The term “Principles of Natural Justice”, derived from the expression „Jus Natural” of the Roman Law, does not have force of law as they may or may not form part of statute but they are necessarily to be followed. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasijudicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled.
Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice.
Natural Justice recognizes three principles:
Nemo debet essc judex in propria causa.
Audi alterem partem,
Speaking orders or reasoned decisions.
Nemo debet essc judex in propria causa
The first principle of impartiality roughly translated into English means nobody shall be a judge in his own cause or in a cause in which he is interested. This principle is more popularly known as the Doctrine of Bias. That is the authority sitting in judgment should be impartial and act without bias. To instill confidence in the system, justice should not merely be done but seen to be done.
Bias can be categorized in three categories namely pecuniary, personal and official.
Pecuniary bias
It is obvious that decision of the adjudicator would be affected if he is having pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the proceedings. In Mohapatra vs. State of Orissa (AIR 1984 S.C. 1572), it was held that when the author of a book was a member of the committee set up for selection of books, and his book was also under consideration by that committee, the possibility of bias could not be ruled out and the selection by that committee cannot be upheld. Thus, in addition to the direct personal interest, the test laid down by the court is to consider the real likelihood of bias. In other words, Probability of bias is sufficient to invalidate the right to sit in judgment and there is no need to have the proof of actual bias.
Personal Bias
Personal bias may arise out of friendship, relationship, professional grievance or even enmity. Here again likelihood of bias is to be given more credence than for the actual bias. “it is difficult to prove the state of mind of a person. Therefore, we have to see whether there is reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have been biased”. For example, in Tata Motor Challenge vs. Government of West Bengal, on the constitutional validity of Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, Justice Saumitra Pal recused himself from the case, citing that he knew some of the people in relation with the case personally.
Official Bias
Official bias may arise in cases where an administrator who enunciates, and then has to carry out an official policy, is entrusted with the duty of hearing objections from the concerned persons as to the implementation of the policy. Here the general rule is that the bias that may be said to be likely to arise because the adjudicator has a general interest in the subject matter and administration of the policy in his official capacity, would not operate as a disqualification. The mere fact that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies has a power of general supervision over all Co-operative Societies, does not amount to inherent bias in him so as to disqualify him for the purpose of acting as an arbitrator or judge under Section 18 of the Rules made under the Co-operative Societies /Act 1912 to decide disputes between members of a Society (Viraj vs. State of Orissa 1967 SC 158). Thus, no official bias arises while senior officers adjudicate the Customs or Central Excise or Service Tax cases even though the investigations in the case might have been conducted by their subordinates.
Audi alterem partem
The second principle of natural justice literally means ―to hear the other side‖. This is necessary for providing a fair hearing and no doubt the rule against bias would also be a part of the procedure. A corollary has been deduced from the above two rules and particularly the audi alteram partem rule, namely ‗qui aliquid statuerit parte inaudita alteram actquam licet dixerit, haud acquum facerit‘ that is, ‗he who shall decide anything without the other side having been heard, although he may have said what is right, will not have been what is right‘ or in other words, as it is now expressed, ‗justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done‘.
Speaking Orders or Reasoned Decision
The third aspect of natural justice requires speaking orders or reasoned decisions. It is now universally recognized that giving reasons for a certain decision is one of the fundamentals of good administration and a safeguard against arbitrariness. The refusal to give reasons may excite the suspicion that there are probably no good reasons to support the decision. Hence reasons are useful as they may reveal an error of law, the grounds for an appeal or simply remove what might otherwise be a lingering sense of injustice on the part of the unsuccessful party. When the order to be passed is an appealable order, the requirement of giving reasons would be a real requirement. Thus, reasons are also required to be given when the appellate or revisionary authority affirms the order of the lower authority.
,
Natural justice is a set of legal principles that are applied to ensure that a person is treated fairly in a legal proceeding. The principles of natural justice are:
The right to be heard
The right to be given reasons for a decision
The right to be free from bias
The right to procedural fairness
The principles of natural justice are applied in a wide range of legal proceedings, including court cases, administrative hearings, and disciplinary proceedings. The principles of natural justice are designed to protect the rights of individuals and to ensure that legal proceedings are conducted fairly.
The right to be heard is the right of a person to have an opportunity to present their case before a decision is made. This right is based on the principle that a person should not be deprived of their rights without being given a chance to be heard. The right to be heard is applied in a wide range of legal proceedings, including court cases, administrative hearings, and disciplinary proceedings.
For example, in a court case, the defendant has the right to be present at their trial and to present evidence and witnesses in their defense. The defendant also has the right to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses and to make a closing argument.
In an administrative hearing, the person who is being investigated or disciplined has the right to be present at the hearing and to present evidence and witnesses in their defense. The person also has the right to cross-examine the witnesses who are called by the investigating agency and to make a closing argument.
