Natural Justice and Judicial Approach: From Ancient Times to Modern Times – A Global and Indian Perspective (with Latest Developments in the Indian Constitution)

Authors: Narendra Kumar (L.L.M.) (Author), Mr. Rachit Sharma (Associate Professor, IILM, Greater Noida) (Co-author)

***This paper has been selected for LegalOnus Law Journal (LLJ) Volume 1, Issue 6, 2025

Introduction: Conceptual Origins of Natural Justice in Ancient Jurisprudence

The doctrine of natural justice is deeply embedded in the moral and legal fabric of civilizations across the world. In ancient times, this concept was not codified but derived from customs, religious codes, and the innate sense of justice prevailing in societies. In ancient Greece, philosophers like Aristotle and Plato envisioned justice as a natural order, emphasizing fairness and rationality.² Aristotle’s distinction between natural and legal justice laid the foundation for the idea that certain rights are inherent and not contingent on human laws.¹ Similarly, Roman jurists developed the idea of jus naturale, a system of law based on common reason and equity applicable to all human beings.² In India, natural justice found expression in Dharmashastra and Smritis, where rulers were expected to uphold dharma (righteousness), which encompassed fairness, impartiality, and adherence to procedural norms.³ The ancient Indian legal system, with institutions like the sabhas and parishads, ensured participatory decision-making and protected individual rights through community adjudication processes.³ These early manifestations of natural justice, although unwritten, demonstrated a universal appreciation for the principles of fairness, impartiality, and reasonableness that underpin modern legal systems.

Evolution in Ancient Legal Systems through Common Law and Constitutional Jurisprudence

Hindu Jurisprudence

• Dharma and Nyaya
• Role of Sabha and Samiti in dispute resolution³
• Manusmriti and Arthashastra as sources of justice⁴
• Kings as custodians of justice, guided by fairness

Greek and Roman Traditions

• Plato and Aristotle’s ideas of fairness⁵
• Roman law: Jus Naturale and its evolution into civil law⁶

Islamic Legal Tradition

• Sharia as divine justice⁷
• Qazi system and procedural fairness

Chinese Confucian Legal Thought

• Emphasis on morality and harmony rather than punitive justice⁸

Evolution in Common Law and Western Legal Systems

• English common law development
• Early recognition of fairness in royal courts
• R v. Chancellor of the University of Cambridge (1723) – milestone in audi alteram partem⁹
• Natural law vs. positivism¹⁰
• Administrative law and procedural fairness⁴
• American jurisprudence: Due process under the 5th and 14th Amendments¹¹

With the advent of organized legal systems in medieval and modern Europe, the principles of natural justice evolved into procedural safeguards, particularly within the English common law system. Two cardinal principles emerged: audi alteram partem (the right to be heard)¹² and nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause).¹³ These principles became deeply entrenched in the British legal system and influenced colonial and post-colonial legal systems worldwide. The Magna Carta (1215), which sought to limit arbitrary authority, and later judicial pronouncements in the UK laid the foundation for due process and rule of law.¹⁴ In India, under British colonial rule, common law doctrines were introduced, and post-independence, the Indian Constitution enshrined these ideals through Articles 14, 19, and 21. Indian courts expanded the scope of natural justice through judicial activism, especially in the post-Emergency era.⁵ The landmark Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)¹⁵ decision transformed Article 21 into a reservoir of procedural fairness, introducing substantive due process. Courts interpreted natural justice not merely as procedural fairness but as an essential component of just, fair, and reasonable law, intertwining it with constitutional guarantees of equality and liberty.

Natural Justice and International Law – A Converging Trajectory:

The principles of natural justice are reflected in international legal instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),¹⁶ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR),¹⁷ Geneva Conventions,¹⁸ and regional charters. They form the bedrock of fair trial rights, procedural fairness, and non-discrimination in global human rights law. International tribunals and courts—such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ),¹⁹ the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR),²⁰ and UN Human Rights Committee²¹—have consistently reinforced these principles. In India, international law is not directly enforceable unless incorporated into domestic law, yet the judiciary has increasingly used international norms for constitutional interpretation. In cases like Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan,²² Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra,²³ and People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India,²⁴ courts have read in international principles to ensure natural justice and human dignity. This demonstrates that Indian constitutionalism is moving towards a harmonious convergence with international standards, with natural justice as the shared moral and legal compass.

