CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR

SCHOOL OF LAW AND

GOVERNANCE
PROJECT WORK ON
EXCEPTIONS OF PRINCIPLES
OF NATURAL JUSTICE

SUBMITTED BY-SHUDHANSHU RANJAN

B.A.LLB

E. No.-: CUSB1813125105

SUBMITTED TO- DR. PALLAVI SINGH

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE

1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I owe a sincere thanks to many people who helped me and guided me in writing of this project.
My deepest thanks to my subject professor Dr. Palllavi Singh Mam for giving me such a nice
topic to work on and guiding and helping at every stage during the completion of this project
with sincere attention and care.

Again I would like to thank all mighty and my friends for supporting me in whole process of this
project completion. At last, my deep sense of gratitude also goes to my friends, institution and
every single person who are related with this project in any way and without whom this project
would have been a distant reality.

-Shudhanshu Ranjan

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO. HEADING PAGE NO.

1. INTRODUCTION 4

2. EXCEPTIONS TO DOCTRINE OF BIAS 4-6

3. EXCEPTIONS TO AUDI ALTERAM 6-9

PARTEM

4. CONCLUSION 9

3
INTRODUCTION

Rules of natural justice have developed with the growth of civilization. It is not the creation of
Constitution or mankind. It originated along with human history. In order to protect himself
against the excess of organized power, man has always appealed to someone which is not been
created by him and such someone could only be God and his laws. It is of higher law of nature or
natural law which implies fairness, reasonableness, equity and equality. Natural justice rules are
not codified laws. It is not possible to define precisely and scientifically the expression „natural
justice. They are basically common – sense justice which are built- in the conscience of human
being. They are based on natural ideals and values which are universal in nature. Natural justice
and legal justice are substances of justices which must be secured by both, and whenever legal
justice fails to achieve this purpose, natural justice has to be called in aid of legal justice. There
are two principles of natural justice first one is doctrine of bias and second one is audi alteram
partem. Now it is well established preposition of Law that the Principles of Natural Justice
supplements the enacted statute with necessary implications, accordingly administrative
authorities performing public functions are generally required to adopt “fair procedure” and in
relation to a variety of different circumstances, we considered the content of the requirements of
procedural fairness. A person may also have legitimate expectation of fair hearing or procedural
fairness/treatment but as Natural Justice Principles is to be invoked in doing justice, where their
observance leads to injustice they may be disregarded. There are several well established
limitations on Principles of Natural Justice. Existence of certain circumstances deprives the
individual from availing the benefit of principles of natural justices, authors in this research work
undertakes to cover the circumstances in which judiciary admitted the exceptions to the
observance of Principles of Natural Justice.

EXCEPTIONS TO DOCTRINE OF BIAS

(1) Doctrine of Necessity: The doctrine of necessity is an exception to Bias. The law permits
certain things to be done as a matter of necessity which it would otherwise not countenance on
the touchstone of judicial propriety. The doctrine of necessity makes it imperative for the
authority to decide and considerations of judicial propriety must yield. It can be invoked in cases
of bias where there is no authority to decide the issue. If the doctrine of necessity is not allowed

4
full play in certain unavoidable situations, it would impede the course of justice itself and the
defaulting party would benefit from it. If the choice is between either to allow a biased person to
act or to stifle the action altogether, the choice must fall in favor of the former as it is the only
way to promote decision-making. Where bias is apparent but the same person who is likely to be
biased has to decide, because of the statutory requirements or the exclusiveness of a competent
authority to decide, the Courts allow such person to decide. In Ashok Kumar Yadav vs.
Haryana1, the Court held that a member of the Public Service Commission could not entirely
disassociate himself from the process of selection just because a few candidates were related to
him. He should disassociate himself with the selection of the persons who are related to him, but
need not disassociate with the selection of other candidates. Though his presence on the selection
committee could create a likelihood of bias in favour of his relations yet, since the PSC is a
constitutional authority, such a member cannot be excluded from its work and his presence in the
recruitment process is mandatorily required. The Court further held that where substitution is
possible, this doctrine would not apply.