The right to be given reasons for a decision is the right of a person to be given reasons for a decision that has been made against them. This right is based on the principle that a person should be able to understand why a decision has been made and to challenge the decision if they believe it is wrong. The right to be given reasons for a decision is applied in a wide range of legal proceedings, including court cases, administrative hearings, and disciplinary proceedings.
For example, in a court case, the judge is required to give reasons for their decision in the form of a judgment. The judgment should set out the facts of the case, the legal issues that were raised, and the reasons for the judge’s decision.
In an administrative hearing, the decision-maker is required to give reasons for their decision in the form of a written decision. The decision should set out the facts of the case, the issues that were raised, and the reasons for the decision-maker’s decision.
The right to be free from bias is the right of a person to have their case heard by a decision-maker who is impartial and unbiased. This right is based on the principle that a person should not be deprived of their rights by a decision-maker who is prejudiced against them. The right to be free from bias is applied in a wide range of legal proceedings, including court cases, administrative hearings, and disciplinary proceedings.
For example, in a court case, the judge is required to be impartial and unbiased. The judge should not have any personal interest in the case and should not have any preconceived ideas about the outcome of the case.
In an administrative hearing, the decision-maker is required to be impartial and unbiased. The decision-maker should not have any personal interest in the case and should not have any preconceived ideas about the outcome of the case.
The right to procedural fairness is the right of a person to have their case heard in accordance with fair procedures. This right is based on the principle that a person should be able to participate in the legal process and to have their case heard in a fair and reasonable manner. The right to procedural fairness is applied in a wide range of legal proceedings, including court cases, administrative hearings, and disciplinary proceedings.
For example, in a court case, the defendant has the right to be represented by a lawyer. The defendant also has the right to know the charges against them and to have an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who are called by the prosecution.
In an administrative hearing, the person who is being investigated or disciplined has the right to be represented by a lawyer. The person also has the right to know the allegations against them and to have an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who are called by the investigating agency.
The principles of natural justice are fundamental to the fair administration of justice. They ensure that people are treated fairly and that they have a right to be heard before decisions are made that affect their rights.
The rule of law is the principle that no one is above the law, and that everyone is subject to the same laws. It is a fundamental principle of Democracy, and it is essential for ensuring that everyone is treated fairly and that no one is able to abuse their power.
What are the principles of natural justice?
The principles of natural justice are a set of legal principles that are designed to ensure that everyone is treated fairly in the legal system. They include the right to a fair hearing, the right to be heard, and the right to be given reasons for a decision.
What is due process?
Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law.
What is the right to a fair trial?
The right to a fair trial is a fundamental human right that is enshrined in international law. It is the right of everyone to be tried in a fair and impartial court, with the opportunity to present their case and to be represented by a lawyer.
What is the right to be heard?
The right to be heard is a fundamental principle of natural justice. It means that everyone has the right to be given an opportunity to present their case before a decision is made that affects them.
What is the right to be given reasons for a decision?
The right to be given reasons for a decision is a fundamental principle of natural justice. It means that everyone has the right to be given an explanation for a decision that has been made about them, so that they can understand the reasons for the decision and challenge it if they believe it is wrong.
What is the difference between the rule of law and due process?
The rule of law is a broader principle that encompasses all aspects of the legal system, while due process is a more specific principle that relates to the procedures that must be followed in legal proceedings. The rule of law requires that everyone is subject to the law, while due process requires that the law is applied fairly and impartially.
What is the importance of the rule of law and due process?
The rule of law and due process are essential for ensuring that everyone is treated fairly and that no one is able to abuse their power. They are also essential for protecting individual rights and freedoms.
Sure. Here are some MCQs without mentioning the topic Principles Of Natural Justice:
Which of the following is not a principle of natural justice? (A) The right to be heard (B) The right to be represented (C) The right to cross-examine witnesses (D) The right to silence
Which of the following is not a ground for Judicial Review? (A) Procedural impropriety (B) Substantive impropriety (C) Error of law (D) Error of fact
Which of the following is not a remedy for judicial review? (A) Certiorari (B) Mandamus (C) Prohibition (D) Quo warranto
Which of the following is not a type of court? (A) Superior court (B) Inferior court (C) Magistrate’s court (D) Supreme court
Which of the following is not a type of law? (A) Common law (B) Statutory law (C) Constitutional law (D) International law
Which of the following is not a source of law? (A) Legislation (B) Precedent (C) Custom (D) Equity
Which of the following is not a branch of government? (A) The executive (B) The legislative (C) The judicial (D) The military
Which of the following is not a function of government? (A) To make laws (B) To enforce laws (C) To interpret laws (D) To wage war
Which of the following is not a right of the individual? (A) The right to life (B) The right to Liberty (C) The Right to Property (D) The right to vote
Which of the following is not a responsibility of the individual? (A) To obey the law (B) To pay taxes (C) To serve in the military (D) To vote
I hope these MCQs are helpful. Please let me know if you have any other questions.