 From such a long time for around two years now, you can say that the love and the entire, the way you have connected with us, it gives us the zeal to keep on moving. And as they say that everything has to change for the betterment and we all did sessions originally in English and thereafter with the feedback when you did few sessions in Hindi itself. And now we have also started a series wherein we take sessions which is a combination of English and Hindi. We made a request to Justice Kuldeep Singh, who is a former judge from Punjab and High Court, that the sessions were a combination of Hindi and English so that people can understand, especially I would say who have been deprived of the education of the best of the cities but after the pandemic, we have also seen that the best of the speakers and best of the knowledge can be shared on the YouTube and different social medias. While taking this endeavour forward, today's session is about the principles of natural justice under the administrative law. In principles of natural justice, there are two basic principles which have been called out. One is that nobody can be judged in its own case and second is nobody can be condemned unheard. The different facets and these two aspects have been given different contours under the law, but the bottom line continues to remain the same. Though Pramab Shah appears that these two principles have been day in and day out being given in the various judgments, yet we find that the administrative authorities, quasi-judicial authorities, sometimes in their orders, past orders which are non-speaking, cryptic, and these two cardinal principles have been violated. But understanding this for common people, for lawyers, for students, and for quasi-judicial authorities which have been called out. To understand these things, today we have Justice Kuldeep Singh, who has done several sessions before. And the last session which he did, which is the Hindi-English combination, it is doing tremendously well. And since it is late hours, I'll request Justice Kuldeep Singh, a former judge of Punjab and Aykut, to share his knowledge. Thank you Vikas. These days, we work with authorities in some places. We go there. So the job of the authorities is that they exist for the public. The administrative authorities that have been created have been created to give justice to the people. That is why it is important that the faith of the people in the authorities is increased. That is why it is important that on the administrative side, one person's problem should be heard completely. And after hearing it, make a decision that there is no scope for error. Sometimes there are two parties that should be heard. Today, in our democracy, the right of hearing is very important. Take our constitution. Article 311, which is the removal of public servants, has been given a procedure on how to inquire, how to give it a hearing, how to do it. Then Article 14-21 has been emphasized by the principle of natural justice. It has been imposed on it, such as the right of equality, your independence, your personal liberty, your trade liberty, your religion and so on. So in today's age, when people are very conscious of their rights, the importance of principle of natural justice increases so that in the democratic process, people can make more faith and study further. The principle of natural justice basically, it is a fair exercise of power by the administrative authorities. The administrative authorities had to adopt a fair procedure and do it. Today, the number of administrative authorities has increased a lot. Their duties have become very different. Sometimes, it happens in law that a procedure is given in its rules that you have to follow this procedure. That is the complying with the principle of natural justice. But it is not possible that every work should be made into rules and given a procedure. So where the procedure is given, you have to follow it. If it is not possible or not given, then the principle of natural justice comes. You have to do it again so that people can get justice. That is why you have to follow the principle of natural justice. As I told you, people's faith increases by following it. Sometimes, big mistakes happen because of not listening. So that can be avoided. When you listen to someone, the first party tells you about it. You have seen it in some files, it is not in the file. If you listen to the second party, you get an idea of where it is. So you can reach a rational decision. Otherwise, it becomes a blunder. Let me give you an example. There was one case where there was a crack. There was a conviction in the corruption case. It was less than three years ago. The court bailed it the same day. So he quietly came and joined the duty. The next day he came to the duty. As the procedure goes on, when the judge's copy is done, or the prosecutor is sent, it takes time. He went to a branch and kept it there. So that person continued to work. He filed an appeal and his sentence was suspended. He continued to work. During the appeal pending in the High Court, he died because of his natural causes. When he died, his family gave him a pension. He told the department to give him a pension. When he started giving him a pension, he came to the judgment that this person had been convicted. The government's instruction was that if someone is convicted, he should be dismissed from service. Article 311 says so. If the appeal is in his eyes, he should be reinstated. What did the concerned authority do? It was a diplomatic mission in that case. He didn't listen to the party. He said, we had to do this. He was left with us. He dismissed the debtor who was there to hide the mistake. Now the order has been