The term "principle of natural justice" is derived from the Latin word
"jus natural," and although it is not codified, it is closely tied to common
law and moral principles. It is a natural law that has nothing to do with
any statute or constitution. All inhabitants of civilised states place the
highest value on adherence to the natural justice principle. The Supreme
Court issued its directive with the passage of time and the formation of
social, just, and economic statutory protection for workers during the
early days of fair practise, when industrial regions were governed by a
strict and rigid law to hire and fire.
Making an informed and fair judgement regarding a specific matter is
known as natural justice. Sometimes, the reasonable decision is
irrelevant; what important is the process and the participants in arriving
at the reasonable decision. It is not constrained by the idea of "fairness,"
and it comes in a variety of hues and tones depending on the situation.
3 rules:-
The first is the "Hearing Rule," which provides that the party or person
who will be impacted by the judgement made by the expert panel shall
be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case and be heard.
Second, the "Bias Rule" generally states that an expert panel should be
impartial while making a judgement. The judgement should be made in
a free and impartial manner that can uphold the natural justice principle.
Thirdly, "Reasoned Decision," which describes an order, judgement, or
other court action made by the presiding authority on a justifiable and
valid basis.
The principle of natural justice is a very old concept that dates back to
ancient times. This concept was also known to Greek and Roman
people. Natural justice was recognised in the days of Kautilya,
arthashastra, and Adam. When Eve and Adam ate the fruit of
knowledge, according to the Bible, they were forbidden by the god. Eve
was given a fair chance to defend herself before the sentence was
handed down, and the same procedure was followed in the case of
Adam. The concept of natural justice was later accepted by English
jurists. Natural justice is derived from the Roman words 'jus-naturale'
and 'lex-naturale,' which laid out the principles of natural justice, natural
law, and equity.
This concept was introduced in India at an early stage. The court held in
Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner that the concept
of fairness should be present in all actions, whether judicial, quasi-
judicial, administrative, or quasi-administrative in nature.
The principle's goal :-
To give everyone an equal chance to be heard. Fairness is a concept
tofill the legal gaps and loopholes. To safeguard fundamental [Link]
fundamental elements of the [Link] was no miscarriage of
justice.
The principles of natural justice should be free of bias, and parties
should be given a fair opportunity to be heard, and the court should
inform the respective parties of all reasons and decisions [Link]
Supreme Court stated that the purpose of judicial and administrative
bodies is to reach a reasonable and justifiable decision. The primary goal
of natural justice is to prevent miscarriages of justice. A committee
known as "Ministers Power" provided three essential procedures related
to natural justice principles. They are as follows:-
No one should be a judge in his or her own case.
No one can be sentenced without being heard.
The party has the right to know every reason and decision made by the
authority.
When can it be claimed?
Natural justice can be claimed when acting judicially or quasi-judicially,
such as panchayats and tribunals. It includes the concept of fairness,
basic moral principles, and various types of biases, as well as why
natural justice is required and what special cases or situations are
included where natural justice principles will not be applicable.
It was stated in the case of the Province of Bombay vs. Khushaldas
Advani that natural justice will be applicable on statutory grounds
because it is a basic principle of Natural justice that leads to fairness and
justice.
Natural Justice Rules
NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA & AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM
REASONABLE DECISION
Judex Nemo Sua Causa
"No one should be a judge in his own case," because it leads to biassed
rules. Bias is defined as an act that leads to unfair behaviour in relation
to a party or a specific case, whether conscious or unconscious. As a
result, the need for this rule is to ensure that the judge is impartial and
renders a decision based on the evidence recorded in the case.
Personal prejudice
Personal bias is caused by a relationship between the party and the
deciding authority. That causes the deciding authority in a doubtful
situation to engage in unfair behaviour and render a decision in favour of
his person. Such equations arise as a result of various types of personal
and professional relationships. To successfully challenge an
administrative action on the basis of personal bias, a reasonable reason
for bias must be provided. The Supreme Court ruled that while one of
the members of the selection committee's panel, his brother, was a
candidate in the competition, the entire selection procedure could not be
thrown out.
Financial bias
If any member of the judicial body receives any kind of financial
benefit, no matter how small, administrative authority will be biassed.
Bias due to subject matter
When the deciding authority is directly or indirectly involved in the
subject matter of a particular case.
Kadam Singh vs. Muralidhar The court refused to overturn the Election
Tribunal's decision because the chairman's wife was a member of the
Congress party, which the petitioner defeated.
Bias within departments
The problem or issue of departmental bias is very common in every
administrative process, and it is not checked effectively, resulting in a
negative concept of fairness disappearing in the proceeding at every
small interval period.
Bias in policy notions
Issues arising from preconceived policy notions are a very specific issue.
The audience does not expect the judges to sit down with a blank sheet
of paper and give a fair trial and decision on the matter.
Bias because of the stubbornness
Through the unreasonable condition, the Supreme Court has uncovered
new standards of bias. This new category was created as a result of an
appeal in which a judge from the Calcutta High Court upheld his own
decision. No judge can sit in an appeal against his own case, which is a
clear violation of the bias rules.
Alteram Partem, Audi
It only consists of three Latin words and effectively states that no one
can be judged or punished by the court without being given a fair chance
to be heard.
In many countries, the majority of matters are left unresolved without
being given a fair chance to be heard.
This rule’s precise meaning is that both parties should be given an equal
opportunity to present their pertinent arguments and that a fair trial
should be held.
Natural justice adheres to the fundamental principle that no one should
be punished unless there is a good reason for it. A person should be
informed in advance so that he or she can prepare for whatever charges
may be brought against them. It is often referred to as a fair hearing rule.
The elements of a fair hearing are not rigid or unchangeable. Case-by-
case and authority-by-authority variations exist.
Both natural justice and administrative law
Common law exists in administrative law, especially when it comes to
matters of public interest. It was established at a time when the way the
State operated had changed in the years following independence and the
welfare of society had taken precedence. The law also gives discretion
and rules for using the power to keep in check, in addition to a unilateral
decision.
K.’s opinion “Administrative law concerns with the powers and
practises of administrative agencies, particularly the rules governing
judicial review of administrative action,” C. Davis. The statute we are
Discussing has a long history that goes back to it. The concepts of
natural justice are applied in administrative processes including fair
trials, just governance, and the selective use of managerial authority to
prevent misuse of broad discretion.
Natural justice is characterised by fairness, and its guiding principles are
also referred to as substantial justice, fundamental justice, universal
justice, or fair play in action. In the case of “Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India, 1978,” the fundamentals of natural justice were first brought to
light in India.
Natural Justice’s Importance in Administrative Law
The main goal of the common law’s administrative law is to settle
disagreements between the government and the general public. In India,
post-independence development is the development of administrative
law. The transformation of the State concept is the most pertinent
justification for the development of administrative law.
The government has transformed into a welfare and police state. The
administrative will has been carried out as a result. Administrative law
allows for the selection of conscience, but it does so in accordance with
the principles of justice and not a single will. This law grants the
executive with discretion and also specifies how to use those authorities.
Absolute power as a notion cannot result in arbitrary behaviour. The
goal of administrative law is to limit the use of discretion.
Wide discretion results from arbitrariness and unfairness. If the
discretionary is being abused or used excessively, the judiciary may step
in. However, it can only get involved if someone feels that their rights
have been violated by an administrative authority’s action.
