Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited Vs Union of India & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
In the case of Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India (2023 SCC OnLine 366), the Supreme Court reinforced the constitutional significance of natural justice under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Referring to the landmark judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Court highlighted two key aspects: procedural fairness as an inherent value and a requirement independent of case outcomes, and the adaptability of natural justice principles to maintain their core essence of reasonable procedure. The judgment emphasized the necessity of adhering to components like notice, inquiry reports, and fair hearing while ensuring that situational modifications do not compromise the fundamental guarantees of natural justice.
Relevant Extract of the Judgment
47. The judgment of this Court in Maneka Gandhi (supra) spearheaded two doctrinal shifts on procedural fairness because of the constitutionalising of natural justice. Firstly, procedural fairness was no longer viewed merely as a means to secure a just outcome but a requirement that holds an inherent value in itself. In view of this shift, the Courts are now precluded from solely assessing procedural infringements based on whether the procedure would have prejudiced the outcome of the case [See S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan; (1980) 4 SCC 379 “The non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary”; also see Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India; A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 818]. Instead, the courts would have to decide if the procedure that was followed infringed upon the right to a fair and reasonable procedure, independent of the outcome. In compliance with this line of thought, the courts have read the principles of natural justice into an enactment to save it from being declared unconstitutional on procedural grounds [See Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation: (1985) 3 SCC 545; C.B. Gautam v. Union of India:(1993) 1 SCC 78; Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I: (2008) 14 SCC 151 and Kesar Enterprises v. State of Uttar Pradesh: (2011) 13 SCC 733]. Secondly, natural justice principles breathe reasonableness into the procedure. Responding to the argument that the principles of natural justice are not static but are capable of being moulded to the circumstances, it was held that the core of natural justice guarantees a reasonable procedure which is a constitutional requirement entrenched in Articles 14, 19 and 21. The facet of audi alterum partem encompasses the components of notice, contents of the notice, reports of inquiry, and materials that are available for perusal. While situational modifications are permissible, the rules of natural justice cannot be modified to suit the needs of the situation to such an extent that the core of the principle is abrogated because it is the core that infuses procedural reasonableness. The burden is on the applicant to prove that the procedure that was followed (or not followed) by the adjudicating authority, in effect, infringes upon the core of the right to a fair and reasonable hearing.”
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