challenged. So you know what action you can take against a dead person. You can't dismiss him from service. Obviously, he is not alive. Now the question is, is the order of the Deputy Commissioner valid? So I asked him, did you dismiss him? Can you dismiss a dead person? He said, I can't. I said, how did you do it? I said, I had to do it. I said, I could have dismissed him. When he was convicted, you didn't do it. He kept on working. How can you do it? The problem was that before he passed the order, he didn't listen to his legal absence. When he was listening, he was dead, how can we do it? So maybe in his mind, we can't take a department election against a dead person. So you don't listen to such a blunder when you just look at the file, it happens many times. So he has to do it. Now the principle of natural justice, it is applicable to the judicial authorities. Everybody knows that the judicial authorities have to listen to both the first party and the second party. So it is applicable to the city. There are its rules and laws. Second, there are quasi-judicial authorities. Those quasi-judicial authorities are applicable to them as well. Now there was a gray area in this, what is the principle of natural justice applied to the administrative authorities? So first I had a little doubt about this in the courts that administrative action is not applicable to it. But now that line is very clear now. That administrative orders and administrative authorities are also the principle of natural justice. Suppose the administrative authorities have to pass an order, like in the UNISTIC exam, someone was caught copying unfair means. Now the question is, if there is a disability, if they have to take action, they have to cancel the exam, they have to do the debar. So in that, the principle of natural justice has been applied, you will have to listen to it. Administrative authorities also have to listen to it. For example, in the election, if you have to cancel the election, if you find a material, you have to listen to it. This is an administrative order, of the election commission, but you have to listen to it. For example, the municipal committee wants to supersede the authorities, there are allegations against it. So they have to listen to it, that this is something against you, and you have to supersede it. And many times it happens that there is a dangerous structure, if you want to destroy it, you have to hear the other party and you have to listen to it. In some cases, the administrative action on which the principle of natural justice is applied, is applied to everyone. So the courts had a very famous case, Menka Gandhi versus Union of India, Mahindra Singh Gill versus Chief Election Commission, they examined everything. In that, the Supreme Court had ruled that the civil consequences of the action, in which you had to follow the principle of natural justice. What are the civil consequences? Pecuniary, you may have a penalty, you may have a loss, you may have a property effect, you may have a personal liberty, you may have a personal loss, you may have a civil consequences, you may have to follow the civil consequences, the administrative authorities will have to follow the principles of natural justice. The principle of natural justice is not a fixed concept. It is not a fixed concept. Time to time changes. Whether it was in 1900 or 1950, or 1970, it is not necessary that it is the same today. Our society is developing our society is developing and where the principles of natural justice were not followed, we have to follow them. So it is a flexible concept, it keeps changing with time. The principle of natural justice is that nobody can be judge of his own cause. Nobody can decide their own problem in which they are involved. The other thing is that justice is not done. But it appears to have been done. Justice is not done but people also feel that justice is being done or the party felt that justice was done. For example, if you want to take action, the civil consequences of which you first notice the party, call them, listen to them. After listening to them, if there is no other party, if they order, if they give reasoning, then it seems to have been heard. If the authority is involved, if it has personal interest, then they cannot be judge of their own cause. Suppose there is a selection for a higher post, a selection committee is formed and one of the candidates himself is a member of that committee and he is deciding that he has to be promoted. In court, you cannot be judge of your own cause. You are involved in that and you don't defend yourself. The maximum is called the party, the party here. Now, the rules of hearing are that you have to hear the opposite party. The first thing is that the authority has to issue notice to the affected party. So, what should be the notice? This is also that you issue a notice and if you have a problem, then it is very uncertain. So, the notice should be an adequate notice. You give it enough time for 2-4 days. So, give it enough time for 2-4 days and then what kind of nature of hearing is there. Then the authority will tell you which authority is there and what is its jurisdiction. And the material you have should also be given to the other party. So, after giving the notice, the opportunity of hearing should be a reasonable opportunity of hearing. It is not that you should not let me see or hear you. It is over. You have given a notice of 24 hours. So, it is not like that. You should give a reasonable opportunity for the party affected to get reasonable time to answer that. It should not be in haste. Now, the hearing can be your oral if you call the party and after that it is necessary for hearing that the material you have