(2) Doctrine of Absolute Necessity: The doctrine of absolute necessity is also taken as an
exception to Bias where it is absolutely necessary to decide a case of Bias and there is no other
option left. In Election Commission of India vs. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy 2, the SC was asked to
decide whether the CEC TN Seshan, who was allegedly biased in favor of Swamy, because of
the long friendship, could participate in the giving of opinion by the EC. The opinion was to be
given on the alleged disqualification of Jayalalitha, the then CM of Tamil Nadu under Article
191 of the Constitution. Swamy had made a petition to the Governor alleging that Jayalalitha had
incurred a disqualification under Article 191 read with Sec 9 of the RPA, 1951, to get elected to
the legislative assembly, as at the time of the election she was a party to a contract with the
Government. Under Art 192 of the Constitution, before giving any decision on such question of
disqualification, a Governor is required to obtain of the EC, and has to act according to such
opinion (Social Exclusion and Justice in India...). The Governor forwarded Swamy’s petition to
the EC for its opinion. Jayalalitha moved the HC of Madras under Art 226 of the Constitution,
seeking a writ of prohibition enjoining upon Seshan not to participate in giving opinion. The HC,
through a single judge Bench, held that Seshan shouldn’t give opinion in view of his prejudice
1
1987 AIR 454
2
1996 AIR 1810

5
against Jayalalitha. The Single Judge also held that she had not incurred any disqualification. On
appeal, the Division Bench held that the single judge Bench had been wrong in deciding the
question of Jayalalitha’s disqualification, because that question could be decided by the EC
alone. The Divisional Bench however agreed with the Single Judge Bench that Seshan suffered
from Bias, and therefore, should not give his opinion. The Divisional Bench observed that in
view of the appointment of additional two members on the EC, the EC could give opinion
through members other than the CEC. On appeal, the SC confirmed that Seshan should not give
opinion. The Court, observed that in view of the multi-member composition of the EC and its
earlier decision in T.N Seshan vs UOI3, where it was held that decisions of the EC should be by
majority, while giving opinion under Art 192(2) of the Constitution, the CEC could get himself
excused from sitting on the Commission, while an opinion on a matter in which he was held to
be biased was being given. If the other two members differed, the CEC could give opinion, and
the opinion of the majority would be the opinion of the EC. In that case, though he was biased,
he would be required to give opinion under the doctrine of necessity and not only mere necessity
but absolute necessity. Thus, the doctrine of bias would not be applied.

EXCEPTIONS TO AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM

(1)Exclusion Emergency: In India, it has been generally acknowledged that in cases of extreme
urgency, where interest of the public would be jeopardizes by the delay or publicity involved in a
hearing, a hearing before condemnation would not be required by natural justice or in
exceptional cases of emergency where prompt action, preventive or remedial, is needed, the
requirement of notice and hearing may be obviated. Therefore, if the right to be heard will
paralyze the process, law will exclude it.19 In Mohinder Singh Gill vs. CEC 4, whether notice and
right to be heard must been given or not was been laid down before the SC. In Firozhpur
Constituency Parliamentary Election counting was been going on where in some segments
counting were going on and in some it was over. One candidate was having a very good lead but
before the declaration of the results, in a mob violence in some segments ballot papers and boxes
were been destroyed. The ECI acting under Article 324, 329 without giving any notice or hearing
to the candidates cancelled the Election and ordered for fresh Election. The SC rejected the claim

3
(1995(4) SCC 611
4
[1978] 1 SCC 405 851 (SC)

6
of notice and audi alteram partem and held that in case of emergency, Audi Alteram Partem can
be excluded.

(2) Confidentiality: Exclusion of natural justice can also take place when confidentiality is
demanded and is necessary to be maintained. In Malak Singh v. State of P&H, 5 the SC held that
the maintenance of Surveillance Register by the Police is a confidential document and neither the
person whose name is entered in the Register nor any other member of the public can have
excess to it. Furthermore, the Court observed that observance of the principles of Natural justice
in such a situation may defeat the very purpose of surveillance and there is every possibility of
the ends of justice being defeated instead of being served.

(3) Public interest: Any act or thing done against the interest of the general public will be held
void ab initio. As being a democratic country, the laws are made for the benefit of the public.
Hence, if there is a hidden interest of the public in any issue, then the principle of Audi Alterma
Partem will be excluded.

(4) Legislative actions: When the law making body itself propounds that this principle will not
be applicable in the said statute, then this principle is not applicable in the cases which will come
under the particular statute. In Charan Lal Sahu vs. UOI, the constitutional validity of the Bhopal
Gas Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 was involved. This legislation provides for details
of how to determine claims and pay them. The affected parties approached the SC and contended
that no hearing was provided to them, and it was violative of Audi Alteram Partem. The SC held,
“For legislation by Parliament no principle of natural justice is attracted, provided such
legislation is within the competence of the Legislature.” 

