Natural Law in British, American and Indian Legal System

1. Natural law entered British law indirectly, not as a written higher law. British courts cannot strike down an Act of Parliament simply because it goes against natural law. Instead, its influence can be seen in common law, principles of natural justice and human rights.
2. Early common law: the ruler is bound by a higher law. In the thirteenth century, Henry de Bracton wrote that the King was under God and the law. Later, in Dr Bonham's Case (1610), Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke suggested that if an Act of Parliament went against common right and reason, the common law could control it and declare it invalid. This was one of the strongest early attempts to give natural law a place above ordinary legislation in England..
3. Parliamentary sovereignty: Parliament, and not natural law, has the last word. Coke's view did not become the accepted rule. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the Bill of Rights of 1689, Parliament became the supreme law-making authority. William Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–1769), explained that human laws should follow the law of nature. However, he also accepted that courts must follow an Act of Parliament even when it goes against natural law. Later, thinkers like Jeremy Bentham and John Austin supported legal positivism, which became influential in Britain. In the nineteenth century, A.V. Dicey clearly explained the principle of parliamentary sovereignty: Parliament has the power to make or repeal any law.
4. Natural justice: natural law survives as rules of fair procedure. Although natural law cannot override an Act of Parliament, its influence can be seen in the principles of natural justice. These principles ensure that decisions are made fairly. The two main principles are:
   • Audi alteram partem: the other side must be heard. In Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works (1863), the Board ordered a builder's house to be demolished without giving him a chance to explain his side. The court held that the decision was invalid, even though the law did not specifically require a hearing.
   • Nemo judex in causa sua: no one may be a judge in his own cause. No one should decide a case in which they have a personal interest. In other words, nobody should be a judge in their own case.

   Another important case is Ridge v. Baldwin (House of Lords, 1964), a chief constable was dismissed without a hearing, and the House of Lords held the dismissal void.

5. Human rights: rights are protected, but Parliament stays supreme. he Human Rights Act 1998 brought the rights recognised by the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. These include the right to life and the right to a fair trial. If an Act of Parliament conflicts with these rights, a court can declare it incompatible with the Convention. However, the court cannot strike down that Act.

   In R (Jackson) v. Attorney General (2005), some judges suggested that courts might refuse to apply an Act of Parliament if it seriously threatened the rule of law. However, these comments were not necessary to decide the case, and other judges did not agree. Therefore, the issue remains unsettled, and parliamentary sovereignty continues to be the general rule in Britain.

1. Rights come before government. Natural law strongly influenced American law. The Declaration of Independence (1776), mainly written by Thomas Jefferson, was influenced by John Locke's ideas. It states that all people are equal and have certain basic rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights exist naturally, even before a government is formed. A government that violates them loses its moral authority.
2. A written constitution: natural rights become constitutional text. These ideas influenced the US Constitution (1787) and the Bill of Rights (1791). The Ninth Amendment makes it clear that people have rights beyond those specifically listed in the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) also guarantees due process and equal protection of the law.
3. The courts: judges can strike down laws, but only through the Constitution. In Calder v. Bull (1798), Justice Samuel Chase argued that some laws are so unjust that they should be considered invalid. Justice James Iredell disagreed, saying that courts cannot reject a law simply because they consider it unfair. Later, in Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court established that courts can strike down laws that violate the Constitution. This made the Constitution the main legal basis for protecting rights.
4. Slavery and civil rights: appeals to a higher law against unjust law. Opponents of slavery used natural law to argue against unjust laws. However, in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), the Supreme Court denied citizenship to people of African descent. Slavery was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865. Later, in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Court declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. Martin Luther King Jr., in his Letter from Birmingham Jail (1963), also argued that people have a moral duty to oppose unjust laws.
5. The debate today: can judges find rights that are not written? In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court recognised a constitutional right to privacy and struck down a law banning contraceptives for married couples. Justice Goldberg relied partly on the Ninth Amendment, while Justice Black disagreed with recognising rights that were not clearly written in the Constitution. This debate over whether courts can recognise unwritten rights continues in American law.

