Natural Justice: An Effective Mechanism To Diminish Arbitrary Exercise of Discretionary Power

Introduction:

Natural justice terminology for the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing. While

the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, it has largely been replaced

and extended by the more general ‘’duty to act fairly’’

In Bangladesh there is no statute laying down the minimum procedure which

administrative authorities must follow while exercising decision making power1.There is

a bewildering variety of administrative procedure. Sometimes the statute under which

the administrative authority exercises power lays down the procedure which the

administrative authority must follow but at times the administrative authority is left free

to devise its own procedure. The courts have always insisted that the administrative

agencies must follow a minimum of fair procedure. This minimum fair procedure refers

to the concept of natural justice. The concept of Natural Justice is an important concept in

administrative law.

In fact, natural justice is a concept of common law and it is the common law world

counterpart of the American ‘procedure due process’. Natural justice represents higher

procedural rules developed by judges which every administrative authority must follow

in taking any decision a diversely affecting the rights of a private individual.

Natural justice is important in the field of administration. When an administration acts, it

must follow natural justice. If any administration does not follow it, there may be

arbitrariness. So every administration should follow natural justice.

Natural justice plays a vital role to diminish the arbitrariness. It controls the administration from taking any bias decision in any mater.

Background:

The courtroom of the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa, Ontario. In 1999, the Court

ruled in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) that the requirements

of natural justice vary according to the context of the matter arising.

Natural justice is a term of art that denotes specific procedural rights in the English legal

system and [the systems of other nations based on it. It is similar to the American

concepts of fair procedure and procedural due process, the latter having roots that to

some degree parallel the origins of natural justice.

Although natural justice has an impressive ancestry and is said to express the close

relationship between the common law and moral principles the use of the term today is

not to be confused with the "natural law" of the Canonists, the mediaeval philosophers'

visions of an "ideal pattern of society" or the "natural rights" philosophy of the 18th

century. Whilst the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, in

jurisdictions such as Australia and the United Kingdom it has largely been replaced and

extended by the more general "duty to act fairly". Natural justice is identified with the

two constituents of a fair hearing, which are the rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa

sua, or "no man a judge in his own cause"), and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram

partem, or "hear the other side").

The requirements of natural justice or a duty to act fairly depend on the context. In Baker

v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), the Supreme Court of

Canada set out a list of non-exhaustive factors that would influence the content of the

duty of fairness, including the nature of the decision being made and the process followed

in making it, the statutory scheme under which the decision-maker operates, the

importance of the decision to the person challenging it, the person's legitimate

expectations, and the choice of procedure made by the decision-maker. Earlier, in Knight

v. Indian Head School Division No. 19 (1990),Supreme Court held that public authorities 1which make decisions of a legislative and general nature do not have a duty to act fairly,

while those that carry out acts of a more administrative and specific nature do. 12. (1982) 34 DLR (AD) 173.

Furthermore, preliminary decisions will generally not trigger the duty to act fairly, but

decisions of a more final nature may have such an effect. In addition, whether a duty to

act fairly applies depends on the relationship between the public authority and the

individual. No duty exists where the relationship is one of master and servant, or where

the individual holds office at the pleasure of the authority. On the other hand, a duty

tactfairly exists where the individual cannot be removed from office except for cause.

Finally, a right to procedural fairness only exists when an authority's decision is

significant and has an important impact on the individual.

Meaning of Natural Justice.

People have drawn their criteria of justice from many cources, i e from the nature of

things, from the nature of man and from the nature of God. Natural law is the outcome of

man’s quest from an absolute standerd of justice.

Natural Justice has meant many things to many writers, lawyers and systems of law.

