Supreme court on natural justice

      Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621 ; There can be no distinction between a quasi-judicial function and an administrative function for the purpose of principles of natural justice. The aim of both administrative inquiry as well as the quasi-judicial inquiry is to arrive at a just decision and if a rule of natural justice is calculated to secure justice or to put it 'negatively, to prevent miscarriage of justice, it is difficult to see why it should be applicable to quasi- judicial inquiry and not to administrative inquiry. It must logically apply to both. It cannot be said that the requirements of fair play in action is any the less in an administrative inquiry than in a quasi-judicial one. Sometimes an unjust decision in an administrative inquiry may have far more serious consequences than a decision in a quasi-judicial inquiry and hence rules of natural justice must apply, equally in an administrative inquiry which entails civil consequences. ………… The rigid view that principles of natural justice apply only to judicial and quasi-judicial acts and not to administrative acts no longer holds the field. …………… The principle of audi alteram partem, which mandates that no one shall be condemned unheard, part of the rules of natural justice. In fact, there are two main principles in which the rules of natural justice are manifested, namely, Nemo Judex in Sua Causa and Audi alteram partem. ……………

Court in Suresh Koshy George v. The University of Kerala and Ors. (1969)1 S.C.R. 317 the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case the framework of the law under which the inquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a court that some principles of natural justice had been contravened the court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of the case."

Court in D.F.O. South Khari v. Ram Sanehi Singh [1973] 3S.C.C.864. The law must, therefore, now be taken to be well settled that even in an administrative proceeding, which involves civil consequences, the doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable.

Supreme Court in Union of India v. J. N. Sinha, [1971] 1 S.C.R. 791. that "Rules of natural justice are not embodied rules nor can they be elevated to the position of Fundamental Rights. Their aim is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice.These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. They do not supplant the law but supplement it. If a statutory provision can be read consistently With the principles of natural justice, the courts should do 'so. But if a statutory provision either specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application of any rules of natural justice then the court cannot ignore the mandate of the legislature or the statutory authority and read into the concerned provision the principles of natural justice."