JURISPRUDENCE

NATURAL LAW PHILOSOPHY AND THE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INTRODUCTION

Natural law philosophy is a legal philosophy that regards law and morality as inextricably linked,
if not identical. Morality is concerned with what is right and wrong, as well as what is good and
evil1. Natural law theorists think that morality, rather than an authority entity such as a monarch
or government, defines human laws. As a result, we humans are directed by our intrinsic human
nature to determine what the rules are and to behave in accordance with those laws.

Natural law is a collection of universal beliefs that were not developed by humans. It exists in a
vacuum away from human will. Natural law theory is based on the concept that there are absolute
laws regulated by morals that cannot be contradicted by human laws without endangering their
legal power.2 Human laws are those that have been formalized in nature, which implies they have
legal support. If one individual acts against them, he may face a legal trial. Natural rules, on the
other hand, have not been codified. Some theorists believe natural law is determined by the
unavoidable conditions of human life, whilst others believe natural law is generated from self
evident norms and practical reasons.

In its most pure and unadulterated version, natural law theory asserts Saint Augustine's notion
that unjust law is not law - lex injusta non est lex.3 The legal adage "lex injusta non est lex"
means "an unjust law is no law at all," and was made famous by Thomas Aquinas' memory of an
old Augustine remark regarding the futility of obeying unjust laws. 4

Although natural law is not widely known or expressly employed in resolving cases, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has ruled specific situations in which law of nature has been applicable. The
supreme has dabbled in the principles of natural law before and has done so in a decisive manner
employing many of the principles of natural law in order to aid in the pursuit of natural justice
and promote rights of individuals.
1
Jerome E. Bickenbach, Law and Morality, Jstor.org
2
Brittany McKenna, Natyral Law Theory: Definition, Ethics and Examples, study.com
3
Norman Kretzmann, Lex Iniusta Non Est Lex: Laws on Trial in Aquinas' Court of Conscience, 33 Am. J. Juris. 99
(1988). Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 96, a. 4, c.
4
Thomas Aquinas, On Law, Morality and Politics (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co., 1988)
Literature review

1. PHILOSOPHY OF NATURAL LAW by Justice K. N. Saikia

This article attempts to summarize natural law subjects in layman's terms in a very
sophisticated manner. His Lordship addresses the philosophy of the most renowned
natural philosophers in an exceedingly exact and simple manner, making it accessible
to the majority of people or at least those who would like to venture into the vast sea
of natural law.

2. APPLICATION OF NATURAL LAW IN SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS- Devm

This article thankfully provided me with the bulk of the information that was needed
to get into the project. It although small, served as the primary inspiration for my
work. This is an article that is written delicately with the depth of the writers
understanding showing itself on more than one occasions.
3.
George, Robert P. ‘NATURAL LAW, THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE THEORY
AND PRACTICE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW’-
It is a very useful book since it defines natural law and its implications in the
American Constitution. Natural law monitors the judiciary's exercise of authority
over other government coordinating agencies to ensure that they adhere to the
Constitution's power limitations.
NATURAL LAW

Natural law often quoted and supported but rarely understood, natural law philosophers search for
its essence sadly most do so in vain. This is because the philosophy is too large and everything
about it cannot be said all together. As all men who confront this come to different conclusions
about its source and applicability, it is more philosophical law that deals with the question of what
ought to be rather than the law as described by positivists such as HLA Hart.

Natural law is called ‘higher law’, and as such acts as a measuring stick against which all human
law should be judged.5 Natural law gives validity to all other laws and if a human law fails to meet
these requirements than it is not a law. Natural law is derived from different sources for everyone
a philosopher like Saint Thomas Aquinas may believe that it comes from a supreme being
whereas Locke is of the opinion that natural laws are guttural in nature and is plain as day,
concepts like life and liberty are fundamental enough to not require great justifications or lengthy
explanations.
Natural law or jus naturalis is a type of law that in its nature is superior to all other forms of law,
this superior law applies to all individuals and is such called higher law.6

