Hira Nath Mishra And Others V. The Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi And Another

Case Citation: Air 1973 Sc 1260
Natural justice is a principle that is not explicitly codified, but rather has been adopted as a fundamental concept of common law on the basis of moral principles which ensures fairness in decision making. The principle of audi alteram partem, as a pillar of natural justice, guarantees to every human being a right to be heard in any case where allegations are made against them. However important it may be, natural justice is not inflexible. It is subject to modifications as per the requirements of sensitive matters.

The following case analysis is based on a case which deals with the question of flexibility of the application of principle of natural justice.
In The Supreme Court Of India (From Patna High Court)

Appellants: Hira Nath Mishra And Others Vs. Respondents: The Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi And Another

Issue Before The Court:

• Whether the order of expulsion by the enquiry committee was a violation of natural justice of the appellants?

Rules Applied

1. The Principle of Natural Justice
   Natural justice is a principle that is not explicitly codified, but rather has been adopted as a fundamental concept of common law on the basis of moral principles. Natural justice guarantees rights to people by birth. It comes naturally to every human being.
   
   It is considered to be the law of nature and is not stated in any statute or the constitution. The mere fact that this concept is not explicitly written down does not mean that it holds any less importance in comparison to all the other laws. Natural justice is considered to be essentially important in administrative law, especially in the working of tribunals.
   
   The principle of natural justice broadly consists of two main pillars:
   1. Nemo Judex in Causa Sua: This translates to rule against bias. This means that nobody should be a judge in his own cause and the decision maker shall be impartial and not exercise any personal interest in the matter at hand.
   2. Audi Alteram Partem: This translates to hear the other side or nobody should be condemned unheard. It means that before a decision is formed against any accused, he shall have a fair right to present his case and defend himself.
      
      Audi alteram partem consists of some essentials:
      • Right to notice
      • Right to present and rebut evidence
      • Right to be heard
      • Right to cross-examine witnesses
         
2. Flexibility of Natural Justice
   The concept of natural justice, although guaranteed to all citizens, has not been adopted in a rigid form and is subject to flexibility. The flexible nature of natural justice is based upon the nature of the function that is being performed, which may be administrative or quasi-judicial. The particular circumstances of a case, the urgency of a situation, and the extent of impact of the decision on parties to the conflict and others as well.
   
   In many judicial pronouncements, the Supreme Court has held that natural justice is not a straitjacket formula and is subject to changes and modifications as per the need of the particular case in question. In the case of PD Agarwal v. State Bank of India, the court explicitly stated that:
   

   "The principle of natural justice cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It must be seen in circumstantial flexibility. It has separate facets. It has in recent time also undergone a sea of change."

   In another case of State of UP v. Sudhir Kumar Singh, the Supreme Court observed tests to determine the non-observance of natural justice, stating that:
   

   "Natural justice is a flexible tool in the hands of the judiciary to reach out in fit cases to remedy injustice. The breach of the audi alteram partem rule cannot by itself without more lead to the conclusion that prejudice is thereby caused."

   Therefore, this rule of audi alteram partem is subject to modifications.
    
3. Discretionary Powers of Academic Authorities
   Academic authorities are vested with certain powers of discretion to ensure protection of students and staff. They are authorized to:
   • Take punitive steps in order to safeguard interests of students and staff
   • Exercise internal authorities to conduct inspections and inquiries
   • Take quick measures when there is glaring misconduct without involving formal law authorities

Application

Factual Circumstances

• The incident took place on June 10, 1972, where the appellants, who were second-year students of Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi, and were residing in the premises of the hostel, had allegedly trespassed into the premises of the girls' hostel compound during night.
• The accused had allegedly trespassed by climbing the walls of the hostel where the girls resided. After entering the premises, they had roamed in the premises unclothed and had harassed female students and had even attempted to pull the hand of one of the girls.
• Upon filing of complaint by the girls, investigations were launched and the girls identified four male students including the appellant of the present case along with one other student whose name was Upendra Prasad Singh.
• An official complaint was lodged against the accused and all were issued a show cause notice. While the investigations were going on, all the accused explicitly denied all the claims that were made against them and contended that during the time of the alleged misconduct, they were inside the premises of their own hostel.
• After all the evidence, testimonies of the complainants and accused were considered, the inquiring committee found the accused guilty of gross misconduct and recommended to the principal an expulsion of the accused for two years.
• Protesting against the order of expulsion, the appellants filed a writ petition but the High Court of Patna dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal was filed by the appellants against the Patna High Court judgment.
   

