1. Core Legal Answer & Context: The statement accurately captures the essence of natural justice. Natural justice comprises fundamental principles of fairness, primarily audi alteram partem (hear the other side) and nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause). However, these are not rigid, immutable rules but flexible concepts whose application varies depending on the context, the nature of the inquiry, the subject matter, the rights affected, and the statutory provisions governing the action. The degree of fairness required in a particular situation is not uniform; it is 'context-dependent' and 'situation-specific'.

For instance, a full-fledged oral hearing with cross-examination might be necessary in a disciplinary proceeding involving severe penalties, but a mere opportunity to submit a written representation might suffice in a routine administrative decision. The objective is to ensure a fair hearing and an unbiased decision, not to impose unnecessary procedural burdens that could impede efficient administration. There are also recognized exceptions where natural justice principles might be excluded or modified, such as in cases of urgency, public interest, national security, or where it is impractical to apply them fully. The courts have consistently held that the principles of natural justice are meant to supplement, not supplant, statutory provisions.

2. Relevant Statutes and Sections:

• While not codified in a single statute, principles of natural justice are implicitly embedded in Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (procedure established by law must be fair, just, and reasonable) of the Constitution. They are also fundamental to administrative law.

3. Important Landmark Cases:

• A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969): This landmark case established that principles of natural justice apply to administrative actions as well, not just quasi-judicial ones. The Court emphasized that the content and application of natural justice vary with the facts and circumstances of each case, stating, "The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules... Their aim is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. They are not immutable but flexible."
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): The Supreme Court held that the 'procedure established by law' under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable, thereby incorporating the principles of natural justice into the constitutional guarantee of life and personal liberty. It reiterated the flexibility of these principles.
• Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985): This case discussed exceptions to the rule of natural justice, particularly in the context of Article 311(2) of the Constitution (dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank of civil servants), where certain circumstances (e.g., national security) might justify their exclusion.
• S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan (1980): The Court held that even if the facts are undisputed, a hearing is essential, as the purpose of natural justice is not just to prevent wrong decisions but also to ensure fairness in the decision-making process itself.

4. Clear Conclusion: The statement accurately reflects the judicial approach to natural justice. It is a dynamic and adaptable concept, not a rigid set of rules. Its application is contextual, designed to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrary action in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, without imposing an inflexible procedural straitjacket that could hinder effective governance. The courts determine the appropriate level of procedural fairness based on the specific circumstances of each case.