In M.S.M Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha1, it was held that “art.

19(1) (a) guarantees to all citizen

freedom of speech and expression but does not specifically or separately provide for liberty of
the press. It has, however, been held that the liberty of the press is implicit in the freedom of
speech and expression which is conferred on a citizen.

In Uma nath pandey and others v. union of India2, it was held that the procedure of natural
justice has not be followed by the high court of U.P. while giving the judgment since it just heard
the respondent side and failed to give chance to the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order was
set aside and matter to the high court was remitted back for afresh consideration.

In R.S.Dass v. union of India,3 , it was discussed that natural justice is not rigid nor an inflexible
rule. It should be applied to a given fact situation, depending upon the background of the
statutory provisions, nature of the right which may be affected and the consequence may entail.

In the matter of “K”a judicial officer4 it was quoted that, a judge entrusted with the task of
administering justice should be bold and feel fearless while acting judicially and giving
expressions to his views and constructing his judgment an order. The availability of such
fearlessness is essential for maintainability of judicial independence.

“The courts do have a power to express opinion, make observations and even offer criticism on
the conduct of anyone coming within their gaze of judicial review.”5

In Canara bank v. V.K.Awasthy6 it was held that, natural justice is another name for common-
sense justice. Rules of natural justice are not been codified canons. But they are principles
ingrained into the conscience of man. The words natural justice and legal justice do not present a
watertight classification.

1
M.S.M Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha AIR 1959 SC 395
2
Uma nath pandey and others v. union of India AIR 2010 SC 501
3
R.S.Dass v. union of India, AIR 1986 SC 617
4
In the matter of “K”a judicial officer AIR 2001 SC 54
5
Cardozo, essays on jurisprudence, Columbia Law Review, 1963, p.315
6
Canara bank v. V.K.Awasthy AIR2005 SCC 321
In J.P lineman inc., in re, frank, J. stated that “if, however, bias and partiality be defined to mean
total absence of preconceptions in the mind of judge, then no one has ever had a fair trial and no
one ever will. The human mind even in infancy is no blank piece of paper. We are born with pre
dispositions and the process of education, formal and informal, create attitudes which precede
reasonig in particular instances and which particular therefore, by definition are prejudices.”

In viveka nand sethi v. chairman7, it was held that the principle of natural justice, it is trite, is no
unruly horse. When the facts are admitted, an enquiry would be an empty formality. Even the
principle of estoppel will apply. The principles of natural justice are required to be compiled with
having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein. It cannot be put in a straightjacket formula.
It cannot be applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the
case.

The case E.M. sankaran Namboodripad v. T.Narayanan namblar8 relied on stating that “thus, in a
free democracy everybody is entitled to express his honest opinion about the correctness or
legality of a judgment or sentence or an order of a court but he should not overstep the bounds.
Though he is entitled to express that criticism objectively and with detachment in a dignified
language, the liberty of expression should not be a license to violently make personal attack on a
judge.

In laxmi khandsari v. state of U.P.9 the facts are that in exercise of power under clause 8 of
sugarcane (control) order, 1966, a notification was issued prohibiting crushing during particular
hours of the day. It was contended to be volatile of the principles of natural justice. It was held
that it is legislative in nature and the rules of natural justice will not be applied.

In union of India v. Cyanide India ltd. Chiapas ruddy10, J. speaking for the court heal that
legislative action, plenary or sub ordinate, is not subject to rules of natural justice. In the case of
subordinate legislation, it itself provide for a notice and for a hearing, no one can insist upon it
and it will not be permissible to the natural justice into such legislative activity.

7
viveka nand sethi v. chairman AIR SCC345
8
E.M. sankaran Namboodripad v. T.Narayanan nimbler AIR (1970) SCC 451
9
laxmi khandsari v. state of U.P AIR (1981) 3 SCC 600
10
union of India v. Cynamide India ltd. Chinappa reddy AIR (1987)2 SCC 720
In shri sitaram sugar company case11 it was reiterated that the fixation of price for sugar is a
legislative policy and the principles of natural justice would not apply.

In Supreme Court advocates-on-record assn. v. union of India12 it was discussed that, one of the
rules of natural justice ids the adjudicate should not be biased. This would mean that he neither
should neither entertain prejudice against either party to a lis nor should he be favorably inclined
towards anyone of them. Another component of the rule of bias is that the adjudicator should not
have a conflict of interest with the controversy he is to settle.

In A.K. kraipak v. union of India13, it was a case where one of the persons, who sat as the
member of the selection board, was himself one of the persons to be considered for selection.
Thus, the court has no hesitation in coming to that conclusion that there was likelihood of
biasness, and therefore, there was violation of principle of natural justice.

In Javed Rasool bhat and others v. state of Jammu and Kashmir14 , the facts were that one of the
member of selection board committee’s daughter was also interview by the same committee but
the member already informed his colleagues about the same and did not take the interview, hence
the court held that there was no likelihood of biasness, therefore there was no violation of
principle of natural justice.

In Harvey v. Shelton15 , relied on the submission that giving reasons in the award is in
consonance with the rules of natural justice which must be observed by the arbitrator as he
discharges a judicial function cannot be countenanced. Giving reasons in support if a decision is
not considered to be a rule of natural justice under the law of arbitration or administrative law.

11
shri sitaram sugar company case AIR (1990) 3 SCC 223
12
Supreme court advocates-on-record assn. v. union of India AIR (2016)5 SCC 1
13
A.K. kraipak v. union of India AIR (1969)2 SCC 262
14
Javed Rasool bhat and others v. state of Jammu and Kashmir AIR (1984)2 SCC 631
15
Harvey v. Shelton AIR (1844)7 Beav, 455