should be given to the party which is relevant material. Then whatever the party's effects should be disclosed. I should emphasize that this session is a mix of Hindi and English in hybrid form for the benefit of all the viewers. So, whatever effects should be disclosed whatever evidence should be disclosed and the material should be given to the party. Then the party will answer that. Then after that it should be given a chance to rebut it that your first party is doing such a thing that it has such documents. If you give a document to the other party then you see this document and what is your answer. So, the other party listens to it. Both parties have the right that they should know the evidence which is being used against them. So, after that if the party is being elitrated then you have to see if the party is being properly explained or given or if it is being given legal representative's permission or if you are taking your assistance from someone. Sometimes there are technical matters where you have to give assistance. If you are being trained then you can give help to the liar. So, sometimes the rules are provided that how to give legal help. So, then you have to follow the rules. Then after giving the party an opportunity your decision should not be in haste. There is no decision in haste. There is a mistake. Sometimes the party makes a big emotional appeal to the administrative authority that I am poor but they are making mistakes. So, they have an art and a retreat. So, they make you emotional. You make emotional decisions and sometimes you make mistakes. So, my suggestion is that when such a thing happens that the party makes an emotional appeal or you think that you are emotionally involved then you should give it to them for a few days. One or two days if you do more work then the administrative authority will put in more cases then the reasoning mind will start working then your decision will be made. Now, the decision to give the administrative authority that should be reasoned speaking order. What is the speaking order? Speaking order for administrative authority is that you have to give sufficient reasons. Judicial authority does not have to give detailed reasoning. Maybe it can be brief but not sketchy order. In that you have to give brief reasoning that it is like this and like this. And the matter of the appeal that you are doing then you have to give the grounds that you are doing. Now, the appellate authority does not have to give brief reasoning or detailed reasoning. Now, many times you have to take a decision due to public policy. In the case of Main Ka Gandhi you can also do post-decision hearing or even after taking a decision. For example, in the case of Main Ka Gandhi his unit of India has revoked his passport in the interest of what we are doing. So, the Supreme Court has never said that you cannot do this. If you have passed the order then now listen to this and pass the fresh order. Personally, I think if we examine the academic side then there is no post-decision hearing you are revoking his passport. So, the petition is not so dangerous that he will do something like the Raj Paltak then you have to give the hearing first. It is just an emergency case. Public policy case. If there is a smuggler, he is running. You can revoke his passport and then listen. There is an element that is going to crime on the foreign soil you can do this. But not the ordinary citizens not in that. So, on the academic side it is that in which you feel that there is no danger to the public peace or safety you should give the hearing first. Now, the next question is how can biases be? How can there be bias? So, how many types of bias do you have? So, the first is pecuniary bias that you have financial interest suppose you share the company so, your property is involved so, your property is involved so, in which your pecuniary interest is involved the administrative authority has a personal bias the principle of natural just requires that the authority should not hear that matter or decide that matter. Next kind of bias is personal bias suppose your relatives your friends your business associates they have a matter or someone with enmity or grievance or professional rivalry you have a matter of that matter so, your personal bias is involved in the favour of your friend or your rival or an MP so, business associates so, the authority should not hear it is against the principle of natural justice in which your interest matters should not hear and decide now, next kind of bias is subject matter bias or your view on subject matter your view on subject matter in that normally speaking in that the principle of natural justice does not apply it is a very rare case that replies suppose the subject we take about reservation your personal view your personal view your personal view doubt looks your decision effect but you have to listen to both parties you have to see the law so, your personal view is not necessary to overshadow that matter so, subject matter about bias normally speaking the principle of natural justice does not apply next kind of bias is departmental bias departmental bias is a bias like a secretary he has to nationalize him he has to make a police he has to take his own objection listen to the parties and decide but he is making a police he is doing his own objection so, his bias is a bias that I have to uphold the decision so, in that matter he cannot listen to that matter that is illegal by the people of natural justice so, in such a matter when the order makes a concern that is a question now, sometimes a next kind of bias can be a policy bias suppose the government made a policy take the nationalization policy that you have to nationalize