The Development Of Natural Law

The philosophy of natural law doesn’t appear outright in the Indian constitution unlike the
constitution of the United States of America. Figures like James Otis, instrumental in developing
the concept of natural law were also instrumental in the development of the ideas of
representation and constitutionalism. Otis was a natural law thinker and proclaimed in 1764 that
all law and governments are built on an “ an everlasting foundation in the unchangeable will of
God, the Author of nature whose laws never vary”7and there is no law older than god and his
nature and there is no sovereign large enough to overrule his will, As such we can see a clear
influence of natural law in the constitution of America that starts with the profound statement
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their creator with

5
Anuja Prakash, Application of Natural Law in Judgements of Supreme Court of India ,
legalserviceindia.com 6 Dale Mineshima-Lowe, Natural law, mtsu.edu
7
Wright, B.F, American Interpretations of Natural Law, ideas.repecorg
certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” 8This in
essence is a natural law philosophy that says that all human being has an inherent right that were
not given to them by the constitution but due to the intrinsic value of every human being. The
American war of independence drew its validity from natural law that justified revolt against an
irresponsible and irresponsive ruler. The bill of right proudly proclaims inalienable rights that it
does not bestow upon individuals but are with them through the blessing of God. The right to life,
liberty, equality come from a deep respect of natural law philosophy that is not seen in many other
places. Thye principles of morality and natural justice have acted as torchbearers to the supreme
court at both the federal level and state level. The American supreme court’s power of judicial
review uses the concepts of natural law and article six to serve as its well of power.9 The concept
of ‘due process’ in checking the validity of any legislation further advances the ideas of good and
moral as proposed by natural law.

The principle of natural justice takes precedence in the application of Indian law along with
equity, justice, good conscience. The Indian freedom movement just like the American freedom
movement borrows a lot from the philosophy of natural law. Dandi march was done to oppose an
unjust law against domestic production of salt by natives of our country, this march is considered
to be symbol of defiance for the budding concept of India. The march enjoyed wide support from
the people of the nation and still serves as a bipartisan symbol of resistance of our country.10 From
a positivist lens the march was in violation of the law as they concern themselves with what law
is and not what law ought to be, but the Indian polity saw it as just showing that law in the Indian
polity since its infancy had been influenced by what law ought to be. Showing that law had to be
just fair and reasonable for it to have any value as law. A positivist would argue that the salt laws
although unjust were laws nonetheless and as such violating them served as a big message to the
British government of noncompliance with laws. It could be argued that if they were not law than
violating them would not have been an event, instead it would have been an obscure event.

Across Indian history natural law that could loosely be called dharma, it wasn’t connected to
religion or a cult but was instead more akin to a righteous way of living in order to benefit society
and soul. The ‘Gita’ has references to the laws of nature which are to be applied in this realm and

8
The Congress, Declaration of Independence, archives.gov
9
John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison 1803
10
Dennis Dalton, introduction to Gandhi's Civil Disobedience, Jstor.org
give rise to moral law or the eternal law (rough translation), these laws not contained ones ‘rights’
but also their duties i.e., the way they supposed to treat gods, sages, men and animals. The bhakti
cult also revived the ideas of natural law and rights. These ideas found great development in the
11
minds of swami Vivekananda, raja ram Mohan Roy.

