Natural Justice is taken from the Roman law term “Jus Natural,” and it is strongly linked to common law and moral principles, but it is not codified. It is a natural law that has nothing to do with a statute or a constitution. All inhabitants of civilized states hold natural justice in high regard.

Natural justice simply refers to following a rational and logical decision-making process while dealing with a certain issue. It does not always matter what is the most reasonable option; what counts is the technique and who is involved in making the most reasonable decision. It is not constrained by the concept of “fairness,” and it comes in a variety of colors and tints that change depending on the situation.

Basically, natural justice consists of 3 rules:

The first is the “Hearing Rule,” also known as “audi alteram partem,” which provides that everyone who is affected by a panel of expert members’ decisions should be given a fair chance to express his or her point of view and defend himself.

Second, the “Bias rule,” also known as “Nemo Judex In Causa Sua,” states that a panel of experts should be free of bias when making a conclusion. The choice should be made in a free and fair manner, in accordance with natural justice principles.

Finally, a “Reasoned Decision” is a court order, decision, or judgment issued by the Presiding Authorities on a valid and reasonable basis.

ORIGIN: Natural justice is a very old concept that dates back to the beginning of time. This notion was equally familiar to Greek and Roman people. The concept of natural justice was recognized in the days of Kautilya, arthashastra, and Adam. According to the Bible, when Eve and Adam ate the fruit of knowledge, the deity forbade them from doing so. Eve was given a fair chance to defend herself before the punishment was handed down, and the same procedure was followed in the case of Adam.

Later on, English jurists recognized the concept of natural justice. The words “natural justice” and “lex-naturale” are derived from the Roman words “jus-naturale” and “lex-naturale,” respectively, which planned the concepts of natural justice, natural law, and equity.

“Natural justice is a sense of what is wrong and what is right.”

This concept was first established in India at a young age. The court concluded in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner that the principle of fairness should be present in all actions, whether they are judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative, or quasi-administrative.

1.) To ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to be heard.
2.) The concept of justice.
3.) To close the legal gaps and loopholes.
4.) To ensure the protection of fundamental rights.
5.) The Constitution’s main elements.
6.) There has been no miscarriage of justice.

The principles of natural justice should be free of bias, and parties should be given a fair opportunity to be heard. The court should also inform the parties of all the grounds for its decisions.

The goal of judicial and administrative bodies, according to the Supreme Court, is to arrive at a reasonable and justifiable judgment. Natural justice’s major goal is to avoid miscarriages of justice from occurring.

Three important procedures connected to the principles of natural justice were given by a body known as “Ministers Power.”

  1. No one should be allowed to be a judge in his own case.
  2. No one can be sentenced without being heard.
  3. The party has the right to know each and every rationale for the authority’s decision.

WHEN CAN IT BE CLAIMED?: Natural justice can be asserted when functioning in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, such as in panchayats and tribunals. It covers the concept of fairness, basic moral principles, and many types of biases, as well as why natural justice is necessary and what unique scenarios or situations are covered when natural justice principles are not relevant.

Natural justice will be used on a statutory basis in the case of the Province of Bombay vs. Khushaldas Advani, as it is a basic tenet of Natural justice that leads to fairness and justice.


1.) NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA– “No one should be a judge in his own case,” says the author, because it leads to biases in the rules. Bias is defined as an act that leads to unjust behavior in relation to a party or a specific issue, whether it is done consciously or unconsciously. As a result, this rule is necessary in order for the judge to be impartial and render a decision based on the evidence presented in the case.

Type of Bias
a. Personal Bias.
b. Pecuniary Bias.
c. Subject matter Bias.
d. Departmental Bias.
e. Policy notion Bias.
f. Bias on the account of obstinacy.

2.) Audi Alteram Partem– It consists of three Latin words that effectively signify that no one can be sentenced or punished by a court without having a fair chance to be heard. In many countries, the majority of matters are left unresolved without being given a fair chance to be heard.

The precise meaning of this rule is that both sides should be given an equal opportunity to submit their respective arguments and a fair trial should be held.

a. Issuance of notice
b. Right to present the case and evidence
c. Right to Cross-Examination
d. Right of Legal representative

3.) Reasoned Decision– Essentially, it is based on three grounds:-
(i) The aggrieved party has the opportunity to show the appellate and revisional courts what was the rationale for the authority’s rejection.
(ii) It is a part of the party against whom the decision is made that is satisfactory.
(iii) The obligation to record reasons serves as a deterrent to the executive authority’s judicial power acting arbitrarily.

CONCLUSION: To protect public rights against arbitrary decisions by administrative authorities, the judiciary has adopted and followed natural justice principles. It is clear that the concept of fairness is included in the norm of natural justice: they are alive and well, and they promote the protection of fair dealing.


Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on FacebookTwitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.

We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.