Introduction
The Theory of Prejudice is normally used in the domain of
Administrative Law and it is a tool devised by the Courts to prevent the abuse
of the principles of Natural Justice. The Principles of Natural Justice have
been evolved to uphold the rule of law and rights of an individual. They are
not incantations to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all and sundry
occasions.
The Theory of Prejudice asks the question that whether ‘Prejudice’
has been caused to a person on account of violation of his rights protected by
the principles of Natural Justice. As per the Theory of Prejudice, this would
depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. E.g. if an employee has
committed to fraud and used forged documents to get appointed in the
organization and Departmental Proceedings in relation to this have started,
then whether he is being given a Notice or not, whether he is being provided
with the documents that determine his guilt or not or whether his other rights
protected under principles of Natural Justice have been complied with or not,
would be of little significance as no different consequence would have followed
even if principles of Natural Justice had been followed. In the words of the
Court in Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad etc. v. B. Karunakar etc., reported
at AIR 1994 SC 1074, it would be a perversion of justice to permit the employee
to resume duty and to get all the consequential benefits. It amounts to
rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and thus to stretching the concept of
justice to illogical and exasperating limits. It amounts to a "unnatural expansion of Natural
Justice" which in itself is antithetical to justice.
The Courts should refrain from mechanically setting aside the
Order of Punishment in such cases. There must be application of mind in
deciding whether non-supply of documents or other such hyper-technical grounds
could lead to violation of substantive rights of a person.
Important Case Laws relating
to the Theory of Prejudice
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a plethora of cases has held
that breach of Natural Justice simpliciter will not be the cause of action to
quash any order until and unless it is satisfied that the person concerned has
been Prejudiced due to such breach of Natural Justice. In Union of India v. Alok Kumar,
reported at (2010) 5 SCC 349, it has been held that:
“85. The doctrine of
de facto Prejudice has been applied both in English as well as in Indian law.
To frustrate departmental enquiries on a hyper technical approach has not found
favour with the courts in the recent times. In S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan, AIR
1981 SC 136, the Court has held that if upon admitted or indisputable facts
only one conclusion was possible, then in such a case that principle of Natural
Justice was in itself Prejudice would not apply. Thus, every case would have to
be examined on its own merits and keeping in view the statutory rules applying
to such departmental proceedings.”
Thus we see that it is not possible to lay down rigid rules
as to when the principles of Natural Justice are to apply and there is no such
thing as a merely technical infringement of Natural Justice. In Ridge
v. Baldwin, [1964] AC 40, it was said that the requirements of Natural
Justice must depend on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the nature
of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject-
matter to be dealt with, and so forth.
de facto Prejudice
The earlier view of the Courts was that the breach of
principle of Natural Justice was in itself a Prejudice and no other ‘de facto’ Prejudice needs to be proved.
Thus the requirement of de facto Prejudice
has become an essential feature where there is violation of non-mandatory Statutory
Rules or Natural Justice as it is understood in its common parlance.
Mere apprehension of de
facto Prejudice is not enough. It should exist as a matter of fact or there
should be a definite instance such as violation of a Statutory Rule.
Apprehended Prejudice cannot be a ground for setting aside the Departmental
Enquiries or Orders of Punishment. Thus there must be sufficient and cogent documentation
proving Prejudice before the Court.
Conclusion
We see that the Theory of Prejudice does not set out
something new or novel. It is a mere extension of the principles of Common Law.
The Courts devise such tools in order to prevent abuse of process of Courts by unscrupulous
elements. The Theory of Prejudice somewhat akin to Doctrine of unclean hands. Though
there are a number of key differences between the two. However, both the
theories or doctrines are invented to address the problem of abuse of process
of courts by adopting hyper-technical approach and preventing the Litigants
with a malicious intent from getting relief from the Courts.
2. Doctrine of Delegated Legislation and the Constitution of India
3. Doctrine of Territorial Nexus and the Constitution of India
3. Doctrine of Territorial Nexus and the Constitution of India
4. Doctrine of Occupied Field and the Constitution of India
5. Doctrine of Pith and Substance and the Constitution of India
6. Doctrine of Colorable Legislation and the Constitution of India
5. Doctrine of Pith and Substance and the Constitution of India
6. Doctrine of Colorable Legislation and the Constitution of India
No comments:
Post a Comment