The principles of natural law enjoyed a favorable position during the colonial administration, the
personal laws of both Hindus and Muslims were left intact so as to not anger the natives. The
British adopted two methods to iron out discrepancies in the law of India. In matters not governed
by any existing law, the British applied the philosophy of equity, justice and good conscience in
order to suit their law to the local populace. They were to civilize the place but with a unique
Indian twist to the mission, with gray areas of the law being filled with what law ought to be and
not what it actually was in England or India.12 The next method to better apply these principles
was to codify the law in order to ensure that this just and fair law was applied with certainty,
uniformity and rationality of laws. However natural law in the British Raj is not to be glorified or
romanticized, as it still treated Indians as natural inferiors to their British overlords. This was
however a step towards the right direction especially given the arbitrary nature of Muslim rule in
India. During which the rights that a person enjoyed was directly dependent on one’s religion and
how his/her religion was viewed by the ruler. The Muslim rulers tended to gravitate towards
sharia law, that ironically is codified natural law as it is supposed to come from God, however
sharia is very arbitrary in nature and makes distinctions between men women, believers and
non-believers. Sharia ascribes value to individuals and does not give them the same inherent
value, those who reject the tenants of Islam are lower than those who don’t.13 The application
sharia shows a critical problem with natural law that may differ from culture to culture. The
natural law in the Gita is quite different to the natural law that has been prescribed by the sharia.
And as such many cultures may have different versions of the so-called universal law, raising
questions about the universality of it.

11
Punsara Amarasinghe, Evaluating The Concept Of Dharma In Medieval Hindu Legal Traditions With
Thomas Aquinas’ Natural Law Philosophy, SAU
12
Lee Ward, Natural Law and the Colonial Roots of American Constitutionalism, thepublicdiscourse.com 13
Emon, Anver M. “Natural Law and Natural Rights in Islamic Law.” Journal of Law and Religion 20, no. 2 (2004):
351–95. https://doi.org/10.2307/4144668.
The constitution of India in its basic structure also has elements of natural justice embedded in it.
The constitution in itself has both positivist and natural law elements built into it. The constitution
is positivist in the aspect that it does not attribute the rights mentioned in article 14 and others like
it to God and neither does it state that these rights are inherently present to every human being.
14
The constitution treats itself to be the most superior and therefore the law of the land. It does not
borrow authority from other sources and only proclaims acceptance by the majority of the people,
thus it derives its validity from consent of the people rather than a supreme being or rationality.
An extreme natural law approach would not have required acceptance as these basal laws do not
derive their authority from humans instead using God and rationality as their primary well of
power.

On the other hand, the constitution borrows heavily from the principles of natural justice we can
observe this from the preamble itself. The preamble of the constitution uses words like ‘justice
social, economic and political, liberty and equality’, these ideas are looked at as being naturally
worth striving for, just like the ideas of natural law of Finnis.15 He himself subscribed to the idea
of objective goods and we can see that our preamble also does that it implies that there are these
ideals that we ought to embody in heart and mind, and goes further into natural law describing
what we ‘ought to be”. This shows that our preamble was written in line with natural law
philosophy. Natural law demands that we come to the law either through God, morality or
rationality. According to Murray Rothbard, an anarcho capitalist natural law theorist “the very
existence of natural law discoverable by reason is a potentially powerful threat to the status quo
and a standing reproach to the reign of blindly traditional custom or the arbitrary will of the state
apparatus” 16. In in its most basal form natural law protects an individual from arbitrary action of
the sovereign and our constitution does the same, article 14 strikes down the shaky foundations of
arbitrariness. Ensuring that no individual may suffer due to the whims and fancies of the
sovereign releasing arbitrary dictates that could never measure up to the protections provided to
an individual through natural law.