the transport the government has already declared that we are going to nationalize made a committee put a policy bias and put other members so, today you have to listen to them and decide they listened they made a policy bias and they reported the government by doing an arrest so, in this the police has made and ultimately the government is the one deciding so, in the fact it does not make a policy bias that he is involved in the policy, he has made a policy government he has made political bosses so, in those cases the principle of natural justice does not apply now, the question is that yes sir yes sir, you can start have you done? yes so, now the question is what administrative authorities in every matter the principle of natural justice is important to follow do you have any exceptions yes, there are some exceptions if you start doing this work in every work if you call him and do this then sometimes there are some such work in which his purpose will be defeated or there are some such matters in which there is no need so, first of all in the statute there is a provision that there is no need to listen to it like on attaining certain age you have to do an assessment of an employee whether he is to be retained in service or not and by looking at the record you have to decide about the compulsory retirement that you need not hear that concerned employee you can also decide that you have to give an extension or not because it is in the statute the second conclusion is legislative function suppose the legislative unit the legislature has to pass the bill the tax has to be paid the price has to be fixed the direction of the general character has to be given so, there is no need to call every person and start doing this work if this happens then they will not be able to work so, the legislative function there is no need to listen to it like the municipal corporation also has some legislative function which is the administrative character so, if they are doing some kind of tax the municipal act if there is no provision then you do not need to listen to it after that comes emergency actions there are many things that are of the emergent nature so, in that you do not need to listen to the other party if you understand it correctly then you can listen later there are examples that there is a dangerous building that is going to fall there are human lives at stake in that you can drop the building before listening to it and to save the lives of the people you can listen to it later you can listen to it later you have to wound up the banking companies to protect their depository interest there are many times that a dangerous person has to maintain public peace he has to detain it so, sometimes it is so dangerous that if you listen to it then you will not get it so, that is important there is a dangerous example that there is a dangerous commodity that you have to destroy so that the public's health is affected you can do it without hearing if it is important then you can listen later then comes the public interest if it is in the public interest that you have to do the work it is in the public interest that its hearing is not important then you can dismiss it there is an example there is a public safety public health is involved public morality is involved sometimes it is like a fire to save a fire from spreading it is important to drop the building if you do the work of giving notice to it then it will cause some damage because the public interest requires it sometimes there is an animal life that is dangerous animal that is killing the public then you have to take it then there is no need to listen to the public sometimes there is a poisonous food then there is no need to destroy it next comes the exclusion is the ability of impractic because sometimes impractic means that you cannot hear like the number of people if you want to hear their number it is not possible to call and hear like an example you are copying a mask in a centre there are so many students you cannot call and hear you have to cancel the exam so if you want to hear it then without hearing those it is not possible to cancel the exam sometimes if you want to do academic evaluation then you will not need hearing you have seen the academic record then you have to do the evaluation indeed not here next comes the authorities to take internal disciplinary action if you want to take pre-disciplinary action then you have to suspend it transfer it then there is no need to hear it next comes the contract if you have to pass an order if it is not provided in rules then there is no need to hear it sometimes the work of hearing that is useless formality the other party knows the case is very clear an example is the teacher took a leave to fill an M and took admission in Ph.D now the authorities know they have to take action about it now the teacher's stand is very clear that I have taken admission in Ph.D if you ask then he will tell that I have taken admission in Ph.D but he took permission to fill an M to take an administrative action in fact there is no useless formality to hear it so these are the exclusions to hear it now comes if the principle of natural justice is not followed then what is the nature of that order whether it is a wide order it is a viable order or a wide order now a wide order which you can provide if someone will do a challenge then it is illegal a wide order is shown that it is illegal from the beginning so about this the courts in different cases examined it one case state of Kerala versus M Kuni, Kanan Nambir in that case if you have not done natural justice follow then that is your order it is a wide order it is illegal from the beginning as if you have taken action without hearing without