Discuss the doctrine of natural justice and its application in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, with reference to recent Supreme Court interventions.

Natural justice is the common-law guarantee of procedural fairness before any adverse action. Though uncodified, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) read it into Articles 14 and 21 by holding that procedure must be fair, just and reasonable [1]. Recent Supreme Court orders show the doctrine binding courts as much as the executive.

Core content of the doctrine

• Audi alteram partem — notice of the case and an opportunity to be heard before an adverse order [1].
• Nemo judex in causa sua — no one may judge a cause in which they have an interest; bias, actual or reasonable apprehension, vitiates the order.
• Reasoned orders — the third limb evolved by the Court, enabling meaningful appeal [2].

Application in judicial proceedings

• Courts themselves must observe it: directions launching an inquiry against a named person cannot be issued behind their back.
• In August 2026 the Supreme Court stayed Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) directions asking the CBI and ED to verify disproportionate-assets allegations against the Leader of the Opposition, since he was never heard, and restrained the agencies from filing their reports [3].
• The Court drew a key distinction: agencies may register and probe a complaint suo motu without the accused's consent — CBI under the DSPE Act, 1946 [4], ED under the PMLA, 2002 [5] — but a court ordering an inquiry must first hear the affected party [3].

Application in quasi-judicial and administrative action

• Binds licensing, disciplinary, tax and regulatory bodies; Madhyamam Broadcasting v. Union of India (2023) held that relying on undisclosed sealed-cover material breaches audi alteram partem, and national security is no blanket exclusion [2].
• Exceptions are narrow — urgency, interim orders, or express statutory exclusion — usually cured by a post-decisional hearing.

Natural justice thus operates as a continuous constitutional check on both judicial and executive discretion. Institutionalising open-court procedure, reasoned orders and disclosure of material would strengthen this safeguard and give real content to the fair-procedure promise of Article 21.