14
Shivraj, Principles of Natural Justice in Indian Constitution, Legalservicesindia.com
15
John Finnis, Natural Law Theories, plato.standford.edu
16
Rothbard, Murray. "Natural Law Versus Positive Law" (PDF). The Ethics of Liberty.
p. 17. Archived (PDF)
The inclusion of directive principles of state principles in the constitution shows a conscious
move by the framers of the constitution to work towards including elements of natural rights into
the body of the constitution.17 The right to equal justice and free legal aid under article 39A act to
ensure the ideas of natural justice. Article 15(4) added to the constitution by the first amendment
act in 1950 that provides for special provisions for the advancement of backward classes by the
way to provide exceptions for to article 15 (1) and (2). This is to ensure that every individual no
matter where they were born is entitled to the same natural rights including the pursuit of
happiness that may only be possible if one is to contest the conditions into which these
individuals were born. The constitution by the way of article 20(2) and (3) provides for
protection against double prosecution for the same crime comes from the roman principle of Non
bis in idem, literally translated as not twice in the same thing. This principle developed as a
protection given by roman law due tot the development of natural law philosophy and our law
borrows the same principle and as such one may not be prosecuted for a crime that they have
been acquitted for. The right against self-incrimination first appears in mediaeval Vactican church
law in the Latin maxim 'Nemon tenetur seipsum accusare,' which means 'No one is obligated to
accuse himself.'18 Back in the Middle Ages in England, concerns against inquisitorial and clearly
unfair techniques of probing of accused individuals eventually established the right in common
law. This is one of the fundamental dogmas of the British System of criminal jurisprudence,
which the United States of America adopted from the British legal system and incorporated into
their Constitution as "no person shall be compelled in any case to be a witness against himself,"
19
and which was later incorporated into the Indian Constitution under Article 20. (3). The
constitution under article 22 provides for protection against arbitrary actions of the state like
arrest and detention, thus embodying natural law that according to most protects you from the
arbitrary actions off the state.

Article 311 of the constitution provides safety and security to civil servants employed by the
government against arbitrary dismissal, removal and reduction in rank is also based on the
principle of natural justice. Audi alteram partem is a Latin word that means "listen to the other
side" or "let the other side be heard as well." 20It is the notion that no one should be convicted

17
Lokesh Vvyas, Directive principles of state policy under the Indian constitution, blog.ipleaders.in
18
Luis E. Chiesa, Beyond Torture: The Nemo Tentur Principle In Borderline Cases
19
Fifth amendment of the United States constitution
20
Lloyod Duhaime, Audi Alteram Partem, duhaime,org
without first having a fair trial in which each side has a chance to reply to the allegations against
them, and this is guarded by article 311 (2) of the constitution.
Natural law and the supreme court

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India21

When it comes to the use of natural law doctrines in Supreme Court decisions, Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India is a very well-known case. In this case, the entire context of life and personal
liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution was scrutinized, and the court contested and
discussed whether a law should be obeyed and given the upper hand by the supreme court simply
because it is codified in nature and must be obeyed, or whether it should be subjected primarily
to normal equity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India unambiguously stated in its judgement
that every legislation formed by the State should be equitable, fair, and reasonable for the
population because laws are intended to benefit the community.

When it comes to the implementation of the natural law school of jurisprudence in this landmark
case at hand, one may clearly see John Locke's theory of natural law being utilized in the case by
systematically reviewing the verdict. Gazing at Locke's theory, one can see the notion of 'natural
equality,' which Locke defines as every human being, regardless of their individual reasoning
capacity, as possessing rights to life, liberty, and property.22 In the case, the apex court of law, the
Supreme Court of India, maintained the freedom to move freely, which is part of the right to
personal liberty entrenched in Locke's theory of natural law. As a result, in the aforementioned
example, natural law school theory may be looked at as the inspiration for the judgement

According to J. Bhagawati, "the notion of reasonableness, which is a crucial ingredient of equality

or non-arbitrariness, pervades art 14 like a brooding omnipresence." Thus, the method in Art. 21
"must be proper, reasonable, and fair," and not capricious, whimsical, or repressive, otherwise that
is not a procedure at all, and the condition of Art. 21 is not met. In the same case, Iyer, J., ruled

21
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr, AIR 1978 SC 597; (1978) 1 SCC 248
22
John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, 1690 Amen corner
that process in Art. 21 meant fair, not formal, procedure; 'law' is reasonable law, not any passed
item of legislation. This equates the phrase "procedure established by law" with "procedural due
process" in the United States of America, making the right to be heard a fundamental part of
natural justice. As a consequence of this landmark decision in the Maneka Gandhi case, the Court
concluded that "since the freedom to travel abroad exists under Art. 21, natural justice must be
used while exercising the authority of confiscating a passport under the Passport Act." Although
the Passport Act does not clearly provide that a hearing is required before a passport is seized, it
must be assumed that it is.

