Comprehension
The Supreme Court affirmed that it is a well-established principle of administrative law that an adjudicatory body cannot base its decision on any material unless the person against whom it is sought to be utilized has been apprised of it and given an opportunity to respond to it. The court noted from MP Jain & SN Jain’s treatise on Principles of Administrative Law that if the adjudicatory body is going to rely on any material, evidence or document for its decision against a party, then the same must be brought to his notice and he be given an opportunity to rebut it or comment thereon. It is regarded as a fundamental principle of natural justice that no material ought to be relied on against a party without giving him an opportunity to respond to the same... The right to know the material on which the authority is going to base its decision is an element of the right to defend oneself. If without disclosing any evidence to the party, the authority takes it into its consideration, and decides the matter against the party, then the decision is vitiated for it amounts to denial of a real and effective opportunity to the party to meet the case against him.
On the issue of the impact of such non-disclosure the Court referred to its earlier pronouncements and summarised the principles thus – A quasi-judicial authority has a duty to disclose the material that has been relied upon at the stage of adjudication. The actual test is whether the material that is required to be disclosed is relevant for purpose of adjudication. If it is, then the principles of natural justice require its due disclosure. The aggrieved person must be able to prove that prejudice has been caused to him due to non-disclosure. To prove prejudice, he must prove that had the material been disclosed to him the outcome or the punishment would have been different.
(Extract with Edits taken from in Deepak Ananda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 11 SCC 130)
On the issue of the impact of such non-disclosure the Court referred to its earlier pronouncements and summarised the principles thus – A quasi-judicial authority has a duty to disclose the material that has been relied upon at the stage of adjudication. The actual test is whether the material that is required to be disclosed is relevant for purpose of adjudication. If it is, then the principles of natural justice require its due disclosure. The aggrieved person must be able to prove that prejudice has been caused to him due to non-disclosure. To prove prejudice, he must prove that had the material been disclosed to him the outcome or the punishment would have been different.
(Extract with Edits taken from in Deepak Ananda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 11 SCC 130)
Question: 1
Which principle is applied in the judgment?
Which principle is applied in the judgment?
Updated On: Sep 10, 2025
- Nemo judex in causa sua
- Audi alteram partem
- Ignorantia juris non excusat
- Jus necessitatis
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The principle applied in the judgment is Audi alteram partem. This principle of natural justice is central to ensuring fairness in legal proceedings. It mandates that no party should be judged without being given an opportunity to present their side of the case. Here's how it applies based on the provided comprehension:
- Disclosure of Material: The court emphasized that any material, evidence, or documents that the adjudicatory body intends to use against a party must be disclosed to that party. This ensures transparency and allows the party to prepare a defense.
- Right to Respond: After receiving the relevant information, the party must be given a chance to rebut or comment on it. This is crucial for maintaining a fair hearing process and is a basic right within the framework of natural justice.
- Impact of Non-Disclosure: The Supreme Court noted that non-disclosure of critical material could lead to prejudice. The affected party should demonstrate that the lack of disclosure altered the outcome, thus proving that the decision was unjust.
- Quasi-Judicial Obligations: Any quasi-judicial authority has a duty to disclose relevant material during adjudication. The essence of applying this principle lies in safeguarding the right to defend oneself effectively.
This principle underscores the importance of fairness in the legal process, ensuring all parties have the opportunity to be heard and participate fully in their defense.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
Non-Disclosure of material invalidates the order if:
Non-Disclosure of material invalidates the order if:
Updated On: Sep 10, 2025
- The authority has not relied on the material
- No prejudice is caused to the party
- The material was relevant for the purpose of adjudication
- The outcome would not have been any different if it was disclosed
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
When determining the effect of non-disclosure of material in legal adjudication, the key concept revolves around principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court has emphasized that any decision-making process by an adjudicatory body requires that the involved party must be aware of and have the opportunity to respond to all materials and evidences that could potentially be used against them. If material is deemed relevant for the adjudication process, its non-disclosure invalidates the order. Here are the core principles extracted from the given context:
- Principles of Natural Justice: A decision-making body must not rely on undisclosed material against a party. It is crucial for fairness that all relevant information is made available for both parties to comment on, thus upholding the right to a fair defense.
- Relevance of Material: For non-disclosure to invalidate an order, the material must be relevant to the adjudication process. This relevance is pivotal for determining whether principles of natural justice have been breached.
- Right to Defend: Being informed of the materials being considered in a decision allows the affected party to rebut or provide comments, ensuring a fair opportunity to defend themselves.
- Prejudice to the Party: The aggrieved party must demonstrate that their case has been prejudiced due to the non-disclosure of relevant material, and that knowledge of this material could have influenced the outcome differently.
