Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. It is to be borne in mind that while adjudicating a controversy the principles of natural justice have to be given top priority. The concept of natural justice has been described as 'substantial requirement of justice' by Kerl of Selborne, L.C. in Arthur John Spokmen v. The Plustood District Board of Works, (1984-85) 10 Appeal Ca 229, 240. The principles of natural justice in its ambit and sweep envelops a duty to act fairly having respect for what is right and wrong as that is the very quintessence of the process of adjudication. The principle embodied in the maxim 'qui aliquid statu earil, parte inaudita altera, auquum licet dexerit, and auquum facerit' that is to say, he who determines any matter without hearing both sides, though he may have decided right, has not done justice. It cannot be forgotten that justice should not indeed be done but manifestly seem to be done. The concept of hearing both sides clearly means to give a hearing to all the parties appearing before a Court of Law or any adjudicating authority. A hearing cannot be a mere formality. A hearing conveys the idea of giving opportunity of hearing to the parties before the Court so that they can putforth their cases. A litigant who has engaged a counsel harbours a hope that his counsel would putforth his case from all angles. If a counsel is not supplied the return filed by the co-respondent, it cannot be expected of him to putforth his case in quite completeness. A counsel can only argue with confidence when he has all the pleadings with him. In this context I may profitably refer to a decision rendered in the case of Josheph and Anr. v. Batoo Mary and Ors, (1995) 5 SCC 711, wherein the Apex Court has ruled that a person has right to be notified on any proceedings connected with the subject-matter wherein he has an interest. Thus, a counsel of a respondent cannot be kept in dark about the stand taken by the co-respondent. In a given case the respondent-State may support the stand taken by the petitioner but the private respondent may try to contradict the same and at that stage he would like to understand the exact plea putforth by the State or any other respondent. Quite apart from the above, the principle of hearing engulfs the procedure to hear one side and thereafter hear the other. This being the practice in Courts since the inception of the machinery for adjudicating adversary litigation, it is essential, nay, requisite that the pleadings are to be exchanged so that, there is no remora or difficulty on the part of any counsel to putforth his case. It is to be borne in mind that the idea of fair hearing in its connotative conceptuality embraces grant of proper opportunity to the parties and exchange of pleadings is a step towards the same. Natural justice is an inseparable and unsegregated part of administration of justice. The concept of natural justice in its changeless essence includes good conscience which, when properly understood capsules giving appropriate hearing to the parties seeking justice. A judicial approach or acting judicially also mandates that adjudging process should be done equipping the parties to address the Courts without any kind of impediment. Absence of obstacle would include to have all the documents that form the part of Court's records. In absence of exchange of pleadings the hearing in the complete sense is not achieved and in that event the goal of justice is nullified.