By generously interpreting Art. 21, the Supreme Court of India recognized the need of a "fair
trial" and adopted many measures to protect the accused and offer enough protections to defend
his case. The Supreme Court believes that fair trials for persons charged with criminal offences
are the foundation of democracy. Establishing fair trials is advantageous to both the accused and
society. A conviction as a consequence of an unjust trial runs counter to our understanding of
justice and begs the question of is it even justice? Therefore, the supreme court expands the idea
of justice to something beyond mere positivist compliance of the law and into an idea of justice
more in line with natural law philosophy. Justice is what it ought to be and not just how it is right
now and laws need to be just, fair and reasonable. Implying that there is something that is just
fair and reasonable beyond the point of reasonable subjectivity.

The principles of natural justice that had earlier been restricted to actions by judicial and quasi
judicial bodies were now expanded even to administrative actions. The supreme court stated, “for
the applicability of the doctrine of natural justice, there can be no distinction between
quasi-judicial and administrative function. The aim of both administrative inquiry as well as
quasi-judicial inquiry is to arrive at a just decision and if a rule of natural justice is calculated to
secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent the miscarriage of justice, it is difficult to see why
it should not be applicable to a purely administrative function”.
Express Newspaper v. Union of India23

The issue in question in the Indian Express Newspaper v. Union of India case was that the
government increased the import duty, which raised the cost of newspaper, that further led to
reduced distribution of newspaper due to fewer people being able to afford the new more
expensive newspaper, and the newspaper employers and employees argued that the government's
action curtailed their freedom of speech and expression as a direct consequence of the drop in
circulation. While it is irrefutable that the publishing industry, like the rest of the community,
should endure its fair share of the overall tax burden, the judges held that any tax levied
specifically on the newspaper industry ought to be able to be justified in court as a reasonable
levy if its validity is questioned.

One can effortlessly uncover elements of Jean Rousseau's doctrine of natural law when evaluating
the case at hand. As per Jean Rousseau, individuals have the right to guarantee their equality and
freedom, and in order to do just that, they relinquished their rights not to a lone entity, i.e., the
sovereign, but to the community as a whole, which Rousseau alluded to as 'general will.' As a
result, it is every individual's obligation to obey the 'general will,' because in doing so he upholds
his own will. The function of the state is to preserve liberty and equality. The State and its laws
remain beholden to 'general will,' so if the laws and government do not adhere to this, they are
abolished as they go against the very idea of upholding the view of the people. Rousseau
advocated for popular sovereignty. His philosophy is limited to the individual’s personal equality
and freedom. To him, the phrases state, law, sovereignty, universal will, and so on are
equivalent.24 Rousseau's philosophy of liberty and freedom was underlined in the case in which
the Supreme Court declared the right to freedom to be an inherent natural fundamental right of
every citizen, which was also bestowed onto Article 19 of the Indian Constitution.

A. K Kraipak v. Union of India25

23
Indian Express Newspapers ... vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc.1986 AIR 515, 1985 SCR (2)
287 24 Jean Rousseau, The Social Contract or Principles of Political Right
25
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India. AIR 1970 SC 150
In A. K Kraipak v. Union of India the supreme court of India the supreme court of India expanded
upon the idea of Nemo in propria causa judex, esse debe. No one should ever be appointed a
judge in his or her personal cause, as the Latin phrase goes. It is sometimes referred to as the rule
against prejudice. The authorities with the ability to make judgements must be made up of
unbiased people who act honestly, without prejudice or bias, according to natural justice.26 Bias
refers to an operating bias, whether conscious or unconscious, resulting from some
predetermined attitude or propensity toward a party or an issue.27 The definition of bias indicates
anything that causes a person to make a decision unless it's on the basis of evidence. When the
judge is motivated by anything other than the evidence he can be said as being biased.

