Principle of Natural Justice for CS Executive JIGL 2026 by CS Shivani Miglani Ma’am

Principle of Natural Justice is a key topic for CS Executive JIGL 2026, explained clearly by CS Shivani Miglani Ma’am. It ensures fairness in legal and administrative decisions by following two main rules: Rule Against Bias and Rule of Fair Hearing. These principles apply even when not written in law and help maintain trust in decision-making.

The focus here is on the Rule Against Bias (Nemo judex in causa sua), which means no one should judge their own case. Bias can be pecuniary, personal, or related to the subject matter, and courts use different standards to identify each type.

Enroll Now for CS Courses

Principle of Natural Justice

The principles of Natural Justice are foundational guidelines for fair decision-making in legal and administrative processes. These rules are crucial for ensuring equity and are generally considered indispensable, even without explicit legal codification. They serve to uphold impartiality and provide all parties with a fair chance to present their case.

Concept of Natural Justice

The principles of Natural Justice are fundamental rules that must be followed in any legal or administrative proceeding. Even when not explicitly codified, they are considered essential for a fair decision-making process and are rarely breached.

The two primary principles of Natural Justice are:

1. Rule Against Bias: The adjudicator must be impartial and free from any bias.

• Latin Maxim: Nemo judex in causa sua (No one should be a judge in their own cause).

2. Rule of Fair Hearing: Each party must be given a fair opportunity to be heard.

• Latin Maxim: Audi alteram partem (Hear the other side).

This discussion will focus on the first principle, the Rule Against Bias.

The Rule Against Bias (Nemo judex in causa sua)

The principle of Nemo judex in causa sua means that no one can act as a judge in a case in which they have a personal interest. If a judge or adjudicator has any form of interest or bias, however small, they are prohibited from deciding the case.

For example, a judge cannot preside over a case where one of the parties is a relative, or where the judge has a financial stake in the outcome (e.g., they owe money to, or are owed money by, a party). The presence of such an interest automatically creates a bias and disqualifies the judge.

Types of Bias

Bias in decision-making can arise in different forms, and even a small influence can affect fairness. To ensure justice, the law identifies specific types of bias that can disqualify an adjudicator from deciding a case.

A. Pecuniary Bias (Monetary Interest)

Pecuniary bias occurs when the adjudicator has a direct or indirect financial interest in the outcome of the case. The law is very strict on this point: any monetary interest, no matter how small, will disqualify the adjudicator.

Case Law: J. Mohapatra & Co. vs. State of Orissa

• Facts: The Government of Orissa created a committee to select and recommend textbooks for government schools. Several members of this committee were themselves authors whose books were under consideration for recommendation.

• Holding: The Supreme Court struck down the committee's recommendations. It held that an individual cannot simultaneously be an author whose work is being considered and a member of the committee making the recommendation. This situation creates a clear pecuniary bias, as the members had a financial interest in their own books being selected.

B. Personal Bias

Personal bias arises from the adjudicator's relationship with one of the parties, which may stem from:

• Friendship or family ties

• Professional or business relationships

• Personal disputes, rivalry, or hostility

Important Note: Bias does not only mean favouring one party; it can also manifest as hostility or prejudice against a party, leading to an adverse decision.

Case Law 1: Mineral Development Ltd. vs. State of Bihar

• Facts: A minister cancelled a company's lease. It was later found that the cancellation was motivated by personal rivalry and grudges the minister held against the leaseholder.

• Holding: The court invalidated the cancellation order, ruling that it was a result of personal bias and not based on objective grounds.

Case Law 2: Maneklal vs. Premchand

• Facts: A professional misconduct complaint was filed against an advocate, Maneklal. The chairman of the disciplinary tribunal appointed to investigate the matter had previously acted as a legal counsel for the complainant in a different case.

• Holding: The Supreme Court held that the chairman was disqualified from presiding over the tribunal. Even though the chairman had no current personal contact with his former client and did not remember the engagement, the prior professional relationship was enough to create a reasonable likelihood of bias. This establishes that even a past professional connection can constitute personal bias.

C. Subject Matter Bias

Subject matter bias occurs when the adjudicator has a strong personal interest or pre-existing belief in the issue at the heart of the dispute, even if they have no personal or financial connection to the parties involved.

• Example: A judge who is a strong public advocate for a particular cause may have a subject matter bias when deciding a case related to that cause (e.g., cases concerning dowry or sexual assault).

• This type of bias is distinct from pecuniary or personal bias because it relates to the issue itself, not the individuals or the financial outcome.

To disqualify a decision-maker on this ground, there must be an intimate and direct connection between the adjudicator and the subject matter of the dispute.

Comparative Structure: Standard of Proof for Bias

The threshold for proving different types of bias varies:

• Pecuniary Bias: Any monetary interest, no matter how small, automatically disqualifies.

• Personal Bias: Even a hint or a mere likelihood of bias is sufficient for disqualification.

• Subject Matter Bias: A higher standard is required; there must be a real likelihood of bias.

Forms of subject matter bias can include:

• Departmental or institutional bias.

• Pre-judgment of issues based on prior statements or actions.

• Acting under the dictation of a superior authority

To quickly recall the key cases discussed for the Rule Against Bias: (Memory Tip: J. Mohapatra & Co. vs. State of Orissa involved "authors on the textbook committee" (Pecuniary Bias); Mineral Development Ltd. vs. State of Bihar featured a "lease cancelled due to rivalry" (Personal Bias); and Maneklal vs. Premchand concerned a "chairman who was the complainant's former lawyer" (Personal Bias).)