Therefore, when material is relevant for the purpose of adjudication, its non-disclosure vitiates the process as it contravenes the party's right to a fair hearing. The correct answer from the options provided is: "The material was relevant for the purpose of adjudication."
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
‘Real and effective opportunity’ in the context of this judgment refers to:
‘Real and effective opportunity’ in the context of this judgment refers to:
Updated On: Sep 10, 2025
- Personal hearing
- Right to rebut the evidence supplied to the party
- Right to adduce evidence
- Right to know the evidence against oneself
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
The concept of ‘Real and effective opportunity’ within the context of the provided judgment primarily refers to the Right to know the evidence against oneself. This is grounded in the principles of natural justice, which assert that an adjudicatory body must not rely on any material or evidence in its decision-making process without adequately informing the affected party. Such disclosure ensures that the party is granted a fair chance to counter or offer comments on the evidence being used against them. The Supreme Court highlights that the denial of access to the evidence results in a lack of a real and effective opportunity for defense, potentially leading to an unjust decision. Thus, the term underscores the necessity for transparency in legal proceedings, where all relevant materials are disclosed to the concerned party, allowing them to comprehensively address and rebut the evidence during adjudication.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
Which of the following requires compliance with the rule of fair hearing?
Which of the following requires compliance with the rule of fair hearing?
Updated On: Sep 10, 2025
- A notification bringing an Act into operation
- Price Control Order under Essential Commodities Act
- Notice issued by a Disciplinary Authority
- Reasoned Decision by competent authority
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The principle of fair hearing is a crucial aspect of administrative law, ensuring that individuals affected by decisions have the opportunity to present their case. This aligns with the broader principles of natural justice, which demand transparency and the opportunity for individuals to counter any allegations or evidence against them before a decision is made. In this context, the need for fair hearing primarily surfaces in scenarios where decisions affect the rights or interests of individuals. Let's evaluate the options:
- A notification bringing an Act into operation: This is a legislative action and generally applies universally, not addressing any individual's specific rights or duties. Hence, it does not necessitate a fair hearing.
- Price Control Order under Essential Commodities Act: Similar to the notification of an Act, this is regulatory for the public or a large sector, typically not requiring a fair hearing.
- Notice issued by a Disciplinary Authority: This affects an individual directly by potentially impacting their employment or standing. Natural justice principles necessitate that the person has the right to a fair hearing to defend themselves before any actions are taken.
- Reasoned Decision by competent authority: While reasoned decisions are an element of transparency, they don't inherently involve an interactive process before the decision is made, making fair hearing principles less immediately applicable.
In conclusion, a Notice issued by a Disciplinary Authority requires compliance with the rule of fair hearing as it affects an individual's rights and interests directly, necessitating an opportunity for that individual to respond to allegations or charges.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
Which of the following statements is false?
Which of the following statements is false?
Updated On: Sep 10, 2025
- Proving prejudice to the party concerned is necessary to quash a quasi-judicial order on the ground of non-disclosure of evidence
- Principles of natural justice do not have exceptions
- Speaking order is a third principle of natural justice
- Legal representation can be validly disallowed before a quasi-judicial proceeding
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
To determine which statement is false, let's analyze each option based on principles of natural justice:
- Proving prejudice to the party concerned is necessary to quash a quasi-judicial order on the ground of non-disclosure of evidence. This statement is true. It aligns with the principle that an aggrieved person must demonstrate prejudice caused by non-disclosure to have a decision invalidated.
- Principles of natural justice do not have exceptions. This statement is false. There are recognized exceptions to the principles of natural justice, especially when public interest demands swift decisions without procedural delays.
- Speaking order is a third principle of natural justice. This statement is true. An order stating its reasons, or a "speaking order," is often considered a part of natural justice to ensure transparency and understanding of the decision-making process.
- Legal representation can be validly disallowed before a quasi-judicial proceeding. This statement is true. While legal representation is a significant right, it may be restricted under certain conditions by specific legislative provisions or the nature of the proceedings.
Thus, the false statement is: Principles of natural justice do not have exceptions.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top Questions on Administrative Law
Match List-I with List-II
\[\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline \textbf{List-1} & \textbf{List-II} \\ \hline \text{(A) Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab} & \text{(I) Separation of powers} \\ \hline \text{(B) Delhi Laws Act, 1912} & \text{(II) Delegated legislation} \\ \hline \text{(C) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India} & \text{(III) Doctrine of proportionality} \\ \hline \text{(D) Om Kumar v. Union of India} & \text{(IV) Post decisional hearing} \\ \hline \end{array}\]
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- LLM
- Administrative Law
- The statute ousting the jurisdiction of the civil court be interpreted:
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- LLM
- Administrative Law
- When the legislature delegates to the executive, its essential functions, it is called:
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- LLM
- Administrative Law
- In which of the following cases was it held that “the tribunal has unfettered jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute raised as well as to decide the legality of an order of the Central Government, or even the opinion of TRAI or any other expert body”?
