Ridge v. Baldwin: Analysing the Magna Carta of Principles of Natural Justice
Keywords:
Ridge v. Baldwin, Authority, Magna Carta, Natural Justice, Case, Organisational, Research AnalysisAbstract
Ridge v. Baldwin is a landmark authority and has altered the settled position in England, India as well as other nations. It is thus regarded as the Magna Carta of Principles of Natural Justice as it has widened their scope manifold. It thus becomes significant to consider the analysis of this case and comprehend the settled position. It is certainly regarded as one of the most significant judgements when it comes to changing dynamics of Constitutional Interpretation. The paper has attempted to comprehend the principles of natural justice in brief and their historical inception along with the discussion on International Conventions. The position in India has been considered at length along with various landmark cases to substantiate the points post discussion of their historical evolution in India. The significance of the instant case has been discussed post which the case has been analysed. Post analysis of the case, the present position in India has been discussed to comprehend the significance of this case. An in-depth analysis of the above-mentioned theme has been presented along with an organisational conclusion of the subject matter. The case analysis has sought to resort to different reliable sources, both online and offline, inclusive of different online reports, surveys, statistics, studies, books and articles inter alia for the purpose of research, analysis, interpretation and execution of the subject matter and ensures maximum creativity, research work, and personal ideas in the same.
References
1. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE [2015] 8 SCC 519
2. Abbot v. Sullivan (1952) 1 K.B.189.
3. Ebook on PNJ, Material for Training Purpose, IIT Kanpur.
4. Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala, (2004) 6 SCC 311.
5. Chairman, Board of Mining Examination v. Ramjee, (1977) 2 SCC 256.
6. Administrative Law, I.P. Massey, 9th Ed. 2017,
7. (1863) 143 ER 414.
8. Black’s Law Dictionary; Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel [1985] 3 SCC 398 463.
9. (1852) 3 HL Cas 759.1
10. (1929) 1 Ch. 602
11. Supra note 3
12. [1924] 1 KB 256
13. Principles of Administrative Law, M.P.Jain and S.N.Jain, 6th Ed. 2013.
14. R v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate 2000 1 ACC 119
15. Gullapalli Nageshwar Rao v. State of A.P. AIR 1959 SC 1376
16. BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India 2002 2 SCC 333
17. 1723 I STR 757
18. 1863 14 CBNS 180
19. ‘From Duty to Act Judicially to Duty to Act Fairly’[2003] 4 SCC JOUR 1, CK Thakkar J. , The Practical Lawyer available at http://www.supremecourtcases .com/index2.php?option=com_content&ite mid=1&do_pdf=1&id=809
20. Local Govt. Board v. Arlidge 1915 AC 120 HL
21. AIR 1980 SC 1
22. Origin and Development of Principles of Natural Justice, Shivash Kumar, available at http://www.legalservicesindia.com/artic le/1528/Origin-and-Development-of- Principles-of-Natural-Justice.html.
23. International Covenant on Civil and Political Right s, United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, available at http://www.ohchr.org/en/profe ssionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx.
24. European Convention on Human Rights, Council of Europe, available at https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Conv ention_ENG.pdf.
25. Origin and Development of Principles of Natural Justice, Shivash Kumar, available at http://www.legalservicesindia.com/artic le/1528/Origin-and-Development-of- Principles-of-Natural-Justice.html.
26. State of U.P. v. Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. 2010 6 SCC 222; Josegh Vilangandan v. Executive Engineer 1978 3 SCC 36
27. AIR 1955 SC 65.
28. State of U.P. v. Dharmander Prasad Singh 1989 2 SCC 505.
29. Supra note 27.
30. Errington v. Ministry of Health 1935 1 KB 249.
31. Union of India v. E. Bashyan 1988 2 SCC 196.
32. 1969 2 SCC 262.
33. AIR 1984 S.C. 1572.
34. 1994 6 SCC 651.
35. Principles of Natural Justice, Siddharth Mohanty, available at http://www.mightylaws.in/481/principle- natural-justice.
36. [1964] AC 40
37. Administrative Law and Judicial Review of Administrative Action 2005 8 SCC J 25, The Practical Lawyer, Markandey Katju J, available at http://www.supremecourtcases.com/index 2.php?option=com_content&itemid=5&do _pdf=1&id=194.
38. All ER pp. 682 H-683 A.
39. (1615) 11 Co. Rep. 93b.
40. (1799) 8 Durn & East 209.
41. (1844) 5 Q.B. 614.
42. (1863) 14 C.B.N.S. 180; Smith v. The Queen, 3 App. Cas. 614.
43. Hopkins and Another v. Smethwick Local Board of Health, 24 Q.B.D.
44. Administrative Law, William Wade ,10th Ed. 2009 p.502-3.
45. The Courts and the Administration: a Change in Judical Method, K. J. Keith , (1977) 325 N.Z.U.L.R. JCLJ (2019) 24-38 © Law Journals 2019. All Rights Reserved Page 38
46. L.R. 10 A.C. 229.
47. "The Judge as Law Maker" (1972) 12 J.S.P.T.L. 22.
48. 1964 AC 40 (1967)
49. AIR 1967 SC 1269
50. Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar, (1989) 1 SCC 229
51. AIR 1978 SC 851
52. 1996 3 SCC 364
53. 1992 (3) BomCR 582 Cite this Article Devansh Saraswat, Rhishika Srivastava . Ridge v. Baldwin: Analysing the Magna Carta of Principles of Natural Justice . Jurisprudence. 2019; 2(1): 24–38p
