The recent upheaval within the Supreme Court amid a sexual harassment case against the Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, has given rise to an age-old question: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes – who will watch the watchmen? In light of the sexual misconduct allegations leveled against him, the Chief Justice organised a special bench unbeknown to him, infringing on the fundamental legal principles of due process and natural justice.
The Due Process Lapse
Due process is pivotal in addressing complaints of sexual harassment in the workplace. The most senior judge in the Supreme Court after the Chief Justice ideally should have recognized the complaint, established an independent internal complaints committee per current legislation, and ensured that the committee was able to perform its duties uninhibited by fear or bias. Unfortunately, this case was not dealt with according to due process.
Natural Justice: A Fundamental Principle
In this particular situation, a bench was formed headed by the Chief Justice himself, with the victim not present or given the opportunity to speak. The ‘Principles of Natural Justice’ emphasize two key points — Nemo in propria causa judex, esse debet i.e., no one should be made a judge in his/her own case. This is otherwise referred to as the rule against bias. The second principle is Audi alteram partem, which stands for hearing the other party or the rule of fair hearing. No one should be condemned unheard.
Principles of Natural Justice in Indian Constitution
While the term ‘Natural Justice’ doesn’t explicitly appear in the Constitution of India, the principle is embedded within the Preamble, Art 14, and Art 21.
The preamble encompasses the terms, ‘Justice Social, Economic and political’ liberty of thought, belief, worship and equality of status and opportunity. This ensures fair social and economic activities of the people and acts as a safeguard against arbitrary action, forming the basis for principles of Natural Justice.
Art 14 promises equality before law and equal protection of the law, preventing discrimination and prohibiting both discriminatory laws and administrative actions. As a result of judicial rulings, the concept of equality outlined in Art 14 has been growing, leading to a more activist approach.
The Context of Art 21
With Supreme Court’s declaration of “due process of Law” in the Maneka Gandhi case(1978), the court emphasised the principle of reasonableness in deciding a case. The process must be fair and reasonable, not arbitrary or unfair.
Difference between Due Process of Law and Procedure Established by the Law
| Due Process of Law | Procedure Established by the Law |
|---|---|
| Originated in the USA, it confers wider power on the judiciary, and if an action of the executive is challenged before the court, then the court will also apply the principle of natural justice. If the law is not found to be fair and reasonable, then court will declare the law as unconstitutional and void. | Originated in England, it means as per as per the practice and usage as laid down in the statute. It confers limited power in the hand of judiciary. Under this doctrine, if any action of the executive is challenged before a court, the court will see if the prescribed procedure has been followed by the executive while performing the action and will not go behind the intention of legislature. |
Understanding the Principles
These two principles essentially govern how courts and judiciary operate. The due process of law originated in the USA, whereas the procedure established by the law had its roots in England.