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Administrative Law
- Match the following offences with the corresponding Sections under BNS, 2023:Select the correct options:
Offenses Sections (A) Voyeurism (1) Section 77 (B) Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman (2) Section 79 (C) Stalking (3) Section 75 (D) Sexual Harassment (4) Section 78 - AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Administrative Law
View More Questions
Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Nil Ratan Kundu and another v. Abhijit Kundu’ 2008(3) Apex Court Judgements 232 (SC), while granting the custody to the maternal grandparents observed: In our judgement, the law relating to custody of a child is fairly well settled and it is this. In deciding a difficult and complex question as to custody of minor, a Court of law should keep in mind relevant statutes and the rights flowing therefrom. But such cases cannot be decided solely by interpreting legal provisions. It is a humane problem in live in relationship and is required to be solved with human touch. A Court while dealing with custody cases, is neither bound by statutes nor by strict rules of evidence or procedure nor by precedents. In selecting proper guardian of a minor, the paramount consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the child. In selecting a guardian, the Court is exercising parens patriae jurisdiction and is expected, may bound, to give due weight to a child’s ordinary comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favorable surroundings. But over and above physical comforts, moral and ethical values cannot be ignored. They are equally, or we may say, even more important, essential and indispensable consideration. If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference or judgement, the Court must consider such preference as well, though the final decision should rest with the Court as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Gaurav Nagpal v. Semedha Nagpal’-(2009)1 SCC 42, while giving paramount importance to the welfare of the child, which should include moral and ethical values, besides ethical well-being, observed as under:
When the court is confronted with conflicting demands made by the parents, each time it has to justify the demands. The Court has not only to look at the issue on legalistic basis, in such matters human angles are relevant for deciding those issues. The Court then does not give emphasis on what the parties say, it has to exercise a jurisdiction which is aimed at the welfare of the minor. As observed recently in Mausami Moitra Ganguli case, the Court has to give due weightage to the child’s ordinary contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favorable surroundings, but over and above physical comforts, the moral and ethical values have also to be noted. They are equal if not more important than the others.
(Extracts from Jaswinder Singh and Another vs Surjit Singh, AIR 2010 (NOC) 425 (P. & H.))- CLAT PG - 2025
- Family Laws
- The Companies Act, 2013 does not deal with insolvency and bankruptcy when the companies are unable to pay their debts or the aspects relating to the revival and rehabilitation of the companies and their winding up if revival and rehabilitation is not possible. In principle, it cannot be doubted that the cases of revival or winding up of the company on the ground of insolvency and inability to pay debts are different from cases where companies are wound up under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013. The two situations are not identical. Under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013, even a running and financially sound company can also be wound up for the reasons in clauses (a) to (e). The reasons and grounds for winding up under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013 are vastly different from the reasons and grounds for the revival and rehabilitation scheme as envisaged under the IBC. The two enactments deal with two distinct situations and in our opinion, they cannot be equated when we examine whether there is discrimination or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For the revival and rehabilitation of the companies, certain sacrifices are required from all quarters, including the workmen. In case of insolvent companies, for the sake of survival and regeneration, everyone, including the secured creditors and the Central and State Government, are required to make sacrifices. The workmen also have a stake and benefit from the revival of the company, and therefore unless it is found that the sacrifices envisaged for the workmen, which certainly form a separate class, are onerous and burdensome so as to be manifestly unjust and arbitrary, we will not set aside the legislation,solely on the ground that some or marginal sacrifice is to be made by the workers. We would also reject the argument that to find out whether there was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or whether the right to life under Article 21 Constitution of India was infringed, we must word by word examine the waterfall mechanism envisaged under the Companies Act, 2013, where the company is wound up in terms of grounds (a) to (e) of Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013; and the rights of the workmen when the insolvent company is sought to be revived, rehabilitated or wound up under the Code. The grounds and situations in the context of the objective and purpose of the two enactments are entirely different.
(Extracted, with edits and revision, from the judgement in Moser Baer Karamchari Union Thr. President Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Union of India and Ors, 2023 SCC Online SC 547)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Company Law
- Ahmadi, J. (as he then was) speaking for himself and Punchhi, J., endorsed the recommendations in the following words-The time is ripe for taking stock of the working of the various Tribunals set up in the country after the insertion of Articles 323-A and 323-B in the Constitution. After the incorporation of these two articles, Acts have been enacted where-under tribunals have been constituted for dispensation of justice. Sufficient time has passed, and experience gained in these last few years for taking stock of the situation with a view to finding out if they have served the purpose and objectives for which they were constituted. Complaints have been heard in regard to the functioning of other tribunals as well and it is time that a body like the Law Commission of India has a comprehensive look-in with a view to suggesting measures for their improved functioning. That body can also suggest changes in the different statutes and evolve a model on the basis whereof tribunals may be constituted or reconstituted with a view to ensuring greater independence. An intensive and extensive study needs to be undertaken by the Law Commission in regard to the Constitution of tribunals under various statutes with a view to ensuring their independence so that the public confidence in such tribunals may increase and the quality of their performance may improve.
