has always been a path to raise questions which deserved to be questioned, it may lack clear cut solutions but, in a system, built on law and conscience, natural justice reminds is that how justice is delivered is with fairness.
[1] The Philosophical Quarterly (1950-), Vol. 12, No. 48 (Jul. 1962), pp. 218-227 (10 pages) {Jstor.org}
[2] Meneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248.
[3] Parry and Co. v. C.E.A; AIR 1942 S.C.P 179.
[4] Principles Of Natural Justice – Legal Service India, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-9294-principles-of-natural-justice.html.
[5] Dev Dutt v. Union of India, AIR 2008 SC 2513.
[6] Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398
[7] Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (1990) 1 SCC 613