Professors H. W. R. Wade defines natural justice as ‘’the name given to certain

fundamental rules which are so necessary to the proper exercise of power that they are

projected from the judicial to the administrative sphere’’.. It is used interchangeably with

Divine Law, jus gentium and the common law of the nations. It is a concept of

changing content. However, this does not mean that at a given time no fixed rules of

natural justice can be identified. The rules of natural justice through various decisions

of courts can be easily ascertained, though their application in a given situation may

depend on multifarious factors. In Bangladesh, though natural justice enjoys no express

constitutional status but the Appellate Division of the supreme court of court of

Bangladesh in Abdul Latif Mirza Vs. Government of Bangladesh observed2

It is now well-recognised that the principle of natural justice is a part of the law of the

country”

Hence, natural justice is a concept of procedural law developed by courts which

administrative authorities in absence of any legally prescribed procedure, must follow at

the time of outcome of man’s quest from an absolute standerd of justice.

According to Roman law certatin basic legal principles were required by nature, or so obvious that they should be applied university without needing to be enacted into law by a legisletor. This was a seedbed for the growth of natural justice. The principle of natural justice are now regularly applied by the courts in both common law and Roman law jurisdictions.

The Principle and essential elements 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 are2

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

23. a b c d Dimes Vs. Grand Junction Canal Proprietors 1852 3 H L Cas 759 10 E R 301 House of Lord (UK)

other persons to whom authority is not given by Law

These two elements are extensions or refinements of the two main principles stated above

Forms of bias:

Bias may be actual, imputed or apparent. Actual bias is established where it is actually

established that a decision-maker prejudiced in favour of or against a party. However, in

practice, the making of such an allegation is rare as it is very hard to prove.

One form of imputed bias is based on the decision-maker being a party to a suit, or

having a pecuniary or proprietary interest in the outcome of the decision. Once this fact

has been established, the bias is irrebuttable and disqualification is automatic – the

decision-maker will be barred from adjudicating the matter without the need for any

investigation into the likelihood or suspicion of bias. A classic case is Dimes v. Grand

Junction Canal Proprietors (1852)3 which involved an action between Dimes, a local

landowner, and the proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal, in which the Lord

Chancellor, Lord Cottenham, had affirmed decrees made to the proprietors. However, it

was discovered by Dimes that Lord Cottenham in fact owned several pounds worth of

shares in the Grand Junction Canal. This eventually led to the judge being disqualified

from deciding the case. There was no inquiry as to whether a reasonable person would

consider Lord Cottenham to be biased, or as to the circumstances which led Lord

Cottenham to hear the case.

Apparent bias:

Apparent bias is present where a judge or other decision-maker is not a party to a matter

and does not have an interest in its outcome, but through his or her conduct or behaviour

gives rise to a suspicion that he or she is not impartial. An issue that has arisen is the

degree of suspicion which would provide the grounds on which a decision should be set

aside for apparent bias. Currently, cases from various jurisdictions apply two different

tests: "real likelihood of bias" and "reasonable suspicion of bias".

The real likelihood test centres on whether the facts, as assessed by the court, give rise to

a real likelihood of bias. In R. v. Gough (1993), the House of Lords chose to state the test

in terms of a "real danger of bias", and emphasized that the test was concerned with the

possibility, not probability, of bias. Lord Goff of Chievely also stated that "the court

should look at the matter through the eyes of a reasonable man, because court in cases

such as these personifies the reasonable man". However, the test in Gough has been

disapproved of in some Commonwealth jurisdictions. One criticism is that the emphasis

on the court's view of the facts gives insufficient emphasis to the perception of the public.

These criticisms were addressed by the House of Lords in Porter v. Magill (2001). The

Court adjusted the

Gough test by stating it to be "whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having

considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was

biased". This case therefore established the current test in the UK to be one of a "real

possibility of bias".

On the other hand, the reasonable suspicion test asks whether a reasonable and fair-

minded person sitting in court and knowing all the relevant facts would have a reasonable

suspicion that a fair trial for the litigant is not possible. Although not currently adopted in

the UK, this test has been endorsed by the Singapore courts.