Before parting with the case, it is necessary to express our anguish over the ineffectiveness of the alternative mechanism devised for judicial review. The judicial review and remedy are the fundamental rights of the citizens. The dispensation of justice by the tribunal is much to be desired.
(Extracted with Edits from R.K. Jain v. Union of India, 1993 (4) SCC 119)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Constitutional Laws
- The elements of tort of negligence consist in – (a) duty of care; (b) duty is owed to the plaintiff; (c) the duty has been carelessly breached. Negligence does not entail liability unless the exacts a duty in the given circumstances to observe care. Duty is an obligation recognised by law to avoid conduct fraught with unreasonable risk of damage to others. The question whether duty exists in a particular situation involves determination of law. Hence, three ingredients are necessary for the existence of a duty of care: (i) foreseeability of the damage, (ii) proximity of relationship between the parties; and (iii) whether it is “just, fair and reasonable” that the law should impose a duty of care. In Caparo Industries Plc. v. Dickman, 1990 2AC 605, the court held that breach of duty is concerned with the standard of care that ought to have been adopted in the circumstances and whether the defendant’s conduct fell below that standard i.e., whether he was careless.
The court while quoting Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum, 1997 stated that as a tort, negligence consists of legal duty to take care and breach of that duty. Duty determines whether the type of loss suffered by the plaintiff in the particular way in which to occurred can ever be actionable. The division of negligence into duty, breach and consequent damage is convenient for the purpose of exposition but it can be confusing because the issues will often overlap. The process of determining a breach of duty involves three steps: First, it is necessary to ascertain the qualities of the reasonable person, given the qualities attributed to him, would have taken in the circumstances. The factors that are permissible to take into account in this regard are prescribed by law, but the amount of care that the reasonable person would have taken is a question of fact. Thirdly, it must be determined whether the defendant took less care than the reasonable person would have taken.
(Extracts from Managing Director, Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Limited v. Deepti Singh and Ors., 2019 SC)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Law of Torts
- Article 14 of the Constitution stipulates that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India. Article 15(1) states that the State should not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Article 15(4) stipulates that nothing in Article 15 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Article 16 deals with equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Clause (1) of Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Clause (2) stipulates that no citizen shall be discriminated in or be ineligible for any employment or office under the State on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them. Clause (4) of the provision states that nothing in Article 16 shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens, which in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. The purpose of the equal opportunity principle in Article 16(1) and the reservation provision in Article 16(4) has emerged as a focal point of the jurisprudence on reservations in this Court. A discussion of the journey of the competing models of equality that the Court has espoused and their evolution over the course of the years is necessary to understand the constitutional vision on equality.
The impugned constitutional amendments by which Article 16 (4-A) and 16 (4-B) have been inserted, flow from Article 16 (4). They do not alter the structure of Article 16 (4). They retain the controlling factors or the compelling reasons which enables the State to provide for reservation keeping in mind the overall efficiency of the state administration under article 335. Sub-categorization within a class is a constitutional requirement to secure substantive equality in the event that there is a distinction between two sections of a class; Sub-classification must not lead to the exclusion of one of the categories in the class. A model that provides sufficient opportunities to all categories of the class must be adopted; and Sub-classification among a class must be on a reasonable basis.
Justice Bela Trivedi opined, in dissent, that presidential list of scheduled castes notified under Article 341 cannot be altered by the States. Any change to this list can only be made by a law enacted by Parliament. Sub-classification, according to her would amount to tampering with the Presidential List and undermine the object Article 341, which aims to eliminate political influence in the SC-ST List. Further, she emphasised the importance of adhering to the rule of plain and literal interpretation. She mentions that any preferential treatment for a sub-class within the presidential list would deprive other classes within the same category of their benefits. In the absence of executive or legislative power, state lack the competence to sub-classify castes and the benefit reserved for all SCs. Allowing states to do so would constitute a colourable exercise of power, which is impermissible under law. Justice Trivedi concluded by affirming that affirmative action by States must remain within constitutional boundaries and held that the law laid down in E.V. Chinnaiah case was correct and should be upheld.
(Extract from The State of Punjab & Ors. v. Davinder Singh & Ors. 2024 SC)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Constitutional Laws
View More Questions