CLAT 2024 Passage 11 by Career Leaders | Dec 7, 2023 | 0 comments The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words, they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it. The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. In the past, it was thought that it included just two rules namely: (1) no one shall be a judge in his own case (Nemo debet esse judex propria causa) and (2) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem). Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi-judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably. But in the course of years many more subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice. Till very recently it was the opinion of the courts that unless the authority concerned was required by the law under which it functioned to act judicially there was no room for the application of the rules of natural justice. The validity of that limitation is not questioned. I f the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice one fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable to administrative enquiries. Often times it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial enquiries. Enquiries which were considered administrative at one time are now being considered as quasi-judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi-judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries. An unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have more far reaching effect than a decision in a quasi-judicial enquiry as observed by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [Civil Appeal No. 990/68, decided on 15-07- 1968], the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a court that some principle of natural justice had been contravened the court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case. [Extract from the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262, decided on April 29, 1969, hereafter ‘A.K. Kraipak’]. 1. The decision in A.K. Kraipak is considered a landmark authority for which of the following propositions: There is no application of the principles of natural justice to purely administrative functions. The principles of natural justice are in an ever-evolving state of flux. There is no application of the principles of natural justice to quasi-judicial functions. The principles of natural justice do not differentiate between administrative and quasi-judicial functions. None 2. The Court states in A.K. Kraipak that, ‘If the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice one fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable to administrative enquiries.’ Which of the following approaches to interpretation of statutes does the Court appear to adopt: Literal Interpretation All of the above. Strict Interpretation Constructive Interpretation None 3. The Court states in A.K. Kraipak, that ‘… in the course of years many more subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice.’ Which of the following is a later entrant to the principles of natural justice? No one shall be a Judge in their own cause. None of the above. Duty to hear. Duty to give reasons. None 4. The Supreme Court has recognized in several decisions that in cases requiring urgent administrative action or in exigencies, it may not always be possible to give full effect to the principles of natural justice without rendering the administrative action redundant in the circumstances. Which of the following is true for the requirements of natural justice in such cases? The administrator may provide for a post-decisional remedial hearing wherever pre-decisional hearing is not possible. None of the above. The administrator may choose to not follow principles of natural justice in case of emergency scenarios, where time does not permit such compliance, without recording their reasons in writing. The administrator may choose to not follow principles of natural justice in case of emergency scenarios, where time does not permit such compliance, but must record their reasons in writing. None 5. In testing whether the rule against bias has been violated, courts often invoke, which of following standards: Likelihood of bias as perceived by persons involved in similar trade. Likelihood of bias as perceived by a fair-minded and uninformed observer. Likelihood of bias as perceived by a third person. Likelihood of bias as perceived by a fair-minded and informed observer. None Submit a Comment Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment * Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.