It has been suggested that the differences between the two tests are largely semantic and

that the two tests operate similarly. In Locabail, the judges stated that in a large

proportion of the cases, application of the two tests would lead to the same outcome. It

was also held that "[p]rovided that the court, personifying the reasonable man, takes an

approach which is based on broad common sense, and without inappropriate reliance on

special knowledge, the minutiae of court procedure or other matters outside the ken of the

ordinary, reasonably well-informed members of the public, there should be no risk that

the courts will not ensure both that justice is done and that it is perceived by the public to

be done". In the Singapore High Court decision Tang Kin Hwa v. Traditional Chinese

Medicine Practitioners Board (2005), Judicial Commissioner Andrew Phang observed

that the real likelihood test is in reality similar to that of reasonable suspicion. First,

likelihood is in fact "possibility", as opposed to the higher standard of proof centring on

"probability". Secondly, he suggested that real in real likelihood cannot be taken to mean

"actual", as this test relates to apparent and not actual bias. He also observed that both the

court's and the public's perspectives are "integral parts of a holistic process" with no need

to draw a sharp distinction between them.

Rule against Bias:

‘Bias’ means an operative prejudice whether conscious or unconscious in relation to a

party or issue. Therefore, the rule against bias strikes those factors which may improperly

influence a judge in arriving at a decision in any particular case. The requirement of this

rule is that the judge must be impartial and must decide the case objectively on the basis

of the evidence or record. A person cannot take an objective decision in a case in which

he has an interest for, as human psychology tells us, very rarely can people take decisions

against their own interests. Therefore, the maxim is that a person cannot be made a judge

in his own cause. The rule of disqualification is applied not only to avoid the possibility

of a partial decision but also to ensure public confidence in the impartiality of the

administrative adjudicating process because not only must “no man be judge in his own

cause” but also “justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly

be seen to be done”4

In practice, bias may be manifested variously such as personal bias, preconceived notion

bias, subject-matter bias, departmental bias, pecuniary bias, etc. and may affect the

decision in a variety of ways.

Exceptions to the rule against bias:

Necessity:

There are cases in which a disqualified adjudicator cannot be replaced, as no one else is

authorized to act. It has been observed that "disqualification of an adjudicator will not be

permitted to destroy the only tribunal with power to act" In such cases, natural justice has

to give way to necessity in order to maintain the integrity of judicial and administrative

systems.

This issue regarding necessity was raised in Dimes.The Lord Chancellor had to sign an

order for enrolment in order to allow the appeal to proceed from the Vice-Chancellor to

the House of Lords. It was held that his shareholding in the canal company which barred

him from sitting in the appeal did not affect his power to enroll, as no one but him had the

authority to do so. It was mentioned this was allowed "for this [was] a case of necessity,

and where that occurs the objection of interest cannot prevail".

Rule of Fair Hearing:

This is the second long arm of natural justice which protects the ‘little man’ from arbitary

administrative actions whenever his right to person or property is jeopardised. the

expression “ audi alteram partem” simply implies that a person must be given an

opportunity to defend himself.

Right to fair hearing is a code of procedure and covers the following stages through

which an administrative adjudication is properly performed:

(i) Right to notice;

(ii) Right to present case and evidence;

(iii) Right to rebut adverse evidence;

(iv) No evidence should be taken at the back of other party;

(v) Reasoned decision;

(vi) Institutional decision or one who decides must hear; and

(vii) Rule against dictation i.e., the decision must be actually his who decides.

Article 6 of the European Convention:

The right to a fair hearing is also referred to in Article 6(1) of the European Convention

on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which states: In the determination of his

civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a

fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal

established by law.

Article 6 does not, however, replace the common law duty to ensure a fair hearing. It has

been suggested that Article 6 alone is not enough to protect procedural due process, and

only with the development of a more sophisticated common law will the protection of

procedural due process extend further into the administrative machine Nonetheless,

Article supplements the common law. For example, the common law does not impose a

general duty to give reasons for a decision, but under Article 6(1) a decision-maker must

give a reasoned judgment so as to enable an affected individual to decide whether to

appeal

Aspects of a fair hearing:

Prior notice of hearing:

Natural justice allows a person to claim the right to adequate notification of the date,

time, place of the hearing as well as detailed notification of the case to be met. This

information allows the person adequate time to effectively prepare his or her own case

and to answer the case against him or her. In Cooper v. Wandsworth,[ Chief Justice

William Erle went so far as to state that the lack of notice and hearing afforded to Cooper

could be said to be a form of abuse, as he had been treated as if he did not matter. As

Lord Mustill famously held in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte

Doody (1993): "Since the person affected usually cannot make worthwhile

representations without knowing what factors may weigh against his interests fairness

will very often require that he is informed of the gist of the case which he has to answer."

