Harry Potter - Order of Phoenix and Natural Justice

In the Order of Phoenix, the fifth part of Harry Potter (a fiction by J K Rowling), Harry Potter was confronted by the monster-like creatures which were called to be Demonter when he was along with his cousin Dudley who is a muggle (a term used in the fiction to refer human beings). The Demonters were nearly about to make them unconscious and suddenly somehow Harry was able to get hold of his wand and used the spell called as Patronus Charm and managed to escape as well as save Dudley from the demonters. He was underage (i.e 17 years old) when he used such spell in front of muggle and he should have not been used such spells. After all, it is a clear violation of rules made by the Ministry of Magic. Umbridge (one of the characters in the antagonist side) consequently expelled Harry Potter without a hearing, from the Hogwards school of Witchcraft and Wizardry for using spells in front of a muggle.

Later Harry got his right to be heard with the help of Professor Dumbeldore and got reinstated into the Hogwards school of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Now let’s Analyse the action of Umbridge in the light of real modern laws of Natural Justice (i.e right to be heard). This Analysis is majorly based on Indian laws and English laws of Natural Justice since differences are nuance.

AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM

Right to be heard:

In a Nutshell, Natural Justice has two principles: (a) Audi Alteram Partem (Right to be heard) and (b) Nemo Judex in Causa Suo (rule against bias). The very basic approach for applying Natural Justice is the classificatory approach. It is evident that the action of Umbridge expelling Harry Potter can be classified as Quasi-Judicial since it is a mere application of law which comprises objective grounds, made by the Ministry of Magic. Since it is Quasi-Judicial Action, right to be heard must be given. In English law, Ridge Vs. Baldwin was the first case to address this issue. The rationale of the case had established the concept of fairness in administrative proceedings. Similar kind of rationale was aroused in India in the case of A K kraipak wherein it was held that irrespective of the classificatory approach, fairness must comply with every administrative actions and Principle of Natural Justice must be applied if there exist serious adverse consequences of rights. Harry Expelling from Hogwards School was not any light adverse consequence of Rights. Therefore, even if Umbridge expelling Harry is not a Quasi-Judicial Action, He would suffer from serious adverse consequences. Thereby, it is highly condemned to expel Harry without exercising his Right to be Heard.

Right to Legal Representation:

Moving Further, if Hogwards had the practice of having a lawyer to represent individual legally before the Ministry of Magic (which by the way, Professor Dumbeldore did it for Harry somehow), Harry would have got it. In the case of Pets Vs. Grayhound, Lord Denning held that Lawyers can be provided when there exist serious adverse consequences of rights and if the party is not able to defend themselves due to unsound mental state. In India, in the case of J K Agarwal, there were around four to five principles laid down for deciding whether to exercise the right to legal representation: the ability to defend, the silence of statute, serious adverse consequences, inequality of the combat, discretion can be looked into the court if relevant facts are not considered. 

Post-Decisional Hearing:

It is evident from the movie that Harry Potter was given a Hearing due to the efforts of Professor Dumbeldore after the expel decision has made. Maneka Gandhi Vs UOI was the first case in India to bring up the concept of Post-decisional Hearing. Here the hearing was made after exercising the decision of impounding the passport of Maneka without prior notice since if prior notice were given, there is a high possibility that she would flee to other countries, escaping from the charges. The rationale of this case was that post-decisional hearing can be conducted when stultification or frustration of administrative action can be proved in pre-decisional hearing if such hearing is provided. Further, In the case of H.L. Trehan Vs. Union of India, it was contended by the respondents that since no opportunity of being heard was given, the impugned circular must be struck down. The Petitioners argued that they were ready to provide a post-decisional hearing. But the Supreme Court held that post decisional hearing cannot be granted since it would naturally proceed with a closed mind and there is hardly any chance of getting a proper consideration of the representation at such a post-decisional opportunity.

Coming to the Harry Potter case, post decisional Hearing though was in favour of Harry, as per modern law of Natural Justice, the post-decisional Hearing, as well as the expelling order, would have been challenged in the courts of law. This is because even if Harry was given prior notice of his expulsion, there would not be any stultification of administrative action. Therefore there exist no grounds for post-decisional hearing and hence the Expelling order is also void ab initio since he was not given any pre-decisional hearing i.e. before expulsion.