E-Paper
SC: Even courts are bound by principle of natural justice
The apex court emphasised that principles of natural justice are binding on all courts and institutions, highlighting the principle of audi alteram partem -- the right to be heard as a cornerstone of natural justice.
No one can be condemned unheard, not even by the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court asserted on Tuesday while underscoring the cardinal principle of natural justice and cautioning judges against making sweeping observations without affording individuals an opportunity to respond.
“Even the courts, including the highest court of the country, are bound by the principle of natural justice. Nobody can be condemned unheard,” held a bench of justices Bhushan R Gavai and KV Viswanathan in an order released on Tuesday.
The apex court emphasised that principles of natural justice are binding on all courts and institutions, highlighting the principle of audi alteram partem -- the right to be heard as a cornerstone of natural justice.
The ruling came as the bench expunged adverse remarks made against a practising advocate, Dushyant Mainali, by the Uttarakhand high court in 2022, holding that the observations were made without affording him an opportunity to be heard.
The judgment not only addressed Mainali’s immediate grievance but also served as a broader reminder that principles of natural justice are sacrosanct and must be upheld by all courts, including the apex court itself.
In its order, the high court accused Mainali of professional misconduct for allegedly misleading a litigant and causing a delay in filing a revision petition. Further, it directed the Bar Council of Uttarakhand to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the lawyer.
Mainali challenged these remarks in the Supreme Court, contending that he was neither a party to the case before the High Court nor involved in any capacity. The remarks, therefore, not only tarnished his professional reputation but were also made in clear violation of the principles of natural justice.
The apex court examined the high court’s order and found the approach to be legally untenable. Justice Gavai, speaking for the bench, noted: “We are of the considered view that the approach of the High Court in making the observations against the appellant without giving him any opportunity of being heard is totally unsustainable in law.”
The bench went on to delete the entire portion of the high court’s order that contained the contentious remarks and directives against Mainali, holding that that such a move violates the fundamental principles of fairness and due process.
The order also expressed concern over the increasing tendency of courts to make unwarranted remarks against individuals without following due process. It noted that the same judge of the Uttarakhand high court had previously been cautioned for making unwarranted remarks against advocates without adhering to the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and due process.
The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms the long-standing principle of audi alteram partem -- a Latin maxim meaning “hear the other side” -- that is intrinsic to the concept of natural justice. This doctrine ensures that no person is prejudiced by a judicial or quasi-judicial action without being afforded an opportunity to defend themselves.
The Indian judiciary has consistently recognized and reinforced this doctrine in several landmark judgments:
In Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court expanded the scope of natural justice, holding that any action violating fairness, reasonableness, and due process would be arbitrary and unconstitutional. Justice Krishna Iyer famously stated that natural justice is “not a creation of the Constitution but inherent in human values.”
In State of Orissa Vs Dr (Miss) Binapani Dei (1967), the top court held that even administrative orders affecting a person’s rights must adhere to the principles of natural justice. An order passed without hearing the affected party would be rendered void.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in Neeraj Garg Vs Sarita Rani involved the same judge of the Uttarakhand high court. The Supreme Court disapproved of unwarranted and disparaging remarks made against advocates, cautioning courts to refrain from making observations that could damage reputations without sufficient basis.