It has been suggested that the requirement of prior notice serves three important

purposes:

The interest in good outcomes – giving prior notice increases the value of the proceedings

as it is only when the interested person knows the issues and the relevant information that

he or she can make a useful contribution.

The duty of respect – the affected person has the right to know what is at stake, and it is

not enough to simply inform him or her that there will be a hearing.

The rule of law – notice of issues and disclosure of information opens up the operations

of the public authority to public scrutiny.

The British courts have held it is not enough for an affected person to merely be informed

of a hearing. He or she must also be told what is at stake; in other words, the gist of the

case.

Opportunity to be heard:

Every person has the right to have a hearing and be allowed to present his or her own

case. Should a person not attend the hearing, even with adequate notice given, the

adjudicator has the discretion to decide if the hearing should proceed. In Ridge v.

Baldwin, a chief constable succeeded in having his dismissal from service declared void

as he had not been given the opportunity to make a defence. In another case, Chief

Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans (1982), a chief constable required a police

probationer to resign on account of allegations about his private life which he was given3

no fair opportunity to rebut. The House of Lords found the dismissal to be unlawful.

Likewise in Surinder Singh Kanda v. Government of the Federation of Malaya (1962) a

public servant facing disciplinary proceedings was not supplied with a copy of prejudicial

report by a board of inquiry which the adjudicating officer had access to before the

hearing. The Privy Council held that the proceedings had failed to provide him a

reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Legal Effects:

34. (1978) 1 SCC 248.

According to W.H.W. Wade, any decision rendered in violation of the rules of Natural

Justice is void. But according to D.M. gordon, procedural breaches can never render a

decision void as jurisdictional error. In judicial sphere, the Courts are also divided on this

question of legal effect. The supreme court of India in Maneka gandhi Vs. Union of

India4 held that an order, which infringes fundamental freedom, taken in violation of the

rule of fair hearing is nullity, which may, however, be validated through a post-decisional

hearing. In Dhakeswari cotton Mills Ltd. vs. C.I.T5 the Supreme Court of India quashed

the decision of the administrative authority on the ground that not allowing the assessee

to produce material evidence violaes the rule of fair hearing. In Nawab Khan Vs. State of

Gujarat8 the supreme Court of India ruled that ‘perhaps not all violations of the rules of

Natural justice knock down the order with nullity.’

In Abdul Latif Mirza Vs. Government of Bangladesh 6the Appellate Division of the

Bangladesh Supreme Court observed the “ the principle of Natural Justice is a part of the

law of the country.” However, to understand the scope and importance of the foregoing

rules of natural justice in Bangladsh, the following relevant cases decided by the

Appellate Division of the Bangladesh Supreme Court may be examined and evaluated:

4The Banglad esh Bank (Nationalisation) Order, 1972 (P.O.26 of 1972)

Articale 23: Service in Nationalised Bank- Establishment of byelaws containing service

rules framed by Bank prior to promulgation of the Presidential Order of nationalisation

have no statutory force Employees of Bank cannot be deprived of rules of natural justice.

The Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972

Article 102: Judgement was passed in a writ petition in the absence of the respondent- On

review application for hearing the writ petition in the absence of the appellant, the

judgment passed earlier was set aside- The High Court in writ jurisdiction whether can

restore a writ petition to the file on setting aside the judgement already pronounced and

signed.47. A.T.M. Zahirul Haque Vs. Secretary M/O Finance, Bangladesh & other 1981 (BLD) AD 236.

While setting aside the judgment of July 12, 1979, the High Court passed the order

without hearing both sides and without giving an opportunity to the appellant to make out

his case against the prayer for rehearing of the writ petition setting aside the judgment. In

setting aside the order, hearing was given to the advocate for one of the respondents. No

opportunity of hearing was given to the apellant. The minimum requirement was to see

whether the respondents to the writ petition did receive the notices in time and if so, had

they sufficient cause in failling to appear at the time of hearing and present their case and

had they succeeded in making out a case for review, so that the ends of justice demanded

re-hearing of the writ petition and in so doing the earlier judgment and order could be

reviewed if at all. The order containing reason for allowing the review, therefore cannot

be sustained.

