There are no definite provisions as to 'Natural Justice' in the Indian constitution. The concept of Natural Justice roughly relates to the concept of Law of Nature, although there are differences between the definitions of the two concepts. Natural justice is a very vast and wide topic to discuss and implement in itself. As obvious from the term itself, it roughly means justice on the basis of what is naturally right or wrong, or what is fair or unfair.

The Rule Of Natural Justice

The concept of Natural Justice has a very impressive history. From the Greeks to the Romans, and then the developments under the common law system which more and less has affected its application in the present times. The notion of Natural Justice roughly revolves around two principles:

1. Nemo judex in causa sua: This Latin principle means that no person should be a judge in his own case, and no one should be allowed to judge any matter while having personal bias.
   
   In Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. Vs State of Bihar (1), the petitioner held a mining lease for 99 years which was quashed by the government because of the violations committed by the petitioner under sections 10, 12 and 14 of Mines Act. The petitioner here convinced the court that there was personal bias by the minister who had quashed the license as he was opposed by the petitioner in general elections a few years before. The Supreme Court found the allegation to be true and the order was revoked.
    
2. Audi Alterum Partum: This principle means that the other side should be given a fair chance to be heard. It provides the rights to the accused to respond to the allegations made against them and consequently prepare his defense as such. The principle was used in the famous Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India case (2).

Exceptions To Natural Justice

1. Doctrine of necessity and absolute necessity: Doctrine of necessity is an exception to the rule of bias under natural justice. It allows authorities to do certain things which are necessary to be done at the moment, and those acts which would in a normal situation not be allowed by the law. It is invoked in situations where there is no definite authority to decide on a matter. In Ashok Kumar Yadav vs. State of Haryana (3), it was decided by the court that a member of Public Service Commission can't exclude himself from the selection process completely just because they might be related to some of the candidates, and may exclude themselves only during the selection process of those candidates to whom he might be related.
    
2. Statutory exceptions to the rule of natural justice: The principle of natural justice can be excused by certain acts of the parliament. Parliament may through its powers get rid of the procedures that are otherwise necessary for any administrative action. It must also be noted here that any action of the parliament which does not permit the individuals certain rights during the time period of the act, such act is bound to come under the scrutiny of the courts and may be challenged under Article 14 of the Constitution. A statute may exclude natural justice either expressly or by necessary implication.
    
3. Exception during situations of emergency: India has witnessed its share in situations of emergencies. It is generally observed in India that during a situation of emergency, in those cases where the right to be heard will affect the government process, it will be excluded by the law for the time being. This means that any hearing or any process which may jeopardize the interest of the public at large would not be needed under the principle of natural justice and any such right would be obviated for the time being. It is necessary in those situations where the process of fair hearing may take too much and in consequence put the society in trouble either due to any external force, natural force or any internal troubles. In Mohinder Singh Gill vs. CEC (4), there were constituency elections going on in Ferozpur, which were interrupted by mob violence, which caused some ballot papers and boxes to be destroyed, while the elections were still underway in some places. The ECI ignored the right to be heard and without any notice ordered re-elections. The court did not interrupt the work of the ECI and dismissed the claims for notice by saying that the said act was necessary in an emergency situation and Audi alteram partem can be ignored in this situation.
    
4. Exception where no right of an individual has been infringed: Where a person does not have any right, and neither can he derive any right from any statute or any common law provision, he cannot ask for a remedy in that case under the principles of natural justice, and he may in such case forfeit procedural fairness. The Latin principle Ebi Jus ebiremedium stands for where there is a right, there is a remedy. So naturally, in cases where there arises no right, no remedy can be granted.
    
5. Exception in cases where public interest is of importance: In those situations, considering the welfare of the public at large, it is important to not dispense any such information which may put the safety of the public at threat. State must make sure that it should not compromise the security of its territory, and that it should protect all the information that it has which is of public importance. In Balco Employees Union vs. UOI (5), the Supreme Court established that the principles of natural justice had no role to play in those situations where policies considering the public at large were to be undertaken.
    
6. Exception in cases of impracticality: This is one of the simplest exceptions to the rule of natural justice. Natural justice can be applied only when it is practical in nature to apply it. But natural justice can be excluded when there is no practicality to the situation in it.
    
7. Exception in cases of academic evaluation:In cases where the authority involved is academic in nature, or if the authority is of complete administrative nature, in such cases, their evaluations may be excluded from the ambit of the rule of natural justice.

In JNU vs. B.S. Narwal (6), the respondent was a student of Jawaharlal Nehru University. The student was removed from the university on the basis of his academic performances, without being given any hearing prior to the notice. The case reached the Supreme Court where the court observed that the nature of the decision is academic authority in nature and that decisions from such an authority automatically declines any right to be heard, and it was held that if the assessment of the authority is competent and it decides that the work of the particular student is unsatisfactory, then the rule of natural justice may not be applied.

Conclusion
There are various exceptions to the rule of Natural Justice, courts in India have applied the exceptions in various situations where the principles of Natural Justice can be put aside. However, these exceptions are completely circumstantial and not definite in nature. There are no documents or legislatures that regulate natural justice or its exceptions. The list itself is not exhaustive in nature. Exceptions to the rule of natural justice can be studied from other dimensions which may give us even more situations where other exceptions may arise.

In cases where natural justice principles are excluded by the judiciary, it implies that the courts have adopted that particular notion regarding the dimension of the exception of natural justice even if the law-making bodies have not adopted it. It is also an important point to be noted that the principles of natural justice should not be overruled unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. It is necessary to make sure that these exceptions don't take over the actual law of the land.

Bibilography

• http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1549-concept-of-natural-justice.html
• https://www.cusb.ac.in/images/cusb-files/2020/el/law/Exceptions of Natural Justice_6th Sem.pdf
• https://bnblegal.com/article/natural-justice/

Foot-Note:

1. 1960 AIR 468, 1960 SCR (2) 909
2. AIR 1978 SC 597
3. 1987 AIR 454, 1985 SCR Supl. (1) 657
4. 1978 AIR 851
5. AIR 2002 SC 350
6. 1981 SCR (1) 618