The supreme court stated, “the aims of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it
negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice- these rules can operate only in areas not covered by
any law validly made. In other words, they do not supplant the law but supplement it. The concept
of natural justice has undergone great deal of change in recent years”.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bihar28 is a
notable example of this. In 1947, the petitioners were given a 99-year mining lease. However, the
license was suspended by the state in 1955. The petitioners filed a case against the minister who
issued the directive on behalf of the government, claiming that the petitioner ran against the
minister in the 1952 general election. As a result of political competition, the minister issued such
an order, and the order suffered from personal prejudice. The Supreme Court determined the
accusation to be accurate and consequently overturned the order.

The supreme court appears to have a relation with natural law that goes beyond just a passing
fancy. The court appears to treat natural law as guidance at times and other times imply that it
may take a more active role in complementing law in the nation.

26
Unknown, Nemo judex in sua causa, legal-glossary.org
27
Unknown, bias definition, merriam webster.com
28
1960 AIR 468, 1960 SCR (2) 909
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla29

The case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla is renowned as the 'Habeas Corpus' case. The
issue at stake was whether an individual's right to life and personal liberty may well be
jeopardized in an emergency or a similar scenario. This occurred in the context of the suspension
of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution during the country's declaration of emergency in 1975 by
the Indira Government under the guise of national security. It was stated in the case that Article
21 cannot be regarded as an exclusive repository of the right to life and personal liberty. It
establishes explicitly that, even in the absence of Article 21, the Government has no authority to
deprive an individual of his right to life and liberty without the sanction of the law.

When examining this particular instance, one can certainly discover references to Stammler's
natural law philosophy of jurisprudence. Stammler held a point of the point of four principles,
two of which were 'principles of respect' and two of which were 'principles of maxims.' The two
'principles of respect' have specific relevance in this scenario in the sense that any legal obligation
must be of such a character that the recipient may become his own neighbor, and no one's will
must be subordinated to the capricious wish of the other individual. According to the 'principle of
maxims,' no member of a legal community may be unjustly excluded, and a legal authority can
only be exclusive if somehow the excluded individual can still be his own neighbor.30 Hence
again, we see the use of natural law theory in Supreme Court of India decisions. Stammler's
theory of natural law was very well related to the rationale of the case's ruling since both the
theory and the reasoning rely on the principle one should not arbitrarily strip away any
individual's rights.

This judgement has the unique honor of seeing the principles of natural law and rights being
quoted to different ends in, His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru v. State of
Kerala.31 the majority view of the supreme court was not that natural rights do not exist; these
rights could be enforced in place of the suspended guaranteed fundamental rights. One learned
Judge after another in that case emphatically rejected the submission that any theory of natural
rights could impliedly limit powers of Constitutional amendment contained in Article 368 of the
Constitution. in doing so, they held that any natural rights could impliedly become legally
enforceable rights.

29
Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla AIR 1976 SC 1207
30
Rudolf Stammler, The Theory of Justice
31
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr (1973) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC 1461
Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Union32

The Supreme Court ruled in Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Union that "the audi
alteram partem rule, in essence, enacts the equality clause in Art 14 and is relevant not only to
quasi-judicial bodies but also to administrative orders adversely impacting the party in question
except if the rule has been exempted by the Act in question." This is in line with the natural law
philosophy that calls for natural justice in which one ought not to be punished before hearing
them out. In the similar case of Dinapore Cantonment Board v. Taramani33 the cantonment
board's Commander-in-Chief revoked the board's decision after having heard it, but did not hear
the responder to whom the authorization had been granted. The appellant had asked for
permission from the board for an enterprise, The Supreme Court found that the
Commander-in-Chief should have provided the appellant a hearing prior to actually revoking the
board's clearance. The Court stated that "audi alteram partum is a provision of Article 14 of the
Constitution." The really affected party was the party that was eventually impacted by the
Board's resolution. According to Article 14, "no order shall be passed behind the back of a
person, adverse in nature towards him, if it includes civil repercussions." Article 14 seems to
clearly have the principles of natural justice in mind who have been interpreted in line with the
principles of natural justice.