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Contents of the Code-The Civil Procedure Code deals with procedural matters and not

substantive rights. The procedural laws are grounded on rules of natural justice8.

If summons are not duly served on the defendant, that is a good ground for setting aside

an exparte decree under Order 9, Rule 13 of the C.P.C. In such a case, question of

knowledge is not at all relevant and exparte decree will be set aside even if the defendant

had knowledge of institution of suit.

On the other hand, if we analyse the public servants (inquiries) Act, 1950, and the

Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) rules of 1985, we find the following

important contents:

(1) Notice to accused

(2) Copy of charge and list to be furnished to accused

(3) Evidence of prosecution and examination of witnesses

(4) Evidence for defense and examination of witnesses

(5) Report of the officer with reasons

Moreover, the constitution of Bangladesh provides that no person who holds any civil

post in the service of the republic shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until

he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why action should not be

taken.

From the foregoing discussion, it is clearly convincing that violation of any of the rules of

natural justice is not sustainable in the fields of Administrative Law in Bangladesh. And

with the changes and growth of Administrative Law in the country, the rules of natural

justice have thus gained considerable advances to ensure free and fair administrative

justice in this administrative era of 21st century.

Diminish Arbitrariness:

Natural Justice helps to diminish Arbitrariness in any adjudication. No one can take any

decision whatever he likes. It is a good mechanism to remove arbitrariness from a

country.

Application:

In the regulation of trade and commerce: Generally, where a person’s right to carry on

trade and commerce resticed it is necessary that the administration show give a fair

hearing and apply natural justice to the affected persons case.

Licensing:

Licensing is a common administrative technique used to regulate any activity.

Cancellation of a license is a quasi- Judicial activity because it involves civil as well as

pecuniary consequences as the license con not carry or business without a license.

In the taking over of management of an undertaking: If the government, after an

investigation finds out that the management of a public undertaking is being managed by

inefficient persons and in such manner which is detrimental to public interest the

government may take over the management in its hands.

Miscellaneous Situations:

Powers of search and Seizure:

The power of search and seizure are extraordinary powers in the hands of the state for the

protection of security which is of an extreme nature and constitutes a serious invasion of

the privacy, reputation business and freedom of the affected person.

Discretionary Power:

Discretionary Powers are subject to control and fair hearing before the decision making

bodies and they may act as control magnesium on the decision making powers.

Discretionary action may cmprise of dominant elements such as a major administrative

policy, economic or any threat to the community which may negate the idea of fair

hearing.

Supercession of statutory bodies and Municipal Corporation: The principle of natural

justice must be observed when the government suspends bodies, such as panchayats.

Government Contrast:

When the government is under contract with a private party and where the action was

statutory basic the principles of natural Justice is applicable

Blacklisting:

Under a modern administrative technology, a person is blacklisted for the purpose of

disqualifying him for certain purposes and after which he is not eligible to deal with the

concerned authority of the area.

Right to Property:

A person whose property rights are adversely affected by any administrative action is

entitled to natural justice before passing orders to demolish. house the licensed

administrative authorities must give the occupant a show cause against such order.

Disciplinary Action:

Against Students:

Before a student faces disciplinary action, such as expulsion canceling the exam results,

he is entitled to fair hearing on the principles of natural justice.

Exceptions to the Rules of Natural Justice:

In the following grounds, there may be exclusion to the rules of Natural Justice:

Exclusion in exceptional cases of Emergency:

Where a company has to be wound up to save the depositors or a trade dangerous to

society is to be prohibited or a dangerous building is to be demolished or in such other

exceptioanl cases of emergency, where urgent/prompt action, preventive or remedial, is

needed application of the rule of fair hearing may be excluded (Joseph Vs. Reserve Bank

of India).