Reasonableness and Arbitrariness – From Wednesbury to Indian Constitutionalism:

The twin doctrines of reasonableness and arbitrariness lie at the core of constitutional review.⁶ Internationally, the Wednesbury unreasonableness test in administrative law established a standard for judicial interference in executive discretion.²⁵ This concept evolved into a broader framework of proportionality and rationality, adopted by the European Court of Human Rights and other global tribunals. In the Indian context, arbitrariness was declared antithetical to Article 14 in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu,²⁶ leading to the evolution of substantive due process under Articles 14, 19, and 21. The Supreme Court, through cases such as Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India²⁷ and Joseph Shine v. Union of India,²⁸ struck down laws on the basis of irrationality and manifest arbitrariness, integrating natural justice with constitutional morality. This section explores how Indian courts have expanded the role of reasonableness as a constitutional tool against executive and legislative excesses.

Fundamental Rights and the Doctrine of Natural Justice:

Articles 14 to 22 of the Indian Constitution provide for the right to equality, freedom of speech and expression, personal liberty, and protection against arbitrary arrest and detention, respectively.⁷ Globally, such rights are protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and regional instruments.⁸1 Indian jurisprudence, especially after Maneka Gandhi (1978), significantly expanded the interpretation of Article 21 to include the right to dignity,²⁹ privacy,³⁰ livelihood,³¹ environment,³² and access to justice,³³ embedding natural justice into every aspect of public action. Courts have struck down laws and actions that fail to provide procedural safeguards, violate free speech, or impose unreasonable restrictions. From K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (privacy)³⁴ to Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (free speech),³⁵ the doctrine of natural justice is central to ensuring that restrictions on rights are just, fair, and reasonable. The recent case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India & Ors. (2023)³⁶ by the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. In this case, the founder of NewsClick, Prabir Purkayastha, was released due to invalid arrest because the grounds of arrest were not informed in writing.⁹

Protection of Service Matter and Natural Justice:

Civil servants are the backbone of administrative governance and are constitutionally protected under Articles 309 to 314.¹⁰ Globally, similar protections exist under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial)³⁷ and other national constitutions.¹¹ In India, the judicial approach ensures that any disciplinary action or removal under Article 311 adheres to principles of natural justice.¹¹ Courts have held that even when statutes are silent, fair hearing and inquiry procedures are mandatory. Cases such as Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel³⁸ and Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar³⁹ underscore the necessity of supplying inquiry reports and allowing representations. This paragraph analyzes how judicial intervention has maintained a balance between executive efficiency and individual dignity, ensuring that disciplinary measures are not cloaked in arbitrariness or malice. Statutes like the Minimum Wages Act,⁴⁰ Consumer Protection Act 2019,⁴¹ and Information Technology Act 2000⁴² also provide certain procedural safeguards. Following are the key principles that have expanded the scope of natural justice:

• Nemo Judex in causa sua (No one shall be a judge in his own cause)¹²
• Audi alteram partem (Hear the other side)¹³
• Rule against bias⁴³
• Rule to a fair hearing⁴⁴
• Duty to give reasons⁴⁵

Role of Governor – Discretion, Accountability, and Natural Justice:

The Governor’s role under the Indian Constitution, though largely ceremonial, holds discretionary powers under Articles 163 and 164, which have at times been contentious.¹⁴ Internationally, constitutional monarchs and governors (e.g., in Canada and Australia) have faced similar debates on discretion and judicial review. Indian courts have tried to bring natural justice principles to bear on gubernatorial discretion, especially in cases involving the dismissal of ministries, recommending President’s Rule (Article 356), or reserving bills for presidential assent. The Supreme Court’s decisions in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India⁴⁶ and Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker⁴⁷ questioned the limits of such discretion, aligning it with constitutional morality and judicial scrutiny. In a recent judgment, the Honourable Supreme Court addressed the issue of state laws kept pending for a long time without assent, emphasizing that decisions must be taken within a reasonable time even where no explicit time limit is fixed.⁴⁸ This section assesses how the judiciary has constrained gubernatorial powers within the framework of fairness, non-arbitrariness, and reasoned decisions, thus reinforcing natural justice at the highest executive levels.

Contemporary Judicial Trends and Expanding Dimensions:

In modern times, natural justice has become an evolving standard for judicial and administrative fairness globally. In the United States, the concept merges with constitutional due process, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in numerous cases like Goldberg v. Kelly (1970),⁴⁹ which emphasized the necessity of a fair hearing before the deprivation of welfare benefits. The European Court of Human Rights has elevated procedural fairness as a fundamental human right under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Internationally, administrative justice systems and tribunals now uniformly adhere to the standards of impartiality, transparency, and the right to be heard. In India, the doctrine has witnessed a dynamic expansion through Public Interest Litigation (PIL)⁵⁰ and judicial review. In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1970),⁵¹ the Supreme Court held that the line between administrative and quasi-judicial functions is thin and natural justice must apply to both. Moreover, Indian courts have emphasized that natural justice is not a rigid rule but a flexible principle that must be contextually applied, especially in disciplinary matters, environmental litigation, and service law disputes.¹⁵ The principle now pervades civil, criminal, and administrative domains, ensuring a just process and preventing arbitrary exercise of power.