Keswananda Bharti v. state of Kerala 34

In Keswananda Bharti v. state of Kerala, we observe the tremendous will of the supreme court of
India to include within the ambit of constitutional jurisprudence, the ideas of natural law. Taking
the stance of the revivalist natural law thinkers of the twentieth century, the apex court ruled that
fundamental rights are not absolute and immutable but they are dynamic concepts that seek to

32
Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Union, 1991 AIR 101, 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 142 33
Cantonment Board, Dinapore And ... vs Taramani DeviAIR 1995 SC 61, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 501 34
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr (1973) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC 1461
reflect the times and try to facilitate the building of a ‘just social order’. The idea of a just social
order is one that borrows heavily from the ideas of natural justice and common good.

The honorable justice noted that, “Regarding natural rights we have made no reference to the
same in our previous judgment; we referred to personal liberty being a common law right.
Section 18 of the Misa, however, puts an end to the natural law rights as well as common law
rights of the person detained when an order is made under the Act. We had explained that the
right of personal liberty being a common law right, was available to all citizens of our country
when the Constitution came into force in the absence of there being anything in the Constitution
inconsistent with such a right. There being nothing in the Constitution inconsistent with such a
common law right, we pointed out, this right can be regulated only by law and not by mere
executive action without the support of law. Section 18 of the Misa recognizes this and provides
for the same being put an end to by a: valid order passed under the MISA. This is also a
recognition of courts being able to review executive acts operating to the prejudice of citizens .in
the light of the principle of legality, a necessary concomitant of the rule of law”.

Thus, in this judgement the judge draws parallels between common law rights and natural rights,
and gives common law rights the same value as natural rights who may have claimed authority
due to their application since the days of yore.35 All in all, this judgement greatly expands upon
the relationship that the supreme court has with natural law.

Minerva Mills v. Union of India36

The primacy of Fundamental Rights and judicial oversight got enveloped as major form in
Minerva Mills v. Union of India. The fundamental shape carries far more than the fundamental
rights; it carries the core substance of herbal control inside the shape of democratic institution,
rule of law, and so on. As a result, a rights chain free of natural regulation is formed.
35
Andrew Forsyth, Common Law and Natural Law in America
36
Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors 1980 AIR 1789, 1981 SCR (1) 206
While considering clause 5 of Article 368, the court stated that any provision that grants limitless
authority to any institution of the state is unconstitutional. It said that the authority of amendment
vested in Parliament is restricted. This limited power cannot be utilized to extend to limitless
power since someone who has a limited authority from the start cannot modify or expand it to a
limitless or unconstrained power by using that limited power. The court went on to say that under
Article 368, Parliament cannot and should not attempt to go beyond the fundamental structural
doctrine established in the Kesavananda Bharati case. This is due to the Parliament's unfettered
authority to abolish or repeal the Constitution's core structure or vital elements. If this is done,
the foundations of the Constitution will be completely abolished, rendering the Constitution
useless. Because some aspects of the Constitution cannot be amended or repealed, the
fundamental structure concept was introduced and refined via court declarations. These must be
maintained since they form the basic foundation of the Constitution and give it power to
function. As a result, the Parliament, in its ability to change the Constitution, cannot have
unconstrained authority to violate the Constitution's essential structural theory.

That implies that there are lines that the government may not cross and it cannot use its limited
authority expand into realms where it lacks the legal precedence to go to. The fundamental shape
that provides for rights that cannot be altered. Very similar in nature to natural rights that cannot
be altered by a whimsical sovereign, as elements of what law ought to be is built in to the
constitution and thus principles of natural rights and law cannot be omitted. Thus, we have a built
in basic structure concerning natural rights.

Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police37

The Supreme Court ruled in Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police that the inquiry office was
prejudiced because he "did not sit with an open mind" to conduct an objective and unbiased
domestic inquiry, which is an indispensable organ of natural justice as well as that of "reasonable
opportunity," contemplated by Art. 311(2) of the Constitution." According to the Court, the
inquiry officer behaved arbitrarily in the issue and judged the employee guilty in such a crude
manner that

37 Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police Civil Appeal Nos. 6359-6361 of 1998

it became clear that he was only following out a directive from some senior officer who may have
directed to "set him up."