Exclusion in cases of Dire Public Interest:

In Mohinder Sing gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, the Supreme Court of India held

that the Rule of Fair Hearing can be obviated in administrative adjudication or in a

decision-making process to save greater public interest.

Exclusion in cases of confidentiality:

If application of the rule of fair hearing breaks any confidentiality which is detrimental to

national interest or public order, in that case this rule may be excluded (Malak Singh Vs.

State of Punjab).

Exclusion in case of Academic Adjudication:

A student of the University was removed from the rolls for unsatisfactory academic

performance without giving any pre-decisional hearing. The Supreme Court of India held

that where the competent academic authorities examine and assess the work of a student

over a period of time and declare his performance unsatisfactory, application of the rule

of fair hearing is not needed (Jawaharlal Nehru University Vs. B.S Narwal).12

Exclusion based on Impracticability:

In R. Radakrishnan Vs. Osmania University13 it is found that the entire M. B. A. entrance

examination was cancelled by the University authority because of mass copying. The

court held that notice and fair hearing to all candidates is impossible, which has assumed

national proportions.

Exclusion in cases of Interim Preventive Action:

If any order taken by an administrative authority is a suspension order being preventive in

nature and not a final order, in that case application of the rules of Natural Justice may be

excluded (Abhay Kumar Vs. S. Srinivasan0.

5Exclusion in cases of Legislative Action:

Exclusion is justified if the nature of administrative action is legislative. If any

administrative action, taken in violation of Natural Justice, does not apply to a single

individual or a few specified persons and is of general nature, it may be called legislative

(Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Vs. Union of India).

Statutory Exclusion:

In the case of statutory exclusion the natural justice is not applicable.

515. (1975) 2 SCC 630.

Specific Situations:

(i) Selection of candidates: natural justice is not applicable

(ii) Suspen of employees: where disciplinary action is pending, then the natural

justice is not applicable

(iii) Large number of cases : In this case, a large number of cases natural justice is

not applicable

Due process of law and the rules of natural justice:

In U.S.A. the concept of the rules of Natural Justice is not frequently heard. Because it is

not necessary for them to rely on this concept as the concept of due process of law has

been guaranteed by the U.S.A. constitution by its 5th and 14th constitutional amendments,

the gist of which stands as “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property

without due process of law”. In the hands of the Supreme Court, the phrase due process

of law early came to evolve a twofold meaning substantive and procedural and the rules

of natural justice were considered to be implied in the procedural aspect of due process. 6

Thus, in Hagar vs. Reclamation District, the court held that “whenever it is necessary for

the protection of the protection of the parties, it must give them an opportunity to be

heard respecting the justness of the judgment sought.

It is, thus, to be seen that the ingredients of procedural due process basically correspond

to the English Common Law rules of natural justice. Indeed, Natural Justice is a concept

of common law world counterpart of the American procedural due process.

Equity and the Rules of Natural Justice:

“Equity” may be defined to be natural right or justice, as addressed to the conscience,

independent of express or positive law; a system of jurisprudence, the object of which is

to render the administration of justice more competent, either by the application of rule to

cases not provided for by positive law, or by adopting remedies more exactly to the

616. (1884) 111 US 701.

exigencies of particular cases (Burril Law Diet. tit. “Equity”). Equity is based on good

conscience, fair dealing and justice. It does not interfere when law provides adequate

remedy. It only denotes the spirit and the habit of fairness and justness. It desires to gie to

each man his dues according to natural law.

Now, it is observed from the forgoing discussion that the concept of ‘equity’ actually

covers the doctrine of reasonableness, the concept of striking down malafide action and

also the concept of rules of Natural Justice. Indeed, the concept of Natural Justice comes

within the ambit of the concept of equity. The exclusions to the rules of Natural Justice

are also based on the concept of ‘Equity’. In fact, both these concepts are not contrary to

each other rather conducive and complementary.

Conclusion:

The concept of natural justice has been established in case laws. Although there is

no specific statutes containing provisions of the concept of natural justice, But it

has become an integral part of procedural laws. It has an important role to diminish

arbitrary exercise of discretionary power.