DEPT.

OF LEGAL SCIENCE
PROJECT
OF
“CONCEPT OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND
PRINCIPLE OF RULE AGAINST BIAS”

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR

THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF LAWS

SUBMITTED BY
NAME: DEBOPRIYA GHOSH
ID NO.: 211001503035
PAPER NAME & CODE:
PROGRAM & SEMESTER: BA.LLB, 4TH SEMESTER

SUBMITTED TO: Miss Rituparna Mullick

 ABSTRACT
Natural justice is a fundamental principle of law that emphasizes the importance of fair and
unbiased decision-making processes. It is based on the belief that individuals have certain rights
that must be respected, and that justice should be served in a way that is both fair and equitable.
One of the key components of natural justice is the rule against bias, which requires decision-
makers to be impartial and free from any personal, financial, or other interest that might affect
their judgement. This abstract explores Natural justice and Rule against Bias including their
historical origins and how they are applied in practice. Ultimately, it highlights the crucial role
that natural justice and the rule against bias play in promoting fairness and justice in all areas of
law.
 INTRODUCTION
The term “principle of natural justice” is derived from the Latin word “jus natural” and although
it is not codified, it is closely tied to common law and moral principles. It is a natural law which
has nothing to do with any statute or constitution. All inhabitant of civilized states places the
highest value on adherence to the natural justice principle. The Supreme Court issue its directive
with passage of time and the formation of social, just and economic statutory protection for
workers during the early day of fair practice, when industrial regions were governed by a strict
and rigid law to hire and fire.
Making an informed and fair judgement regarding a specific matter is known as natural justice.
Sometimes, the reasonable decision is irrelevant, what important is the process and the
participants in arriving at the reasonable decision. The concept and principles of natural justice
are not something new, it is as old as the dispensation of law itself. Natural justice is involved
with moral justice and is regulated through the law of equity. In simple terms, natural justice
means protecting an individual and taking reasonable discretion with utmost fairness and
legality. The need for natural justice arose from the excessive use of organized power which
leads to jeopardizing an individual’s right to defend himself. It ensures a fair hearing of the
matter. It implies providing justice to everyone without menacing another.
Nemo in propria causa judex, esse debet, i.e.; no one should be made a judge in his own cause. It
is popularly known as the rule against bias. It is the minimal requirement of the natural justice
that the authority giving decision must be composed of impartial persons acting fairly, without
prejudice and bias. Bias means operative prejudice, whether conscious or unconscious, as result
of some preconceived opinion or predisposition, in relation to a party or an issue.
The rule against bias strikes against those factors which may improperly influence a judge
against arriving at a decision in a particular case. This rule is based on the premises that it is
against the human psychology to decide a case against his own interest. A decision which is a
result of bias is nullity and the trial is Coram non judice.
 WHAT IS NATURAL JUSTICE?
Natural justice is also known as universal justice, substantial justice, or fair play in action. It is an
essential concept of divine law, which is based on the law of equity. Its importance can be
assumed to be reflected in every statute or enactment by promoting equity among parties, which
means equal treatment and opportunity. It simply means making simple and reasonable decision-
making procedure on a particular issue. Natural justice is a pervasive facet of secular law, where
a spiritual touch enlivens legislation, administration and adjudication to make fairness a creed of
life.
Initially, the concept of natural justice was confined to the judicial proceeding only but with the
advent of welfare state the powers of administrative authorities have considerably increased as a
result it becomes impossible for law to determine the fair procedure to be followed by each
authority while adjudicating any disputes or any quasi- judicial proceedings.
Court in order to prevent abuse of power and to check on their limits has evolved the principles
of natural justice as important safeguards against injustice. The object of natural justice is to
secure justice to the citizens and prevent contempt of justice.
There are two main rules of natural justice:
1. Hearing rule: The rule states that the people who are being affected by the decision being
made must be given a fair chance of presenting and defending themselves. The decision-
making authority must make sure that both the parties in any dispute or any legal
proceeding have been given a sufficient chance of being heard and any decision is not at,
without one of the parties having a fair opportunity to express their opinion.
2. Bias rule: It provides that the decision-making authority must not be unfairly inclined
towards the interest of any one particular party to the dispute, and must be neutral
towards both parties and consequently, the decision of such a dispute or legal proceeding
must be on the facts and merits of the circumstances, and not be influenced by any other
reason.
HISTORY OF NATURAL JUSTICE
The concept of natural justice has been in use since time immemorial. The very notion of natural
justice derives from the religious and philosophical viewpoint of how we see ourselves with
respect to nature. the concept of natural justice was acknowledged since the days of Kautliya,
Arthashashtra, and Adam. In the bible, when Adam and Eve ate the fruit of knowledge then
Adam and Eve were given the chance to defend themselves. Subsequently, the concept of natural
justice was adopted by English jurists to be essentials as to override all laws.
The word natural justice is derived from roman word ‘lex naturale’ and ‘jus naturale’ which in
turn gave wider meaning to the principles of natural justice, natural law, and equity. Lord
Evershed, Master of the rolls in Vionet v Barrett1 remarked, “Natural justice is the natural sense
of what is right and wrong.”