(5) Academic Evaluation: Where the nature of authority is purely academic, then no right of
hearing can be claimed. The academic administration can take any action towards the students or
the staff members if they feel that the things are not working properly inside the institution. And
it cannot be challenged until and unless the contrary is proved. In Jawaharlal Nehru University
vs. B.S.Narwal,6 B.S. Narwal, a student of JNU was suspended from the College for
unsatisfactory performance in the academic year without giving prior notice to him. The
Supreme Court held the suspension valid.
5
[1981] 1 SCC 420 760 (SC)
6
[1980] 4 SCC 480 1666 (SC)

7
(6) Impractibility: Natural justice can be followed and applied when it is practicable to do so
but in a situation when it is impracticable to apply the principle of natural justice then it can be
excluded. In Bihar School Examination Board vs. Subhash Chandra, 7 the Board conducted final
tenth standard examination. At a particular centre, where there were more than thousand
students, it was alleged to have mass copying. Even in evaluation, it was prima-facie found that
there was mass copying as most of the answers were same and they received same marks. For
this reason, the Board cancelled the exam without giving any opportunity of hearing and ordered
for fresh examination, whereby all students were directed to appear for the same. Many of the
students approached the Patna HC challenging it on the ground that before cancellation of exam,
no opportunity of hearing was been given to the students. The HC struck down the decision of
the Board in violation of Audi Alteram Partem. The Board unsatisfied with the decision of the
Court approached the SC. The SC rejected the HC judgment and held that in this situation,
conducting hearing is impossible as thousand notices have to be issued and everyone must be
given an opportunity of hearing, cross-examination, rebuttal, presenting evidences etc. which is
not practicable at all. So, the SC held that on the ground of impracticability, hearing can be
excluded.

(7) Inter-Disclipinary Action: In Inter- Disciplinary action like suspension etc. there is no
requirement to follow the principle of natural justice. In S.A Khan vs. State of Haryana,8 Mr.
Khan an IPS Officer holding the post of Deputy Inspector General of Haryana; Haryana Govt.,
was suspended by the Haryana Government due to various complaints against him. Thus, he
approached the Supreme Court on the ground of violation of PNJ as he was not given an
opportunity to be heard. The SC held that the suspension being interim-disciplinary action, there
is no requirement to afford hearing. It can be ordered without affording an opportunity of
hearing.

(8)Useless Formality Theory: ‘Useless formality’ theory is no doubt yet another exception to
the application of the principles of natural justice but it should be used with great caution and
circumspection by the Court otherwise it would turn out to be wheel of miscarriage of justice. It
can only be used where on the admitted or undisputed facts only one conclusion is possible and
under the law only one penalty is permissible, the Court may not insist on the observance of the
7
AIR 1970 SC 1269
8
AIR 1993 SC 1152

8
principles of natural justice because it would be futile to order its observance. 9 In
Dharmarathmakara Raibahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Educational Institution v.
Education Appellate Tribunal,10 a lecturer, who had been granted leave for doing M. Phil, in
violation of leave condition, had joined a Ph. D course. She was given notice and after
considering her reply, wherein she had admitted joining Ph. D course, her service was
terminated. She challenged the termination order before Karnataka Private Educational
Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 subsequently it is appealed to HC where
termination was held invalid, but SC held that opportunity to show cause was not necessary
where facts are undisputed and the affected person could not fourth any valid defence.

CONCLUSION

The Courts in India in relation to administrative proceedings created various exceptions to the
requirement of Natural Justice Principles and procedure there off. However, these exceptions are
all circumstantial and not conclusive, every exception to be adjudged admissible or otherwise
only after looking into the facts and circumstances of each case. The exceptions to the principles
of natural justice mainly relates to administrative proceedings. The courts in India created
various exceptions to the requirement of natural justice principles and procedures taking into
account various circumstances like time, place, the apprehended danger and so on prevailing at
the time of decision-making. It must be noted that all these exceptions are circumstantial and not
conclusive. They are not rigid but flexible. The cases where natural justice principles have been
excluded by implication suggest that the Courts have accepted the doctrine even though the
legislature has not adopted express words to that effect but those cases appear to depend so
heavily on their particular circumstances that they do not yield a clear general principle. There
are arguable and also explicable instances where the courts have concluded that natural justice
was not necessary.

9
S.L Kapoor vs. Jagmohan [1980] 4 SCC 379,395 136 (SC)
10
[1997] 7 SCC 332