CASE COMMENTARY ON RIDGE V. BALDWIN 1964 AC 40, UKHL 2 (14 March 1963)

Introduction:

This is one of the landmark judgement which is based on development of Administration law and extended the Doctrine of Natural Justice which simply means fair procedure in judicial hearings that emphasis on justice should not only be done but it must also be seen to be done and principles are governed by justice , equity and conscience. This case laid down the modern English law of natural justice. It is considered to be one of the most significant judgements when it comes to the changes in Constitution interpretation. This principle is not manmade but confer upon us by holy almighty and it is supreme that cannot be violated by anyone as each and every individual in the society has  available this rule. This was the UK labour law case which was decided by House of Lords on 14 March, 1963. Bench headed with Lord Reid, Lord Evershed, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Hodson, and Lord Devlin.

Background:

Ridge a chief Constable in Brighton police force had served some thirty-three years got dismissed wrongfully without giving the opportunity of being heard by Brighton Police Authority. Then the chief constable appealed against the Brighton police authority about an unlawfully breach of obligation of natural justice. Ridge also cleared all his financial accounts  from the police authority; having declined to seek reappointment, he also sought reinstatement of his pension , to which he was entitled with effect from 1960 and damages and backdated salary when he had not dismissed. The authorities were confused on the applicability of principle of natural justice. So under the Act of 1882 watch committee were bound to observe what commonly called natural justice, it hereby means before reaching out to any decision they were bound to inform the

1.      on which ground they arrest that person and

2.      on which ground they proposed to act

3.      what laws are applied and give him fair  opportunity of being heard in his own defence

The significance of this rule of natural justice is a legal doctrine that talks about right to fair hearing and give adequate notice of charge and absence of bias which mainly emphasis on two rules i.e.

1.      Nemo judex in causa sua and

2.      Audi alterm patem.

Both of these rules are originated from common law and they have objective validity that the law give effect to self evident moral truth about decisions ought to be made. The Principle audi alteram patem appears in multiple judgments by the judges of the higher authority and considered as a formal ground which determine specific legal rights. This is the first case under which the doctrine is used to overturn the non judicially decision or quasi judicial decision. By the crown court had been acquitted the chief constable for charges of corruption and conspiracy. But House of Lords  held the decision to dismiss as void because  Baldwin’s committee had  not observed the principle of natural justice and violated the norms and this doctrine that overturn the principle of work committee  The main task of this present case is that how rules and principles are applied through sympathy judgement and principle of love.

Analysis:

The idea of negligence is however equally inswathed of exact definition, but what a reasonable man would regard as fair proceeding in particular circumstances and what he would regard as negligence in particular circumstances are equally capable of serving as tests of law and natural justice as it has been interpreted in the Courts is much more defined properly than that.  It appears that one reason why the authorities on natural justice have been found difficult to settle is that insufficient attention which has been paid difference between various kinds of cases in which it has been applied to principles. What a Minister should have to consider the objections to a scheme may be very different from what a Watch Committee should do in considering whether to dismiss a Chief Constable or not. So this case  of dismissal mainly appear to fall into three classes dismissal of a servant by his master, dismissal from an office held during pleasure, and Dismissal from an office where there is something done by man that results to warrant his dismissal. The second and foremost part to deal with use of the doctrine of natural justice, it is believed that if there is any reasonable ground on which a litigant believes that his matter may not be heard by the judge in the court, it is appropriate for that judge to exclude himself from the bench hearing that matter but in this case house of lords had give him the opportunity to say his points but a party cannot insist for strict observance of natural justice as to maintain the national security which later described in many cases like Ex-Srmy Men’s Protection Services P.Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 2014 SC 1376. The interest of national security is not question of law but a matter of policy. So in this case the higher Authority i.e. House of Lords have full power to provide this law and must protect the rights and privileges of individual. This doctrine is not only confined to one particular tribunal but also to all the authority and courts. So I hereby agreed that legislator has substituted the obligation not to act without reasonable ground to provide the justice to person to give the effect of opportunity in his defence. The question in the present case is not whether the parliament substitute the different safeguards that afforded by natural justice, but whether municipal Corporation Act, 1882 excluded the safeguard of natural justice and put nothing else. So the learned judges who expressed this opinion of natural justice generally have no power to overrule these authorities and cannot disapprove the authority’s decisions. So I would like to analyze that the power of dismissal in the Act of 1882 should not have been exercised and cannot now be exercised until the watch committee have informed the constable of the grounds on which they propose to proceed and have given him a proper opportunity in his own defence by presenting the case before court.

Conclusion:

So I would conclude that the judgment delivered by House of Lords is good as it is completely satisfactory to everyone so that the justice can be given to each and every individual. The House found value in the distinction between administrative and judicial decisions as a factor of susceptibly while decisions of judicial review. This case id cited by many cases and become the leading judgment among all the cases. The law enforcement action is necessary to be taken judicial arm of government do not act on their own initiative so the jurisdiction to determine the instrument is ultra vires which do not arise until its validity is challenged in proceeding. It is inconsistent with the doctrine of ultra vires as it has been developed in English law as means of controlling the power of judicial arm of government by proper constituting the law and orders made by legislature. So directly the application of doctrine has consequence to enable the benefit to the party whose legal rights have been violated.