1
(1885) 55 LRJD 39,41, Lord Esher, MR defined natural.
In the case of Mohinder Singh vs Chief Election Commission2, held the importance of fair
decision making in every step of the procedure irrespective of it being judicial, quasi- judicial,
administrative and or quasi- administrative work.

PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

2
1978 AIR 851, 1978 SCR (3) 272
Natural justice is the administration of justice in a commonsense liberal way. The basic principle
underlying of natural justice is that “Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done”
and this rule has received wide recognition in several decisions of the Supreme court. These
principles have been laid down as being the minimum protection of rights of individuals against
arbitrary procedure, and to halt misuse of power vested in authorities. The principle of natural
justice has two ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action
of the authority should be given to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and
secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any
conclusion showing proper application of mind. The order of an administrative authority may not
provide reason like judgement but the order must be supported by reason of rationality.
According to traditional English law natural justice classified into two principles:
 Nemo judex in causa sua (rule against bias)
 Audi alteram partem (rule of fair hearing)
The principles lay down the standards that are to be adhered to in the process of decision making.
They ensure that every individual is provided with the opportunity of being heard. Moreover,
they ensure that the decision is being made by an independent judge.
Audi Alteram Partem, also known as the hearing rule. It states that no one should be considered
unheard. In any situation and circumstance where n individual’s right or liberty is being affected,
he should be provided with the opportunity of being heard. The two essentials of this rule are
notice and hearing. It is important to note that serving notice is not a mere technical formality but
should be sufficient and provide all the important information.
Both the parties must have an equal opportunity of being heard. A fair hearing constitutes the
right to know the evidence whether oral or documentary, the charges imposed, an opportunity to
present the defense and the right to cross-examine the witnesses.

