THE LAW OF NATURAL JUSTICE

Law of Natural Justice



Law of Natural Justice

In a famous English decision in Abbott vs. Sullivan reported in (1952) 1 K.B.189 at 195 it is stated that "the Principles of Natural Justice are easy to proclaim, but their precise extent is far less easy to define". It has been stated that there is no single definition of Natural Justice and it is only possible to enumerate with some certainty the main principles. During the earlier days the expression natural Justice was often used interchangeably with the expression natural Law, but in the recent times a restricted meaning has been given to describe certain rules of Judicial Procedure.

There are several decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which I shall refer at the appropriate place and these Judgments are sufficient to summarize and explain the two essential elements of Natural Justice namely

a. No man shall be Judge in his own cause

b. Both sides shall be heard, or audi alteram partem.

The other principles which have been stated to constitute elements of Natural Justice are

i. The parties to a proceedings must have due notice of when the Court / Tribunal will proceed

ii. The Court / Tribunal must act honestly and impartially and not under the dictation of other persons to whom authority is not given by Law.

These two elements are extensions or refinements of the two main principles stated above. The decision of the Supreme Court of India in Union Carbide Corporation v. Union' has brought back to life a controversy which, at least in India one had reason to suppose, had been permanently done to death: whether a rehearing on appeal can cure an initial defect of natural justice in the trial proceeding. The stage was set for the resurrection when on 14 February 1989 the Union Carbide Corporation and the government of India arrived at a judicial settlement, with respect to the Bhopal disaster, of US$470 million. Outraged by so frugal a settlement, several groups of victims filed petitions demanding a review of the consent decree. And one of the more obvious grounds of attack was that, in arriving at the settlement, the victims had been denied a right to hearing.

Meanwhile, several petitions had been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act 1985, which had conferred on the central government the exclusive power to represent the victims in all ...