Contentions of Appellants

The appellants contested that their right to natural justice, specifically audi alteram partem, was infringed because:

• They did not receive a notice for the inquiry.
• They did not get a proper opportunity to present their defense.
• They were denied a right to cross-examination.
• They were denied to see the evidence that was collected against them.
   

Contentions of College

The respondent, which was the college of the appellants, contended that:

• The present scenario was a gross misconduct by the male students which put the female students under genuine fear and danger.
• The appellants were provided with sufficient notice before the inquiry.
• They were asked to present evidence to support their statements, but failed to do so.
• They were denied cross-examination so as to protect the identity of the female students who had testified against them.
• A preliminary inquiry was sufficient under the given circumstances and the expulsion order was valid so as to prevent future mishappenings of the same nature and protect rights of the female students as the college was in a loco parentis position.
   

Reasons Given by Court

The Supreme Court passed its judgment based on the following reasons:

• The court referred to the case of Union of India v. P. K. Rai to emphasize that the principle of natural justice was not one that followed a straitjacket formula. The court emphasized that this principle can be amended to suit the circumstances of the case in question.
• The court emphasized that a regular inquiry by the police or dragging the matter in court would not be feasible towards the girls since they would not have come out to give their statement in presence of the appellants due to genuine fear of harassment thereafter. The learned court also stressed that the appellants were provided with reasonable notice and opportunity to present their evidence which they failed to do.
• The court held that the college authorities were not equipped enough to provide security to the girls outside the premises of the college.
• The court reasoned that the principal and the college stood as guardians of the girl students that resided within the hostel premises of the college. That is, they are loco parentis to all the students who are a part of the particular institution.
• The college could not have dismissed the complaint lodged by the female students without taking any serious steps, as that would have given rise to the rowdiness exercised by the male students, which would have compromised the image of the college itself and would have also impacted the further education of the girls.
• Therefore, the principal and the college had proper authority to impose repercussions on the male students who had harassed the girls.
• There was no need for involving the police or taking the matter to a tribunal or allowing cross-examination of witnesses, as it would not have been an advantage to the girls, rather it would have put them in further danger of harassment.
• Therefore, under all stated reasons and circumstances, the court stated that the requirements of natural justice were fulfilled, re-emphasizing that these principles are not rigid and can be treated as flexible in order to suit the interests of the disadvantaged parties.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court finally maintained the college's and the Patna High Court's decision to expel the appellants. The court came to the conclusion that while natural justice principles are essential for maintaining equity, they are not rigid rules. A reasonable and fair preliminary investigation may be sufficient in situations like educational administration, particularly when there is urgent and serious misconduct involved.

The Court underlined that the safety, dignity, and welfare of the students, particularly those of female students, must be prioritized. Permitting drawn-out formalities in these situations could compromise discipline and erode confidence in the school's capacity to safeguard its students.
Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants and upheld the expulsion order passed against the appellants.

End Notes:

• PD Agarwal v. State Bank of India, Air 2006 Supreme Court 2064
  URL: www.aironline.in/cases/PD-Agarwal-v-State-Bank-of-India-AIR-2006-SC-2064
• State of UP v. Sudhir Kumar Singh, Air 2020 Supreme Court 5215
  URL: www.aironline.in/cases/State-of-UP-v-Sudhir-Kumar-Singh-AIR-2020-SC-5215
• Union of India v. P. K. Rai, Air 1968 Supreme Court 850
  URL: www.aironline.in/cases/Union-of-India-v-P-K-Rai-AIR-1968-SC-850