Natural Justice

 Natural Justice

Introduction: 

Principle of Natural Justice is derived from the word ‘Jus Natural’ of the Roman law and it is closely related to Common law and moral principles but is not codified. It is a law of nature which is not derived from any statute or constitution. 

Natural justice is a concept of Common Law that implies fairness, reasonableness, equity, and equality. It means making a sensible and reasonable decision-making procedure on a particular issue. The word "natural justice" manifests justice according to one's own conscience.

Natural justice simply means to make a sensible and reasonable decision making procedure on a particular issue. Sometimes, it doesn’t matter what is the reasonable decision but in the end, what matters is the procedure and who all are engaged in taking the reasonable decision. It is not restricted within the concept of ‘fairness’ it has different colours and shades which vary from the context. 

natural justice consists of 3 rules.

The first one is “Hearing rule” which states that the person or party who is affected by the decision made by the panel of expert members should be given a fair opportunity to express his point of view to defend himself.
Secondly, “Bias rule” generally expresses that panel of expert should be biased free while taking the decision. The decision should be given in a free and fair manner which can fulfil the rule of natural justice.
And thirdly, “Reasoned Decision” which states that order, decision or judgement of the court given by the Presiding authorities with a valid and reasonable ground.

Origin:

The principle of natural justice is a very old concept and it originated at an early age. The people of Greek and roman were also familiar with this concept. In the days of Kautilya, arthashastra and Adam were acknowledged the concept of natural justice. According to the Bible, in the case of Eve and Adam, when they ate the fruit of knowledge, they were forbidden by the god. Before giving the sentence, eve was given a fair chance to defend himself and the same process was followed in the case of Adam too.

Later on, the concept of natural justice was accepted by the English jurist. The word natural justice is derived from the Roman word ‘jus-naturale’ and ‘lex-naturale’ which planned the principles of natural justice, natural law and equity.

Natural justice is a sense of what is wrong and what is right.

Rules of Natural Justice:

Nemo judex causa in sua implies reject predisposition. It is the primary standards of regular equity which says no man will be judge in his own objective or a concluding power should be fair-minded and unbiased while choosing any case. Consequently the guideline imply that in a conditions where an adjudicator or concluding authority is thought to be predisposition and fractional then he/she will be exclude from deciding any case before them. It figures out that equity shouldn't simply be finished however seen to be finished. Procedures before any settling authority should be as per the standards of regular equity. 

Type of Bias

1. Personal Bias: Individual predisposition emerges from a connection between the party and choosing authority. Which lead the choosing expert in a far fetched circumstance to make an unreasonable action and give judgment for his individual. Such conditions emerge because of different types of individual and expert relations. 
2. Pecuniary Bias: If any of the judicial body has any kind of financial benefit, how so ever small it may be will lead to administrative authority to biases.
3. Subject matter Bias: When directly or indirectly the deciding authority is involved in the subject matter of a particular case.
4. Departmental Bias: The problem or issue of departmental bias is very common in every administrative process and it is not checked effectively and on every small interval period it will lead to negative concept of fairness will get vanished in the proceeding.
5. Policy notion Bias: Issues arising out of preconceived policy notion is a very dedicated issue. The audience sitting over there does not expect judges to sit with a blank sheet of paper and give a fair trial and decision over the matter.     

  Audi Alteram Partem

The exacting importance of this standard is that the two players ought to be allowed a fair opportunity to introduce themselves with their significant places and a fair preliminary ought to be led.

This is a significant rule of regular equity and its unadulterated structure isn't to punish anybody with practically no legitimate and sensible ground. Earlier notification ought to be given to an individual so he can get ready to understand what all charges are outlined against him. It is otherwise called a standard of fair hearing. The parts of fair hearing are not fixed or unbending in nature. It fluctuates from one case to another and power to power.

Components:

Issuance of notice: Substantial and appropriate notification ought to be given to the necessary gatherings of the make a difference to additionally continue with the technique of fair preliminary strategy. Regardless of whether the rule incorporate the arrangement of issue of notice then it will be given preceding deciding. This was held on account of Fazalbhai versus overseer.

On account of Kanda versus Legislature of Malaya, the court held that notice should straightforwardly and obviously indicate on the question of inclination, realities and conditions against which should be taken. It's one of the privileges of the person to shield himself so he ought to be know about the applicable matter so he might go against the assertion and defend himself.

The notification ought to be concerning the charges outlined against the blamed individual and continuing to be held. He must be rebuffed on the charges which are referenced in the notification, not really for some other charges.

Right to present the case and evidence: After receiving the notice he must be given a reasonable time period to prepare and present his case in a real and effective manner. The refusal should not be done on the unreasonable ground or due to arbitrary.

Right to cross examination: Right of fair hearing incorporates the option to interrogation the assertion made by the gatherings. On the off chance that councils denied the option to questioning, it will disregard the standards of regular equity. And every one of the essential duplicates of records ought to be given and disappointment of that will likewise infringe the standard. The division ought to make accessible officials who are associated with the strategy of exploring and do questioning. Questioning is characterized under Area 137 of the Indian Proof Demonstration, 1872 (changed).