1. Dharma: an old standard that stands above the ruler. In ancient Hindu thought, dharma means duty, righteousness and the order that holds society together. Texts such as the Manusmriti treat dharma as higher than the king's command, and the king himself was bound by it. It is not the same as the Western idea of natural law, since it is tied to religion and to duties that differ from person to person. But both share one point: there is a standard of conduct that the ruler must follow.
2. British rule: Natural justice enters Indian law: Natural justice enters through "justice, equity and good conscience". The courts of the East India Company, and later the British Indian courts, were told to decide a case by "justice, equity and good conscience" when no specific rule applied. This brought English equity and ideas of natural justice into Indian law, and Indian courts still use them when they reason about fairness.
3. Independent India: natural law ideas are written into a constitution. After independence, the Constitution of 1950 gave legal recognition to many principles associated with natural law. These can be found in the Preamble, Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV).

Natural law is not named anywhere in the Constitution, but its ideas appear in the text in several places.

• The Preamble: justice, liberty, equality and fraternity as the aims of the State. These are the values that natural law theory has always treated as the aim of law.
• Fundamental rights (Part III): rights that every person holds against the State. These rights protect individuals against unfair actions by the State. For example, Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, Article 19 protects freedom of speech, and Article 21 protects life and personal liberty. Articles 15 and 17 also prohibit discrimination and abolish untouchability.
• Article 13(2): a law that breaks fundamental rights is void. It says that the State cannot make laws that take away or violate Fundamental Rights. Any law that does so is void to the extent of the violation. This limits the power of the legislature.
• Article 32: the right to go straight to the Supreme Court to enforce a right. In the Constituent Assembly, Dr B.R. Ambedkar described it as the heart and soul of the Constitution.
• Directive principles (Part IV): the moral aims of the State, not enforceable in court. They direct the State to work for social and economic justice.

Natural law believes that people have certain rights simply because they are human, and the State only recognises those rights. Under the Indian Constitution, however, these rights receive their legal protection from the Constitution itself. Indian courts have often dealt with the relationship between these two ideas while interpreting fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court rarely uses the term natural law directly. Instead, it interprets the Constitution in ways that often reflect the principles of natural law, such as fairness, justice, liberty and human dignity.

1. Natural justice becomes part of Article 21:
   • from Gopalan to Maneka Gandhi. Article 21 says that no person shall lose life or personal liberty except according to "procedure established by law".
   • In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the majority read this to mean any procedure that a statute lays down. They refused to add the requirements of natural justice, which was a positivist reading.
   • In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Court reversed this. It held that the procedure must be fair, just and reasonable, and that a law cannot take away liberty by an arbitrary or oppressive procedure.
   • In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Court went further and held that the right to life includes the right to livelihood.
2. Natural justice applies to administrative decisions, and not only to courts. In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969), the Court held that the rules of natural justice apply not only to courts but also to administrative authorities. It set aside a selection process because one of the candidates was also a member of the selection board.
3. Limits on Parliament: the basic structure doctrine. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Court held that Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot destroy its basic structure. Although Article 368 gives Parliament the power to amend the Constitution, that power is not unlimited. This reflects the natural law idea that even the law-making authority must follow certain basic principles. However, the doctrine remains debated because it allows courts to decide what forms part of the Constitution's basic structure.
4. Right to liberty during an Emergency.
   • In ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976), the majority held that people could not approach courts to challenge their detention during the Emergency. Justice H.R. Khanna disagreed, arguing that the State could not take away life and liberty without legal authority.
   • In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court rejected the majority's approach in ADM Jabalpur.
5. Natural rights and human dignity. I
   • In Puttaswamy, a bench of 9 judges held that privacy is a fundamental right. The plurality opinion treated fundamental rights as belonging to a person because he is human, and not as gifts of the State.
   • In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Court gave weight to constitutional morality, meaning the values of the Constitution, over the moral views of the majority in society, and it held Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code unconstitutional as applied to consensual sexual conduct between adults.

The three systems have handled natural law differently. Britain keeps it inside the common law and leaves the last word to Parliament. The United States wrote natural rights into its Constitution and let the courts enforce them. India did the same, and its judges have used natural justice and the idea of fundamental rights to give the Constitution a fuller meaning.

In all three, natural law now works mostly as a way of reasoning about fairness within a written or settled legal system. It rarely appears as a claim that a judge may set aside the law itself.