← The hardest concepts in Indian law
In one breath
Natural justice requires that a person be heard before an adverse decision and that the decision-maker be free from bias, and in India it applies to administrative as well as judicial decisions. A legitimate expectation, created by a promise or a settled practice, can give a person a right to a fair process before it is disappointed, though not a right to the outcome.
The picture
The umpire’s bench
In a cricket match the umpire must listen to both captains and must have no stake in the result. If an umpire is the cousin of one side, or gives a decision without hearing an appeal, the players say the game was not fair, even if the umpire got the call right. If a captain has been told for years that the practice is to hold a toss, a sudden refusal to hold it is a reason for complaint.
The two rules of natural justice are audi alteram partem, hear the other side, and nemo judex in causa sua, no one should be a judge in their own cause. A K Kraipak held that they apply to administrative action that affects rights, not only to bodies that are called courts. Maneka Gandhi tied them to the fairness required by Article 21. Legitimate expectation is a related idea: a promise or a regular practice can create an expectation that the person will be consulted or treated in the usual way, and the authority must act fairly in departing from it, as in Navjyoti Coop Group Housing Society.
Where the picture stops working
An umpire’s rule book is fixed, but natural justice varies with the matter, and the content of a fair hearing may be a full oral hearing in one case and a short written reply in another. The picture also hides the main limit on legitimate expectation: it does not bind the authority to a result when a clear public interest requires a change, and the Court asks only whether the departure was fair and reasoned.
How it really works
- 1Identify the decision and whether it affects a person’s rights, status or interests in an adverse way. If it does, natural justice applies unless a statute clearly excludes it.
- 2Ask whether the person had notice of the case against them and a fair chance to answer it, including access to the material used.
- 3Ask whether the decision-maker had any personal or financial interest, or a real likelihood of bias.
- 4If the person relies on a promise or a practice, ask whether it was clear, made by a competent authority and relied on.
- 5If a failure is shown, the decision is usually quashed, but the courts may refuse relief where the hearing could have made no difference, the useless formality principle.
Why people get it wrong
- Assuming natural justice applies only to courts and tribunals. After Kraipak it reaches administrative decisions affecting rights.
- Treating a legitimate expectation as a right to the promised result. It protects the process, not the outcome.
- Assuming every procedural defect voids the decision. The courts ask whether the person suffered real prejudice.
- Mixing up the two rules. The right to be heard and the rule against bias are separate and either may be breached alone.
A worked example
The facts are invented
A city authority has for many years renewed street-vendors’ licences each spring after a short interview. One spring it cancels Asha’s licence by a letter saying only that her stall is no longer required, with no reason and no interview.
Asha says the authority breached natural justice, because the order harmed her livelihood and she was not heard, and she also relies on the settled practice of renewal. The Court would ask for the reasons and the material, and would likely quash the cancellation if no fair hearing was given. It would not order that the licence be renewed for all time. The authority may decide again after hearing her, and if it still refuses for a reasoned public purpose, the courts may not interfere.
Try it
An authority has a settled practice of consulting residents before closing a service. It closes one without consulting them. What can the residents ordinarily claim?
Landmark authorities
Read the sources themselves; this list is a starting point.
- A K Kraipak v Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262
- Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248
- Navjyoti Coop Group Housing Society v Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 477
- State Bank of Patiala v S K Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364
Where to go next
Case briefs
Dictionary
More hard concepts in India law
- Writs under Articles 32 and 226 (Administrative and constitutional law)
- Essential religious practices under Articles 25 and 26 (Constitutional law)
This page is an educational overview. It is not legal advice and not a substitute for the sources: the statute, the rule, the case itself. India has a written Constitution, central and State legislation, and a unified court system under the Supreme Court. Each page states the usual formulation of the rule and names landmark decisions, with the citations as they are usually given in the Supreme Court Cases and All India Reporter series. The criminal codes and the law of evidence were replaced by new statutes, so the pages on criminal law state the doctrine and the decisions and mostly leave out section numbers; check the current text of any statute you rely on. Personal laws differ by community. This is a study aid, not legal advice, and an Indian advocate should check anything you need to rely on.