Challenges and the Future of Natural Justice in a Globalized Legal Order:

Despite its universal acceptance, the application of natural justice faces significant challenges in the modern legal environment, especially with the rise of technology, national security concerns, and executive overreach. The emergence of algorithmic governance, surveillance, and preventive detention regimes raises critical questions about fairness and procedural transparency. In India, the preventive detention laws under the National Security Act⁵² and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)⁵³ have often been criticized for undermining natural justice, as detentions are frequently carried out without timely hearings. Globally, balancing the principles of natural justice with administrative efficiency, national security, and digital governance requires innovative jurisprudential tools. Indian courts have begun to engage with these challenges, as seen in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), where the right to privacy was recognized as intrinsic to dignity and liberty under Article 21.¹⁶ As legal systems become more complex, natural justice remains a guiding light for fair adjudication. It acts as a counterbalance against the misuse of authority and ensures that justice is not only done but seen to be done. The judiciary, through interpretive activism and reliance on international norms, continues to uphold and redefine natural justice, making it a living doctrine in both national and global legal orders.

Conclusion:

In the present era, the doctrine of natural justice has emerged as a cornerstone of democratic governance and constitutional adjudication, both globally and within the Indian legal framework. It has transcended its ancient roots and evolved from unwritten moral principles into enforceable legal standards that ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability in administrative and judicial decision-making. In India, the judiciary has consistently reaffirmed the relevance of natural justice by embedding it within the constitutional fabric—particularly under Articles 14, 19, and 21—thereby guaranteeing procedural fairness as an inalienable right of every citizen. The provision of free legal aid at the pre-litigation and litigation stages, various compensation schemes, and mechanisms like mediation and conciliation further underscore the commitment to ensuring access to justice, a key facet of natural justice. Landmark judgments have clarified that natural justice is not a mere formality but a fundamental requirement for the rule of law. The symbolic replacement of the sword with the constitution in depictions of Lady Justice signifies the supremacy of the constitution and its values in our jurisprudence.¹⁷ To achieve the utmost goal of judicial approach and natural justice, the following recommendations are proposed:

• Codification of principles: Enacting a comprehensive statute on natural justice would provide greater clarity and certainty in its application across various legal and administrative contexts.
• Training and education: Regular workshops, seminars, and continuing legal education programs should emphasize the practical application of natural justice principles for legal professionals, administrators, and judicial officers.
• Use of technology: Online platforms can streamline hearing processes, allowing for remote participation and reducing the time and cost associated with traditional in-person proceedings, thereby enhancing public access to justice.¹⁸
• Balancing competing interests: Courts and administrative bodies must develop clear guidelines to balance the need for fairness with the requirements of efficient and timely decision-making, ensuring an appropriate level of procedural formality.
• Strengthening judicial and quasi-judicial platforms: Frequent scrutiny of potential violations of natural justice principles at all levels of public and private administration is essential to enhance the ambit and reach of this doctrine, ensuring that the judicial system remains a beacon of fairness and impartiality.

References:

¹ This likely needs a more specific citation or a general reference to legal philosophy.

² Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. V.

³ P.V. Kane, History of Dharmasastra Vol. III ( ). (Year of publication needed).

⁴ Kautilya, Arthashastra ( ). (Translator and publisher details would be beneficial).

⁵ Plato, The Republic ( ). (Translator and publisher details would be beneficial).

⁶ Gaius, Institutes ( ). (Translator and publisher details would be beneficial).

⁷ Bernard G. Weiss, The Spirit of Islamic Law ( ). (Publisher and year of publication needed).

⁸ Confucius, The Analects ( ). (Translator and publisher details would be beneficial).

⁹ R v. Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, (1723) 1 Str. 557, 93 Eng. Rep. 698 (K.B.).

¹⁰ H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law ( ); Lon L. Fuller, The Morality of Law ( ). (Publisher and year of publication needed for both).

¹¹ U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV.

¹² This is a general principle and doesn’t require a case citation here.

¹³ This is a general principle and doesn’t require a case citation here.

¹⁴ Magna Carta, Clause 39 (1215).

¹⁵ Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.

¹⁶ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.

¹⁷ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810 (1948).

¹⁸ Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3114, 75 U.N.T.S. 31; Geneva Convention for the Amelioration2 of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3217,3 7