following procedure it is illegal from the beginning in another case a journalist's passport was impounded without hearing him he says he does not follow anyone in public police if you have done it then it is a wide order and that was a question as I told you earlier as you go to the doctor if the doctor listens to you patiently you say I have a sore throat I have a flu so the doctor tells you if you have a flu, take this medicine if you ask the patient what is your symptoms you have a headache you have a sore throat if the patient gives you hearing you feel that you have come to the right person he will treat you you have confidence antibodies start forming I will be fine the other is that this is not a simple flu these are the symptoms of corona I do not have to give a simple flu medicine I have to treat corona and take the precautions the double benefit is that because of the patient's hearing he has become a confidence in the doctor and the doctor he has been able to treat and heal his patient that is why it is important that the principle of natural justice is followed now of late this tendency has become that I have the power to order whatever you want if you challenge in the court then whatever will happen will take time so that arbitraryness has come in the authorities it is necessary to check the public's confidence in the administration and in the democratic system if the administrative authority goes with someone he will challenge the person but his faith in the administrative authorities will end and then he starts using extra legal methods to do this so it is very important for a healthy democratic system the principle of natural justice has all the authorities to follow that was all on the principle of natural justice over to Vikas let us see what Mr. Vikas want to add or if there are any questions that can be answered sir by chance his name is Vikas he says how expediency and interest of justice is decided as normally courts are reluctant to pass an order under a CRPC section 340 he gives power to the court if there is a crime in the court courts are reluctant of course I agree with that I have worked in the lower courts I was not reluctant I used to do that why they are reluctant they have so many cases that they are unable to handle those cases there is a lot of rush so it is a new case they are afraid of adding secondly after the inquiry after the inquiry after the court if the court complains then the court will become a complainant judge says why should I complain then the parties will ask the question will cross me that is why they add I think that fear should be dispelled your duty you are a crime if you do not prevent it then people will get hurt I once said that there was a will in the court so I did the inquiry very senior council appeared he said leave it you will complain in 340 you will become a complainant then I will ask you a simple question then it will be very uncomfortable I said I am not afraid of the questions but I will tell you that you cannot ask me the reason is that I am citing you as a witness this is not your concern you will also be a witness because the drafting you were the counsel you will prove that you will not be able to do it then he was taken aback once they have committed how much courage in the court they have done this they will have to face the consequences so I filed the complaint but judges by and large tell you the reason they are afraid of being a complainant they are afraid of their work that is why they are a little reluctant and this the high court of the administrator it is their duty to put the judges in their minds that you do not need to be afraid it is part of your duties if the case increases if you do not increase then they will have to file another file if you stop them then the case will not increase then they will be afraid of the party and the other person who is going to do the crime at least the person who is going to do the crime will stop and they will not do the wrong case what happened to me that there was a case I said no we do not want to run it was wrong so they will do the same and they will not be able to do such a case so it has a salutary effect but the judges need to be sensitized about this and this was our effort to speak in Hindi in the time of elections as we can say people like Rujan and I am seeing for both of us the communication skills being in the so much we are customized towards English it looks as if it is answered I interrupted you I had second language in Hindi I had only studied for 2 years so what I have learned in Hindi is that I have learned from my friend the circle my friend was from the university he used to speak Hindi so I had to speak with him in Hindi so I have learned from him that in Hindi like I can speak well that is the reason I have my friends because of them I have learned from them one more reason so it is better so thank you sir for sharing your knowledge and tomorrow's session would be on overview of the schedule cast and schedule tribes prevention of atrocities act 1989 by Mr. Isha Somasekar a retired principal judge from Bangalore and we all know that his sessions are doing extremely well do stick connected with us tomorrow at 6.30 thank you everybody and thank you for encouraging the 9 o'clock session as we say in the TRPs that is prime time we never expected that people would leave that prime time and join these sessions thank you everyone and we hope that the cases of COVID are getting less and people return to normal and those who didn't get the injection they return to normal and keep the mask on as long as the government is doing good but as a citizen we will also be over responsible and thank you sir thank you everybody thank you