Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Maa Vindhya Stone Crusher Company v. State of U.P. and Anr., has held that in a civilized society, principles of natural justice ought to be followed in order to maintain rule of law.

What was the Background of Maa Vindhya Stone Crusher Company v. State of U.P. and Anr.?

• The petitioner was granted a mining lease for 10 years commencing from 15^th July 2016 and ending on 14^th July 2026 for the purpose of mining and crushing stone.
• On 17^th July 2023, the petitioner received a notice on his e-mail id where the allegation was that illegal mining had been done by him outside the area for which the mining lease was granted.
• Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed a writ petition.
  • Subsequently, the petitioner was blacklisted for 2 years, and its lease cancelled.
• The counsel for the petitioner stated that his side was not heard and there was non-compliance of principles of natural justice.
  • Allowing the petition, the Allahabad HC directed that the petitioner be allowed to function on his land with immediate effect.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bench consisting of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Shekhar B. Saraf, observed that, it may seem to a few that the observance of the principles of natural justice is a cumbersome process, but we do find that in a civilized society, the rule of law has to be there and the principles of natural justice should compulsorily be followed.
• The Court further held that violation of principles of natural justice was sufficient cause to set aside the order of cancellation of lease and blacklisting.

What are the Principles of Natural Justice?

About:

• Natural Justice is a common law concept which emphasise on fair, equal and impartial delivery of justice.
• It has been derived from the words ‘jus-naturale’ and ‘lex-naturale’ which emphasize the principles of natural justice, natural law and equity.

Rules of Natural Justice:

• Nemo Judex In Causa Sua – It means that no one should be a judge in his own case because it leads to the rule of biases.
• Audi Alteram Partem – It means that no person can be condemned or punished by the court without having a fair opportunity of being heard.

Case Laws:

• In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1977), the Supreme Court held that the concept of natural justice should be in every action whether it is judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative and or quasi-administrative work which involve civil consequences to the parties.
• In Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India (1981), the Supreme Court held that the Principles of Natural Justice are considered as fundamental and are therefore implicit in every decision-making functions.
• In the Union of India v. W.N Chadha (1992), the Supreme Court observed that since the purpose of the Principles of Natural Justice is to ensure justice and prevent and prevent miscarriage of justice, these rules do not extend to those areas where their application may lead to injustice.