This is also based on the principles of natural justice, ‘Audi alteram partem’ is a Latin word that
means "listen to the other side" or "let the other side be heard as well."38 It is the notion that no
one should be convicted without first having a fair trial in which each side has a chance to reply to
the allegations against them, and this is guarded by article 311 (2) of the constitution. The
constitution is itself influenced by the heavy infusion of what ought to be that it is reflected in
many landmark judgements.

Hussainara Khatoon Vs State of Bihar 39

The Supreme Court took a giant step forward in humanizing the execution of criminal justice by
proposing that the State grant free legal aid to indigent convicts facing jail sentences. When an
accused is condemned by a Court but has the right to appeal the judgement, he can seek legal aid:
if he is indigent and cannot pay counsel, the State must provide counsel for him. The Court has
highlighted that the lawyer's services remain an essential component of fair procedure for a
prisoner pursuing release through the Court's proceedings.

Justice Bhagwati stated “Now, a procedure which does not make available legal service to an
accused person who is too poor to afford a lawyer and who would, therefore, have to go through
the trial without legal assistance, cannot possibly be regarded as ‘reasonable, fair and just”, As a
result, in India, free legal help to the poor or disabled is seen as a vital component and key tenant
of the principle of Natural Justice. To ensure free legal aid to Indian citizens, Art 39A is
embedded in Part IV of the Constitution, which states, "The State shall ensure that the operation
of the judicial process promotes justice, on the basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in specific,
provide free legal services, by appropriate legislation or schemes or in any way, to guarantee that
opportunities for securing justice are not refused to any citizen by reason of financial or other
handicaps." As a result, the Indian Constitution provides enough safeguards for obtaining legal
assistance. Which is a key component of natural law that usually does not discriminate between
rich and poor. The applicability of natural law is universal and not subject to one’s finances and
social standing. Even

38
Definition of audi alteram partem, merriam-webster.com
39
Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs Home Secretary, State Of Bihar 1979 AIR 1369, 1979 SCR (3) 532
an individual who is a suspect in an act in violation of criminal and natural law is entitled to free
and fair representation.

Conclusion

Even though the natural law school doctrines were not expressly employed or referenced in the
judgments, one may nonetheless trace the features of natural law theory in many areas by
evaluating them. Natural laws are all those unwritten rules that serve as the foundation for human
laws since human laws are in existence to serve humanity, to serve fairness and equality, while
natural laws stand for a person's natural rights and justice. Natural law and human law are related
in the sense that human laws are frequently founded on natural law and its aspects. Natural law is
the greater law, inherited from nature, God, morals, and reason, as a result of which it exists.

In a state like India with a robust focus on welfare, the function and jurisdiction of authorities are
rapidly expanding, and with the rapid expansion of state responsibilities and civic demands of the
people, conferring administrative discretion has become an urgent need. With the increase of
administrative discretionary power, regulatory measures must be provided with adequate capacity
to prevent abuse of discretion. In this respect, in a constitutionalized rule of law country such as
India, an element of natural law, namely fair play in action, must be discovered and reproclaimed
by the court in order to maintain the supremacy of the rule of law in India. In this sense, the
author contends that "natural justice standards can only apply in regions not covered by
legitimately enacted law." this older view of judicial decisions of the Apex Court and other High
Courts must be reevaluated, and the rational interpretation would be proclaiming natural justice
principles to be a requisite corollary of law, and that they must operate in the presence of, and
even in direct defiance of, existing law where the interest of justice requires.

Natural justice concepts are strongly rooted in Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. With
the introduction of the notion of substantive and procedural due process in Article 21, all of the
fairness found in natural justice principles may be read into Art. 21. The breach of natural justice
principles leads in arbitrariness; hence, the breach of natural justice is indeed a breach of the
Equality clause of Art. 14. 40
40
Disha Pareek, Natural Law And Its Revival