Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULY
Uma Nath Pandey & Others
Versus
State of U.P. & Another
Criminal Appeal No.471 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6382 of 2007)
Decided On: 16-03-2009
(1999) 6 SCC 237 – Relied upon
(1863) 143 ER 414; (1914) 1 KB 160:83 LJKB 86; 1943 AC 627: (1948) 2 All ER 337; 1911 AC 179:80 LJKB 796; 1985 (10) AC 229:54 LJMC 81; 1855 (2) Macg. 1.8; 1877-78(3) App.Case 614; 1884-85 (10) App.Case 229; 1885 (55) LJRD 39; 1890 (24) QBD 712; 1963(1) WB 569; (1978) 2 SCR 621; 1967 (2) B617; 1976 WLR 1255; 1977 (1) WLR 766 – Referred
Facts of the case:
High Court allowed the revision petition after hearing only the respondents, even without issuing notice to the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment is not tenable.
Result:
Appeal allowed.
Judgment :
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing the Revision Petition filed by respondent no.2. Though various points were urged it is not necessary to go into those in detail as the revision petition was allowed even without issuing notice to the present appellants and to the other parties.
3. Learned Single Judge only heard the counsel for respondent No.2 and passed the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the High Court has taken note of the applicable legal position and, therefore there is no scope for interference.
5. The crucial question that remains to be adjudicated is whether principles of natural justice have been violated; and if so, to what extent any prejudice has been caused. It may be noted at this juncture that in some cases it has been observed that where grant of opportunity in terms of principles of natural justice do not improve the situation, "useless formality theory" can be pressed into service.
6. Natural justice is another name for commonsense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified canons. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a commonsense liberal way. Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values. The administration of justice is to be freed from the narrow and restricted considerations which are usually associated with a formulated law involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice which has to determine its form.
7. The expressions "natural justice" and "legal justice" do not present a water-tight classification. It is the substance of justice which is to be secured by both, and whenever legal justice fails to achieve this solemn purpose, natural justice is called in aid of legal justice. Natural justice relieves legal justice from unnecessary technicality, grammatical pedantry or logical prevarication. It supplies the omissions of a formulated law. As Lord Buckmaster said, no form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigants defence.
8. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time. When the historic document was made at Runnymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way into the "Magna Carta". The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to "vocate, interrogate and adjudicate". In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works [(1863) 143 ER 414], the principle was thus stated:
"Even God did not pass a sentence upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his defence. "Adam" says God, "where art thou? hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat".
9. Since then the principle has been chiselled, honed and refined, enriching its content. Jud
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.