Principle of Natural Justice is derived from the word „Jus Natural‟ of the Roman law and it is closely related to Common law and moral principles but is not codified. It is a law of nature which is not derived from any statute or constitution. The principle of Natural Justice is adhered to by all the citizens of civilised State with Supreme importance. Natural justice simply means to make a sensible and reasonable decision making procedure on a particular issue. Sometimes, it doesn‘t matter what is the reasonable decision but in the end, what matters is the procedure and who all are engaged in taking the reasonable decision. It is not restricted within the concept of ‗fairness‘ it has different colours and shades which vary from the context. Basically, natural justice consists of 3 rules.
The first one is “Hearing rule” which states that the person or party who is affected by the decision made by the Panel of expert members should be given a fair opportunity to express his point of view to defend himself. Secondly, “Bias rule‖ generally expresses that Panel of expert should be free from bias while taking the decision. The decision should be given in a free and fair manner which can fulfil the rule of natural justice. And thirdly, “Reasoned Decision” which states that order, decision or judgement of the Court given by the Presiding authorities with a valid and reasonable ground. The principles of Natural Justice have been adopted and followed by the judiciary to protect public rights against the arbitrary decision by the administrative authority. One can easily see that the rule of natural justice include the concept of fairness: they stay alive and support to safeguard the fair dealing.
Source: Excerpt taken from blog.ipleaders.in (Dated - 12th June, 2019)
Mr. X is a Public Servant, employed in a PSU and Mrs Y who is the wife of Mr. X is also an employee of the same PSU. Ms A files a complaint against Mr. X for sexual harassment at workplace before the ICC (Internal Complaints Committee), which is headed by Mrs Y. After completing her inquiry she held that Mr. X is guilty and recommended disciplinary proceedings against him. Now, on what grounds Mr. X may challenge her findings?
Correct Answer :
Mrs Y is the wife of Mr. X and she holds a personal bias in the case, so the inquiry should not have been conducted by her.
Solution :
The correct answer is: Mrs Y is the wife of Mr. X and she holds a personal bias in the case, so the inquiry should not have been conducted by her.
Step-by-step Explanation:
1. Understanding the Bias Rule:
According to the principles of natural justice described in the passage, the second essential rule is the "Bias Rule". This rule dictates that any panel of experts or adjudicating authority must be completely free from bias while making a decision, ensuring that decisions are delivered in an impartial, fair, and objective manner.
2. Analyzing the Case Scenario:
- Mr. X is accused of sexual harassment at the workplace.
- Mrs Y, who is the wife of Mr. X, acts as the head of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) conducting the inquiry.
- A spousal relationship between the adjudicator (Mrs Y) and the accused (Mr. X) introduces a direct personal interest and conflict of interest, leading to a strong presumption of personal bias.
3. Applying Natural Justice Principles:
Since Mrs Y is married to Mr. X, she cannot be regarded as an impartial decision-maker under the Bias Rule. Therefore, Mr. X can validly challenge the findings of the inquiry on the ground that Mrs Y holds a personal bias due to their personal relationship, meaning the inquiry should not have been headed or conducted by her.
Access expert-curated educational resources and study materials—completely free.
Create, conduct, and manage professional online assessments with Mindyard. Perfect for teachers and institutes.
Copyright © 2026 Mindyard. All Rights Reserved.
