Natural Justice under Articles 14 and 21
Chapter Eighty-Five
Syllabus topic 5, "Procedural fairness"
Pages 254 to 256 of 430
In one line
In India a breach of natural justice is not merely unfair, it is unconstitutional.
In the wording a student can write in an exam: the principles of natural justice are read into Article 14, because an arbitrary decision is unequal, and into Article 21, because a procedure that deprives a person of life or personal liberty must be right, just and fair; so a breach of natural justice by the State is a violation of a fundamental right and is enforceable under Articles 32 and 226.
MU's question
The University states the proposition in the question itself and asks the candidate to explain the role of the Indian judiciary in ensuring substantive and procedural fairness in the light of the due process clause. So this chapter proves the proposition; the due process half is [Due Process in India] and the substantive half is [Substantive and Procedural Fairness].
Article 14: the arbitrariness route
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555, holds that equality is a dynamic concept which cannot be cribbed, cabined and confined within traditional and doctrinaire limits; that from a positivistic point of view equality is antithetic to arbitrariness; that equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; and that where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal and therefore violative of Article 14.
The step from that to natural justice is short. A decision made without hearing the person affected is arbitrary, because the authority has decided without the material the person could have supplied. So the breach is a violation of Article 14.
Two consequences follow. A rule which permits a decision without a hearing is itself open to attack, which is Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101, where a Constitution Bench struck down a regulation permitting termination of a permanent employee without notice, reasons or enquiry as arbitrary and violative of Article 14. And an order made without a hearing can be attacked under Article 32, because a fundamental right is infringed.
Article 21: the fair procedure route
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, holds that the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must be right, just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive, and that natural justice is implicit in Article 21.
The reach of that proposition depends on the reach of life and personal liberty, and both have been read widely.
Livelihood. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180, holds that the right to life includes the right to livelihood, because no person can live without the means of living.
Private employment. D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., (1993) 3 SCC 259, applies the same reasoning to a termination by a private company under certified standing orders, holding that a deeming clause must be read as requiring an opportunity to explain.
Natural Justice under Articles 14 and 21
Reputation and dignity, which are part of life, so an adverse finding recorded without a hearing engages Article 21.
Why the two routes matter separately
Because they do different work.
Article 14 reaches everything the State does, whether or not liberty is involved, and it reaches the rule as well as the order.
Article 21 reaches further down, into private employment and into decisions affecting livelihood, and it supplies the standard of fairness rather than merely forbidding arbitrariness.
An answer that names only one has half the doctrine.
What follows in practice
Article 32 is available. A breach of natural justice by the State infringes Articles 14 and often 21, so the Supreme Court can be moved directly.
The statute cannot silently exclude it. Exclusion needs express words or necessary implication, and even then Article 21 sets a floor.
A rule that excludes it is vulnerable. Delhi Transport Corporation.
The remedy is constitutional. Not merely quashing but, in an appropriate case, compensation: Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1086.
A worked example
A State corporation terminates the services of a permanent driver by invoking a regulation which allows termination on one month's notice without reasons, after an accident in which nobody was hurt.
Article 14: the regulation confers an unguided power to terminate without reasons or enquiry, which is Delhi Transport Corporation, so the regulation is read down or struck down. Article 21: termination deprives him of his livelihood, so a just, fair and reasonable procedure was required, which is Olga Tellis and D.K. Yadav. Either route gives him a remedy, and both together make the case straightforward.
What this does NOT mean
It does not mean every procedural slip is unconstitutional. Prejudice remains the practical test: Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy, AIR 2005 SC 2090.
It does not mean Article 21 applies to a purely commercial dispute. It applies where life, liberty or livelihood is affected.
It does not mean natural justice cannot be excluded at all. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416, shows that a constitutional provision may exclude it.
Quick revision
Two constitutional routes. Article 14, through Royappa: arbitrariness is unequal, and deciding without a hearing is arbitrary, so the breach is unconstitutional and a rule permitting it is vulnerable, as Delhi Transport Corporation shows. Article 21, through Maneka Gandhi: the procedure must be right, just and fair, and natural justice is implicit in it; and because life includes livelihood, on Olga Tellis and D.K. Yadav, the reach extends into private employment. Consequences: Article 32 is available, silence does not exclude, and the remedy may include compensation.
Natural Justice under Articles 14 and 21
Test yourself
1. How does Article 14 make natural justice constitutional? Through Royappa: arbitrariness is the antithesis of equality, and a decision made without hearing the affected person is arbitrary, so the breach violates Article 14.
2. How far does the Article 21 route reach? As far as livelihood, and therefore into private employment governed by certified standing orders: Olga Tellis and D.K. Yadav.
3. Can natural justice ever be excluded in India? Yes, by express words or necessary implication in a statute, and by a constitutional provision as in Tulsiram Patel, but Article 21 sets a floor of fairness.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.