"DETAILED ANALYSIS — AURELIANO FERNANDES V. STATE OF GOA & ORS., (2024 – 2025)"

By: -        Natasha Rocha is a 4th year BBA LLB Law student, studying at  ISBR Law College affiliated to Karnataka State Law University.

Thesis

In Aureliano Fernandes, the Supreme Court of India treated the rules of natural justice not as optional procedural niceties but as fundamental safeguards that give meaning to “Article 14” (equality before law).

The Court held that where a decision impacts a person’s rights, interests or livelihood, the principles such as “Audi Alteram Partem” (hear the other side) and “Nemo Judex in Causa Sua” (no one shall be a judge in their own cause) must be respected — and their breach can itself make the decision arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

This judgment strengthens the proposition that natural justice is the “bedrock” of equality and fair procedure in administrative and disciplinary contexts.

Background & factual matrix

The case arises from disciplinary and inquiry proceedings conducted against a university employee (or functionary) in Goa (and related administrative action).

 Aureliano Fernandes was a professor at Goa University. A complaint of sexual harassment was made against him under the POSH Act, 2013.

The University’s Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) conducted an inquiry and found him guilty of misconduct. Based on this report, the University imposed serious penalties, affecting his career and reputation.

APPELLANT:  Aureliano Fernandes — challenged the fairness and conduct of the inquiry process. The factual complaints included

a) A hastened inquiry that did not give the accused a fair opportunity to present his defence,

b) Procedural irregularities in how the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) or disciplinary body was constituted and conducted business, and

c) Reliance upon fact-finding reports without a regular, adversarial inquiry.

d) These facts were litigated in writ proceedings and reached the Supreme Court after earlier judicial orders.

Why these facts matter?

The litigation posed the classic question of “whether statutory or institutional mechanisms (like ICCs under the POSH Act) can dispense with basic fairness if they label proceedings as “internal,” and whether such departures render the decision arbitrary and therefore constitutionally infirm under Article 14”.  

Legal questions before the Court

1. Does the requirement of natural justice apply to disciplinary or administrative inquiries (including those under POSH / ICC procedures)?

2. If an inquiry violates principles like a fair hearing or impartiality, does that translate into arbitrariness and hence a breach of Article 14?

3. What remedial directions (if any) should courts issue to ensure compliance with fair procedure when institutions fail?

The Court’s Reasoning

1. Natural justice is integral to equality under Article 14

The Court emphasized that equal treatment under the law is hollow if procedural fairness is absent. The reasoning was twofold:

a)    Article 14 guarantees non-arbitrariness and that includes procedure;

b)    procedural unfairness — such as denying an opportunity of hearing or allowing bias — itself operates as arbitrariness and thus violates Article 14.

c)    This is conceptually significant because it ties procedural fairness directly to constitutional equality rather than leaving it only in administrative law.

2. Audi alteram partem — the hearing rule cannot be formalistic

The Court held that merely going through the motions (e.g., giving a perfunctory chance to speak, or conducting an inquiry in a rush) does not satisfy Audi Alteram Partem. The “opportunity” must be meaningful: adequate time to prepare, disclosure of allegations and materials, and an organized hearing where evidence can be challenged. If an inquiry is conducted so hastily or secretively that defence is impossible, the inquiry's conclusions cannot stand.

3. Nemo judex — institutional and apparent bias must be guarded against

The Court reiterated the established principle that justice must both be done and be seen to be done. Membership or influence of interested persons in inquiry bodies, or other circumstances creating a real likelihood of bias, vitiate the inquiry. The standard is not actual proof of bias but a reasonable apprehension of bias. This keeps administrative bodies accountable for composition and conduct.

4. Procedural protections cannot be contracted away by statutory labels

The Court refused to accept that naming a process “internal” or “informal” removes constitutional safeguards. Where a decision affects employment, status, reputation, or other core interests, the relevant institution must apply fair procedure; otherwise, the result is arbitrary. This is especially important for mechanisms established by statutes (such as POSH) where informal processes are intended to be employee-friendly, but not at the cost of fundamental fairness.

Relief and directions given

Practically, the Supreme Court quashed or set aside the impugned disciplinary action because the inquiry process fell short of the standards above. The matter was often remanded for a fresh inquiry conducted strictly in accordance with natural justice — i.e., fresh notice, disclosure of documents, adequate time, impartial constitution of the committee, and the right to produce and test evidence. Additionally, the Court used the judgment as an occasion to issue wider remedial guidance for systemic compliance (e.g., ensuring ICCs are properly trained, giving timelines that are realistic, and creating accessible complaint portals).

How Aureliano Fernandes fits into Supreme Court jurisprudence

1. Continuation of Kraipak / Tulsiram line

The judgment follows a jurisprudential trajectory from A.K. Kraipak and Tulsiram that widened natural justice beyond purely judicial or quasi-judicial bodies to many administrative settings. Aureliano Fernandes ties those principles even more closely to Article 14, emphasizing that procedural fairness is a constitutional requirement where substantive rights are affected.

2. POSH and workplace adjudication: The case has acquired particular importance for enforcement of the POSH Act because it stresses that internal complaint mechanisms must themselves be fair; otherwise, the remedy becomes a procedural sham. That has led to practical steps and judicial directives to strengthen enforcement architecture.

Practical implications — for institutions, lawyers, and litigants

• Institutions (universities, hospitals, corporations): Must ensure their inquiry processes include clear notice, disclosure practices, reasonable timelines, impartial composition of committees, and record-keeping. Failure to do so risks not only reversal of outcomes but also broader judicial directions and reputational damage.

• Counsel: In disciplinary or POSH matters, challenge procedural lacunae early — applications for interim relief often succeed if the inquiry is demonstrably unfair. Conversely, if representing institutions, ensure procedures are robust, documented and defensible.

• Litigants / accused persons: The judgment strengthens the protection that one must be given adequate time, full disclosure of charges and material, and a meaningful opportunity to be heard; mere formal compliance will not pass muster.

Criticisms and open questions

• Balance between speed and fairness: Courts have admonished “rush” inquiries, but institutions often cite urgency or reputational concerns. The judgment requires administrations to plan inquiries with both expediency and fairness. The tension remains a practical challenge.

• Remedies and scope: While remanding for fresh inquiry is a standard remedy, repeated remands without structural reform can be unsatisfactory. The Court’s issuing of systemic directions (training ICCs, activating complaint portals) shows awareness, but implementation will be the true test.

Conclusion — doctrinal and practical significance

Aureliano Fernandes is a clarion call that natural justice is not an optional overlay on administrative processes — it is a constitutional imperative, integral to Article 14’s guarantee against arbitrariness. The decision reiterates well-established maxims (Audi Alteram Partem; Nemo Judex) but moves beyond textbook statements to concrete, operational guidance for contemporary workplace and disciplinary procedures. For students, practitioners, and institutions, the case is now an essential reference point when assessing whether an administrative or disciplinary action will survive constitutional scrutiny.

Aureliano Fernandes went to court not to argue the facts of the harassment allegation itself, but to challenge the process by which the University’s ICC reached its decision.

He succeeded in getting the earlier punishment quashed because the Supreme Court held that the inquiry was procedurally unfair.

Date: 09th August 2025.