AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM AND BEYOND: NATURAL JUSTICE PRINCIPLES IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND INDIA

The principles of natural justice, encapsulated in the maxims Audi Alteram Partem (right to a fair hearing) and Nemo Judex in Causa Sua (rule against bias), serve as foundational pillars of procedural fairness in common law systems. This article undertakes a comparative analysis of these principles in the United Kingdom and India, tracing their evolution from common law origins to their constitutional and jurisprudential significance in contemporary governance.

In the UK, landmark cases such as Ridge v Baldwin (1964)[1] and Dimes v Grand Junction Canal (1852)[2] established the necessity of fair hearings and impartial adjudication, reinforcing procedural integrity in administrative actions. India’s judiciary, however, has uniquely constitutionalized natural justice through expansive interpretations of Articles 14 (equality) and 21 (life and liberty) of the Constitution, as exemplified in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978)[3] and A.K. Kraipak v Union of India (1970)[4].

The study identifies divergent challenges: the UK grapples with balancing national security imperatives against fairness, while India confronts systemic judicial delays and accessibility barriers for marginalized communities. Emerging issues such as AI-driven decision-making and globalization’s impact on cross-border justice are critically examined, highlighting risks to transparency and accountability. The article argues that India’s constitutional framework fosters judicial activism, extending natural justice to administrative realms, whereas the UK adopts a restrained approach, particularly in security-sensitive contexts. Recommendations include mandating algorithmic transparency, strengthening tribunal reforms, and harmonizing domestic practices with international human rights norms. By bridging historical jurisprudence with modern governance challenges, this analysis underscores the enduring relevance of natural justice in safeguarding equity, impartiality, and public trust across evolving legal landscapes.