Exceptions to the Principles of Natural Justice

In one line

Natural justice can be displaced, but only where a statute clearly says so or where a hearing would be pointless, impossible or dangerous.

In the words a student can write in an exam: the principles of natural justice are not absolute and may be excluded in recognised situations: by express statutory provision or by inevitable implication from the statutory scheme; by the Constitution itself, as in the second proviso to Article 311(2); in cases of emergency or urgency where immediate action is required; where a hearing would serve no useful purpose, under the useful formality theory; where the decision is legislative rather than adjudicatory; in matters of confidentiality and national security; in academic evaluation; where the facts are admitted; and under the doctrine of necessity, where the person alleged to be disqualified is the only authority competent to act.

Why exceptions exist, and the limit on them

Natural justice supplements the law; it does not override it. So a valid statute can displace it, and situations exist in which a hearing is impossible or useless.

But the exceptions are dangerous, because an administration that can name an exception can avoid a hearing whenever it likes. The law therefore hedges them in two ways.

Exclusion must be clear. Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 818, holds that the rules of natural justice operate only in areas not covered by any validly made law, and that a statutory provision may exclude them specifically or by inevitable implication. Silence is not exclusion, which is why the audi alteram partem rule was read into section 18AA of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act 1951 in that very case.

An express exclusion is not immune from challenge. After Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, a statutory procedure must be right, just and fair to satisfy Articles 14 and 21. So a provision denying a hearing may be valid or may itself be unconstitutional, and stating that in an answer separates a good one from an average one.

The exceptions, one by one

1. Statutory exclusion

Where the Act expressly says no notice or hearing is required, or where the scheme of the Act makes it inevitable that none was intended. The test of inevitable implication is a strict one: it is not satisfied merely because the Act is silent, or because a hearing would be inconvenient.

An examiner will often set a section that is merely silent and expect you to say that silence is not exclusion.

2. Constitutional exclusion

The Constitution itself excludes a hearing in one well known case. The second proviso to Article 311(2) dispenses with the inquiry otherwise required before a civil servant is dismissed, removed or reduced in rank, in three situations: where he is dismissed on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; where the authority is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry; and where the President or Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold it. This is treated in [Civil Services in India: Nature, Organisation, Powers and Functions].