- (1.) "Fairness is what justice really is" are the words of Potter Stewart acclaimed legal recognition as a part of natural justice. The concept of natural justice cannot be confined to any precise definition. The natural justice is fair play in action in its soul and spirit. The quintessence of the process of justice is inspired and guided by fair play in action and as a distillate of due process of law. In the words of Justice R.S. Sarkaria speaking for the majority in case of Swadesi Cotton Mills -Vs- Union of India reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 818, the expression "natural justice" is not static nor can be squeezed to a precise definition but considered as a part of natural law relating to the administration of justice. It would be profitable to quote the relevant excerpts from the said report, which runs thus:- "Well then, what is "natural justice" The phrase is not capable of a static and precise definition. It cannot be imprisoned in the straight-jacket of a cast-iron formula. Historically, "natural justice" has been used in a way "which implies the existence of moral principles of self-evident and unarguable truth", "Natural Justice" by Paul Jackson, 2nd Edn. page 1. In course of time, judges nurtured in the traditions of British jurisprudence, often invoked it in conjunction with a reference to "equity and good conscience". Legal experts of earlier generations did not draw any distinction between "natural justice" and "natural law", "Natural justice" was considered as "that part of natural law which relates to the administration of justice". Rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. Being means to an end and not an end in themselves, it is not possible to make an exhaustive catalogue of such rules."
(2.) The fair play in action includes an opportunity of being heard before the decision operates against him. The basic concept of natural justice is that a person should not be condemned unheard that is how the legal maxim "audi alteram partem" evolved. In case where the breach of natural justice is alleged the rule of the Court should not be such that it is inflexible rules of universal application but to judge in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case and to call out whether there has been any infraction of such rule. The decree of compliance of the rule of audi alteram partem and resultant effect of its failure depends upon case to case. The essence of natural justice also imbibes a fair hearing to the parties before deciding the issue and ensures the scrupulous administration of justice and fairness. It is not a bull in a china shop or a bee in one's bonnet. The elements of fair hearing are providing an opportunity of hearing and such opportunity must be real or reasonable. Both the elements are counted in a composite expression of reasonable opportunity, which is not inflexible rule but is elastic one. The reasonableness varies from case to case and it should not shock to the conscience of the Court. The opportunity of hearing not only be real but effective and provide proper latitude to meet everything, which is likely to be considered against the party. The power of High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is a wide amplitude in the sense that the order passed in gross violation of natural justice having not afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing can be invoked despite existence of alternative remedy. The Doctrine of Prejudice has also received its recognition as every violation of natural justice cannot be impinged unless consequence prejudicially affects the right of aggrieved person.
(3.) In a recent decision rendered in case of Dharmapal Satyapal Ltd. - Vs- CCE reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519, the Apex Court held that the proceeding must be just fair and reasonable and the negation thereof offends Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Doctrine of Prejudice was further noticed as an integral part of the natural justice and comprehended in the following:-- "38. But that is not the end of the matter. While the law on the principle of audi alteram partem has progressed in the manner mentioned above, at the same time, the courts have also repeatedly remarked that the principles of natural justice are very flexible principles. They cannot be applied in any straitjacket formula. It all depends upon the kind of functions performed and to the extent to which a person in likely to be affected. For this reason, certain exceptions to the aforesaid principles have been invoked under certain circumstances. For example, the courts have held that it would be sufficient to allow a person to make a representation and oral hearing may not be necessary in all cases, though in some matters, depending upon the nature of the case, not only full-fledged oral hearing but even cross-examination of witnesses is treated as necessary concomitant of the principles of natural justice. Likewise, in service matters relating to major punishment by way of disciplinary action, the requirement is very strict and full-fledged opportunity is envisaged under the statutory rules as well. On the other hand, in those cases where there is an admission of charge, even when no such formal inquiry is held, the punishment based on such admission is upheld. It is for this reason, in certain circumstances, even postdecisional hearing is held to be permissible. Further, the courts have held that under certain circumstances principles of natural justice may even be excluded by reason of diverse factors like time, place, the apprehended danger and so on. 39. We are not concerned with these aspects in the present case as the issue relates to giving of notice before taking action. While emphasising that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in straitjacket formula, the aforesaid instances are given. We have highlighted the jurisprudential basis of adhering to the principles of natural justice which are grounded on the doctrine of procedural fairness, accuracy of outcome leading to general social goals, etc. Nevertheless, there may be situations wherein for some reason- perhaps because the evidence against the individual is thought to be utterly compelling-it is felt that a fair hearing "would make no difference" -meaning that a hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision-maker -then no legal duty to supply a hearing arises. Such an approach was endorsed by Lord Wilberforce in Malloch v. Aberdeen Corpn., who said that: " A breach of procedure cannot give (rise to) a remedy in the courts, unless behind it there is something of substance which has been lost by the failure. The court does not act in vain." Relying on these comments, Brandon L.J. opined in Cinnamond v. British Airports Authority that: " no one can complain of not being given an opportunity to make representations if such an opportunity would have availed him nothing." In such situations, fair procedures appear to serve no purpose since the "right" result can be secured without according such treatment to the individual. 40. In this behalf, we need to notice one other exception which has been carved out to the aforesaid principle by the courts. Even if it is found by the court that there is a violation of principles of natural justice, the courts have held that it may not be necessary to strike down the action and refer the matter back to the authorities to take fresh decision after complying with the procedural requirement in those cases where non-grant of hearing has not caused any prejudice to the person against whom the action is taken. Therefore, every violation of a facet of natural justice may not lead to the conclusion that the order passed is always null and void. The validity of the order has to be decided on the touchstone of "prejudice". The ultimate test is always the same viz. the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing.";