Natural Justice Is The Ultimate Minimum Fairness Procedure

INTRODUCTION

The principles of natural justice are classic examples of judicial activism. The courts developed them as juridical laws. These laws aim to prevent accidents in the exercise of power vested in administrative authorities or governmental bodies.

In the case of India, there does not exist a single statute. This statute should lay down the minimum procedure. It must be followed by administrative agencies while exercising decision-making powers. At times, a statute provides for a procedure with regards to administrative agencies. Sometimes, the statute does not provide any sort of procedure. In these cases, the administrative agency has discretion. The administrative agency can devise its own procedure. However, the courts of law have always maintained a position. They believe administrative agencies must follow a minimum fair procedure. This minimum fair procedure is referred to as the principles of natural justice.

The principles of natural justice is divided into various rules of bias, which are briefly discussed as follows:-

1. PERSONAL BIAS

Personal bias arises from a certain relationship equation between the deciding authority and the parties. It might incline the authority unfavorably or otherwise toward one party before him. This situation may develop out of varied forms of personal or professional hostility or friendship. Thus, no exhaustive list of personal bias is possible. Real likelihood of bias or reasonable suspicion of bias It is essential to prove that there is a reasonable suspicion or a real likelihood of bias in order to challenge an administrative action successfully on the ground of personal bias. The test of reasonable suspicion mainly focuses on outward appearance. The test of real likelihood mainly focuses on the court's own evaluation of possibilities. However, in practical sense, both tests have much more in common than expected. Because it is impossible to read the mind of a person. The courts do not question whether or not a person was biased.

They instead focus on whether there is a ground to believe. This ground is to determine if the deciding officer had a likelihood of being biased.

In order to ascertain whether a deciding officer was likely to have been biased, the judges take into consideration the human possibilities. They also consider the ordinary course of human conduct.

2. PECUNIARY BIAS

With regards to pecuniary bias, any financial interest, however small would vitiate administrative action. Non-participation of the biased member in the proceedings would not avoid such disqualification if he was present when the decision was reached. In the case of R. v. Hendon Rural District Council (1993) 2 KB 696 (DC), the chief justice constituted the bench after finding that one of the members of the bench was a member of a cooperative society for which the land had been acquired. In this case, the chief justice observed the existence of pecuniary bias, which went against the principles of natural justice. The House of Commons were of the view that the rule against bias has two very similar but not identical implications: 1) A judge is automatically disqualified to act as a judge without investigation, if he has financial or property interest in the case or is a party to the suit, as this would indicate, real likelihood of bias or suspicion of bias unless the judge makes a voluntary disclosure 2) A judge cannot be automatically disqualified. If the judge has no financial or property proprietary interest and is also not a party to the case even though his conduct of behaviour gives rise to a suspicion of bias.

3. SUBJECT MATTER BIAS

In cases where the deciding officer is directly or otherwise involved in the subject matter of the case. The case falls within the category of subject matter by bias. In this case a mere involvement would not appreciate the administrative action unless there is a real likelihood of bias.

In an illustration, the court held that a real likelihood of bias did not exist. The court did not declare the magistrate disqualified to try a case of cruelty to an animal because he was a member of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

In the case of Murli Vasakadam Singh, AIR 1954 MP 111, the court decided that the election tribunal's decision did not fall under bias. The court based this on the fact that the chairman's wife was a member of the Congress party, whose candidate the petitioner defeated.

Similarly, in another case, the court held that mere suspicion of bias against the speaker did not attract the rule of subject matter bias. This suspicion arose from his actions under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, based on his affiliation with a political party.

4. DEPARTMENTAL BIAS

The departmental bias, if not effectively checked, might destroy the very concept of fairness in administrative proceedings. This bias is inherent in administrative processes.

In the case of Nageswara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh, A. P. SRTC AIR 1959 SC 308, the Supreme Court considered the question of departmental bias. In this case, the petitioner had challenged the order of the government nationalizing road transport.

The ground for which the soldier was challenged was that the secretary of the Department of Transport, who gave the hearing, was biased. This was because he was a person who initiated the scheme. He was also later the head of the department responsible for executing it.

The court quashed the order on the ground that the circumstances suggested the secretary was biased. This violated the principles of natural justice. The court established the question of departmental bias in cases where the functions of the judge and prosecutor are combined in the same department.

In cases where the same department initiates a matter and also decides, it leads to the problem of departmental bias. This suggests the violation of natural justice as it violates the concept of fair hearing.

5. POLICY NOTION BIAS

Policy notion bias is a bias that arises out of preconceived policy notions. On one hand, we can observe that no judge, as a human being, is expected to be completely free of any biases. On the other hand, any preconceived policy notions vitiate a fair trial and go against the concept of natural justice. Recent judgments suggest that courts do not consider policy bias as bias that violates administrative action. In the case of Bajaj Hindustan Limited v. sir Shadilal enterprises limited (2011)1 SCC 640, the court decided that it would not challenge an administrative action on the ground of policy bias.

6. PRECONCEIVED NOTION BIAS

Preconceived notion bias is also known as unconscious bias. The reason for this is because persons exercising adjudication powers are human beings at the end of the day. They do have human prejudices which cannot be completely removed. These prejudices may include class bias and personality bias.

Class is a concept which affects every human being. It is the result of being a product of a particular class or inheriting characteristics of a particular class. This may also reflect in a person's decision-making process. Similarly, the personality of a person is a combination of his biological and social heredity. These determine his values and attitudes that may condition his decision-making process.

Deciding authority only regards unconscious bias as a problem if it shows these biases through some overt action. Such a detection might vitiate an administrative hearing if the bias has a direct relation with the decision. For example, the deciding officer openly expresses his prejudices.

Lord Devlin, stated, “The judge who is confident that he has no prejudices or bias at all is more certain to be a bad judge. Prejudice cannot be exorcised, but like a weakness of the flesh it can be subdued but it has to be first detected.”

7. BIAS ON ACCOUNT OF OBSTINACY

Bias on account of obstinacy is a new category of bias arising from thoroughly unreasonable obstinacy. The Supreme Court of India discovered this bias in a case where the judge of the Calcutta High Court sat in appeal against his old judgment and upheld his own judgment. There was no direct violation of any profession. That does not exist a provision that states that no judge can sit in appeal against his own judgement. This rule can only be violated indirectly. In this case, the judge validated his own order in an earlier writ petition, which the division bench had overruled. Obstinacy refers to an unreasonable and unwavering persistence by the deciding officer who does not take no for an answer. An exception to this is the doctrine of necessity as law itself permits where it is imperative for an authority to decide. This doctrine of necessity can be invoked in cases of bias where there is no authority to decide the issue. The reason for this doctrine is that if the doctrine is not fully applied in certain unavoidable situations, it would lead to injustice. The defaulting party would benefit from it.