The principle of natural justice is derived from the Latin term "jus natural," meaning natural law. Even though it is not written in any law book or constitution, it is based on common sense, fairness, and moral values. Natural justice is an unwritten rule that ensures fairness and is respected by all civilized societies.

Natural justice is about making fair and unbiased decisions. It ensures that everyone involved in a matter is treated equally and fairly. It is not only about reaching the right decision but also about following a fair process to arrive at that decision.

English Law Recognizes Two Principles:

1. A person cannot act as a judge in their own cause
2. No one should be punished without being given a fair chance to be heard

In the case of S.S. Kanda v. Government of the Federation of Malaya[1], Lord Denning remarked, "The ruling against bias is one thing; the right to be heard another. They are the twin pillars supporting natural justice."

Roman Law recognises two principles:

1. Nemo Judex In Causa Sua
2. Audi Alteram Partem

There's a third principle of natural justice: a party should know why a decision was made. Natural justice usually has three parts: a fair hearing, no bias, and clear reasons. The idea of natural justice has grown to stop the misuse of power by authorities.

Incorporation into the Indian Constitution

In old India, village disputes were settled by local elders. They met in the evening at a common place like a Panchayat Hall or a village temple. They listened to both sides of the problem and made a decision based on what they thought was fair and what the community expected. The process was open to everyone, and the aim was to keep peace in the village.

Punishments could include giving back what was taken or being excluded from community activities. This system worked well because everyone in the village knew each other, and past decisions helped guide new ones. Even after foreign rule, the system continued because it was fair and based on what everyone in the village believed was right.

In villages, resolving disputes was straightforward because everyone got to speak their side of the story, and decisions were made openly in front of everyone. This helped settle problems and keep peace and fairness in the village. The practice of listening to all sides and making fair decisions, which is an important part of natural justice, was a big influence when India's Constitution was written. This is why Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22 in the Constitution include these ideas of fairness and justice.

Before the Indian Constitution was adopted in 1950, Indian judges already recognized the importance of natural justice. In 1893, Justice Mahmood highlighted the need for both parties to be heard before a decision could be made. His view tells that true justice requires everyone involved to have a chance to present their case. This easy understanding of natural justice helped make it easier to include it in Constitution later on.

In Indian Constitution, the Principle of Natural Justice is not defined in any article, but it is Incorporated through various articles which ensures fairness and justice are upheld. The Constitution includes provisions that make sure these principles are as followed:

Article 14 "Right to Equality" This article says that everyone should be treated equally before the law. It means that if a decision is made about someone, it must be fair and not discriminate against anyone. For example, if someone's property is taken away by the government, they should be given a chance to explain their side of the story before the decision is final.

Article 19 "Freedom of Speech and Expression" This article gives people the right to express their opinions freely. It also means that if a decision affects someone's freedom, they should have a chance to speak up and be heard. For instance, if a new law is made that might impact how people can speak out, they should be able to share their thoughts and concerns.

Article 21 "Right to Life and Personal Liberty" This article protects people's right to live freely and safely. If a decision might take away someone's freedom or life, they must be given a fair chance to argue their case. For example, if someone is accused of a crime, they have the right to defend themselves in court before any punishment is given.

Article 22 "Protection Against Arrest and Detention" This article protects people's rights when they are arrested. It ensures that no one can be arrested without being told why and gives them the right to consult a lawyer. It also includes rules for preventive detention to prevent misuse. This protection aligns with natural justice by ensuring fair treatment and safeguarding individual rights in legal processes.

It ensures that everyone gets a fair chance to speak or defend themselves when decisions are made, especially if those decisions could impact them negatively. It prevents unfair decisions and helps the people to present their side of the story. This Principle is important because it helps build trust in legal system. If people believe that decisions are made fairly, they are more likely to trust and follow the laws.

Significance of Landmark Judgments:

• A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India (1969)

  In this case, a government officer was part of a committee that made a decision about promotions. The problem was that he was also a candidate for promotion. This is like being a judge in your own case, which is not fair. The Supreme Court said that no one should be in a position where they could be biased or unfair, especially when making important decisions. This decision helped strengthen the rule that decisions should be made without any bias, which is a key part of natural justice[2].
   

• Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978)

  This case is like a turning point for the Principle of Natural Justice in India. Maneka Gandhi's passport was taken away by the government without giving her a chance to explain herself. She challenged this in the Supreme Court. The Court said that the government must always give a person a chance to be heard before taking away their rights, such as the right to travel. This decision made it clear that fair hearing is an important part of natural justice, and it must be followed in all situations where someone's rights are affected[3].
   

• D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal (1997)

  This case dealt with how police should treat people in custody. The Supreme Court made rules to protect people from being mistreated by the police. These rules included things like informing a person's family when they are arrested and making sure they are treated well while in custody. The Court said that these rules are necessary to protect people's rights and are part of ensuring natural justice[4].
   

• Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)

  This case is about the right to be heard. The Bombay Municipal Corporation wanted to remove slum dwellers from the streets without listening to their side of the story. The Supreme Court said that pavement dwellers must be allowed to share their views and defend themselves before being evicted. The Court stressed that any decision affecting people's lives must be made fairly and reasonably[5].

Conclusion
The Principle of Natural Justice is a fundamental aspect of the Indian legal system, ensuring fairness, equality, and justice for everyone. Even though it's not directly mentioned in the Indian Constitution, its values are deeply rooted in various constitutional articles and have been emphasized through significant court rulings. From traditional village dispute resolution to modern legal practices, the idea of giving everyone a fair chance to be heard and ensuring unbiased decisions has been central to maintaining social harmony and justice.

Landmark judgments like Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India have strengthened the application of these principles, making them essential for upholding the rights and freedoms of individuals in India. By ensuring that decisions are made fairly and impartially, the Principle of Natural Justice continues to play a crucial role in shaping a just and equitable legal system in India.

End Notes:

1. [1962] AC 322
2. A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India, 1970 AIR 150, 1969 SCR (2) 447
3. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621
4. D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, 1997 AIR 610, 1997 SCC (1) 416
5. Olga Tellis & Ors v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors, 1985 AIR 180, 1985 SCR (3) 545