RULE AGAINST BIAS

Nemo judex causa in sua means rule against bias. It is the first principle of natural justice which
says no man shall be judge in his own cause or a deciding authority must be impartial and neutral
while deciding any case. Bias means an act which leads to unfair activity whether in a conscious
or unconscious stage in relation to the party or a particular case. Therefore, the necessity of this
rule is to make the judge impartial and given judgement on the basis of evidence recorded as per
the case. Where it is found that a judge who is deciding any dispute has its own interest or some
outcome derived from such cases then the decision given by the authority shall not be executed
or it remains void.
Types of Bias:
1. Personal Bias:
Personal bias arises from a relation between the party and deciding authority. Which leads the
deciding authority in a doubtful situation to make an unfair activity and give judgement in favor
of his person. These situations arise due to various types of personal and professional
relationships. To successfully challenge an administrative action on the basis of personal bias, a
reasonable reason for bias must be provided. The Supreme court ruled that while one of the
members of the selection committee’s panel, his brother, was a candidate in the competition, the
entire selection procedure could not be thrown out.
In Ramanand Prasad Singh vs. Union of India 3, the Supreme court held that one of the
members of the panel of selection committee his brother was a candidate in the competition but
due to this, the whole procedure of selection cannot be quashed. Here, in order to avoid the
biases at the turn of his brother respective panel member connected with a candidate can be
requested to go out from the panel of the selection committee. So, a fair and reasonable decision
can be made.
In Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. Vs State of Bihar 4, the petitioner was granted
mining lease for 99 years in 1947. In 1953, the secretary of revenue board issued a notice to the
petitioners to show cause within 15 days as to why the license should not be cancelled for
violation by the petitioner of section 10, 12 and 14 of mining act.
The petitioner submitted a written reply denying the allegations. However, two years later,
government quashed the license. The petitioner bought an action against the minister passing this
order on the behalf of the government, on the ground that, the petitioner in 1952 opposed the
minister in general election. Therefore, on the account of political rivalry, the minister passed
such an order, and hence order was suffered from personal bias. Supreme court found the said
allegations to be true and quashed the said order.
2. Pecuniary Bias:
Pecuniary bias arises when the adjudicator has monetary or financial interest in the subject
matter of dispute. Least pecuniary interest in the subject matter of litigation will disqualify any
person from acting as a judge.
3
1996 SCC (4) 64, JT 1996 (4) 39
4
1960 AIR 468, 1960 SCR (2) 909
In Dimes vs Grand Junction Canal5, a public limited company filed a suit against a land owner
in matter largely involving the interest of the company. The lord chancellor who was a
shareholder in the company decided the case and gave relief to the company. His decision was
quashed by the House of Lords because there was a pecuniary interest of the Lord Chancellor in
the company.
In India also the same principle is accepted. It is obvious that pecuniary interest however small it
may be in a subject matter of the proceedings wholly disqualify a member from acting as a
judge.
3. Subject matter bias:
Subject matter simply means the “issue in question” or “the issue in controversy” or “issue
before the judge”. Bias as to subject matter may arise when the judge has general interest in the
subject matter in dispute. It may arise also when the deciding authority is directly or otherwise
involved in subject matter of the case.
In Murlidhar vs Kadam Singh6, the court refused to quash the decision of election tribunal on
the ground that the wife of the chairman was a member of the congress party whose candidate
the petitioner defeated.
4. Test for apparent bias:
It is not necessary that what appears wrong is wrong. The courts have developed two test to
conclude whether the interest of the adjudicating authority in a matter is sufficient to amounts to
apparent bias. The two tests are the ‘real likelihood test’ and the ‘reasonable suspicion test’.
In R.V Inner West London Corner ex. P. Dallagio7 (1994), by Lord Hewart CJ that justice
should not only be done but manifestly be seen to be done. This test focused on a desire to ensure
the faith of the public in the administration of justice.

CONCLUSION

5
(1852) 3 HLC 579
6
1954 CriLJ 1062
7
(1994) 1 KB 259
Natural justice and rule against bias are fundamental principles of procedural fairness that form
the basis of many legal systems around the world. The concept of natural justice ensures that
individuals are treated fairly and justly in legal proceedings, while the rule against bias requires
that decision-makers be impartial and free from any actual or perceived bias. The principle of
natural justice and the rule against bias are important safeguards against abuse of power and
ensure that decisions are made on the basis of the fact and the law, rather than personal bias or
prejudice. They also help to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the legal system.
The application of natural justice and rule against bias can vary depending on the context and the
specific legal system in question. However, in general, they require that individuals are given
notice of any proceedings or decisions that may affect their rights, and an opportunity to be heard
and present evidence. They also require decision-makers to be independent, impartial and free
from any conflicts of interest. Overall, natural justice and rule against bias are essential
components of a fair and just legal system, and their importance cannot be overstated. They play
a crucial role in protecting the rights of individuals and ensuring that the legal system operates in
a fair and transparent manner.

SUGGESTIONS
Few suggestions for ensuring that the principle of natural justice and rule against bias are upheld:
 All parties involved in a dispute should have the opportunity to present their case and be
heard in a fair and impartial manner.
 The decision makers should be impartial and unbiased.
 All parties should have the right to present evidence and make submissions to support
their case.
 Decision makers should disclose any interest that could affect their ability to make an
impartial decision.
 Decision makers should make decisions based on the evidence and facts presented, rather
than personal opinion or bias.

REFERENCE
 https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Natural-Justice
 https://www.sbhambriadvocates.com/post/theory-of-natural-justice
 https://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l28-Nemo-in-propria-causa-judex,-esse-debet-
(THE-RULE-AGAINST-BIAS).html
 https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1549-concept-of-natural-justice.html
 https://www.northeastlawjournal.com/post/natural-justice-meaning-and-principles
 https://www.iilsindia.com/blogs/natural-justice-indian-constitution/
 https://lexlife68840978.wordpress.com/2020/05/18/principle-of-natural-justice-rule-
against-bias/