In India, this concept was introduced very early. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Electoral Commissioner, the court held that the concept of fairness should be included in any law, whether judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative or quasi-administrative. The principles of natural justice are of great importance in the study of administrative law. We also know that there is fair play in substantive justice or fundamental justice or universal justice or universal action. The Supreme Court noted that the objective of judicial and administrative bodies is to reach a fair and just decision. The primary purpose of natural justice is to prevent the abortion of justice. The principle of natural justice derives from the word “jus naturel” in Roman law and is closely related to common law and moral principles, but is not codified. It is a law of nature that does not flow from any law or constitution.

The principle of natural justice is observed with the utmost importance by all citizens of the civilized state. In the past, when industrial zones ruled with a harsh and strict hiring and firing law, the Supreme Court gave its command with the adoption of the duration and the creation of social, judicial and economic protections for workers. « Natural justice is a sense of what is wrong and what is just. » Second, the “bias rule” generally states that the panel should not be biased at the time of the decision. The decision should be made in a free and fair manner that can be consistent with the principle of natural justice. The requirements of natural justice or the duty to act fairly depend on the context. [6]: 584-585 In Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999)[8], the Supreme Court of Canada has established a non-exhaustive list of factors that would affect the content of the duty of fairness, including the nature of the decision made and the process by which it was made, the legal regime under which the decision-maker operates, the importance of the decision to the person challenging it, his or her legitimate expectations, and the choice of procedure followed by the decision-maker. [9] Previously, in Knight v Indian Head School Division No.

19 (1990),[10] the Supreme Court held that authorities making legislative and general decisions are not required to act fairly, unlike authorities making administrative and specific acts. Moreover, preliminary decisions do not normally trigger the duty to act in good faith, but decisions of a more definitive nature may have such an effect. [10]: para. 30 Moreover, whether a duty to act is appropriate depends on the relationship between the authority and the individual. There is no obligation if the relationship is one between master and servant, or if the person holds a position at will of authority. On the other hand, there is a duty to act fairly if the person can only be removed for cause. [10]: para. 32 Finally, the right to a fair trial exists only when the decision of a public authority is important and has a significant impact on individuals. [10] : Paragraph 39 The principles of natural justice should be free from bias, and the parties should have a fair opportunity to be heard, and all reasons and decisions of the tribunal should be communicated by the tribunal to the respective parties. However, this requirement does not necessarily mean that the decision-maker must meet with the complainant in person – “natural justice does not normally require oral categorization.” [51] It has been suggested that an oral hearing is almost useless if the person concerned has no prior knowledge of the case. [51]: 287 In Lloyd v. McMahon (1987),[52] an oral hearing did not change the facts on which the case was based.

In his judgment before the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, Lord Justice Harry Woolf held that an oral hearing need not always be the “nucleus of the natural administration of justice”. [52]: 670 It was also suggested that an oral hearing is required only when issues arise with respect to the withdrawal of statutory rights or interests protected by law. [48]:128 In the past, uncontrolled public decisions have led to poor outcomes and a lack of respect for decision-makers. Such decisions also lack the regularity and transparency that distinguish them from mere participation by the authorities. For such reasons, there are clear benefits to disclosing reasons for the decision. First, the procedural intervention of the persons concerned by a decision promotes the rule of law by making it more difficult for the Authority to act arbitrarily. [48]: 110 The requirement to state reasons helps to ensure that decisions are well thought out, which in turn contributes to the control of the administration`s discretion. [35]: 194 Second, accountability requires that the Authority deal with those affected by a decision. If a public authority acts on all relevant considerations, it increases the likelihood of better decision-making outcomes and thus benefits the public interest. Another important benefit is that respect for decision-makers is encouraged, which increases their integrity in the eyes of the public. [48]: 110 In some limited cases, bias may also be presumed where the decision-maker`s interest in the decision is not financial, but personal. This was established in the groundbreaking case R.

v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2) (1999). [19] In an appeal to the House of Lords, the Crown Prosecution Service sought to quash a Divisional Court annulment order regarding extradition orders against former Chilean dictator, Senator Augusto Pinochet. Amnesty International (AI) was allowed to intervene. However, one of the judges in the case, Lord Hoffmann, was a director and chairman of Amnesty International Charity Ltd. (AICL), a company controlled by AI. He was eventually excluded from the case and the outcome of the proceedings was annulled. The House of Lords found that the close link between AICL and AI Lord Hoffmann showed an interest in the outcome of the dispute.

Although these were non-financial objectives, the Law Lords considered that there was sufficient interest to justify Lord Hoffmann`s automatic exclusion from the trial of the case. In Locabail (UK) Ltd v. Bayfield Properties Ltd (1999),[20] the Court of Appeal cautioned against further extension of the automatic prohibition rule “unless there is a clear need to give effect to the important underlying principles on which the rule is based”. [20]: 465 There is no precise and scientific definition of the principles of natural justice. However, the principles of natural justice are accepted and applied. The principles of natural justice are neither rules nor codified, they are rules set by judges, and are believed to be equivalent to due process in the United States. Different judges, lawyers and academics define it in different ways. The principles of natural justice derived from the common law in England are based on two Latin maxims (derived from ius natural).

Effects of the breach of natural justice. If the authority must respect the principle of natural justice when issuing an injunction, but fails to do so accordingly, the general judicial decision is that the injunction is null and void. The Ministerial Power Committee or Frank Committee has established the following standards of natural justice: The primary purpose of the principles of natural justice is to ensure justice in the economic enterprises of society and individuals. It also defends individual freedom against any arbitrary act. Nemo Judex In Causa Sua means domination against prejudice. This is the first principle of natural justice, which states that no individual should be a judge in his or her own case, or that a decision-making authority should be neutral and impartial in the consideration of a case. At present, the principles of natural justice in the United Kingdom and some other jurisdictions do not contain a general rule that decisions must be reasoned. [49] [66] In R. v.

Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Shaw (1951),[67] Denning C.J. stated: “I believe that the minutes must contain at least the document initiating proceedings; any written pleading; and decision; But neither the evidence nor the motives, unless the court decides to include them. If the court gives its reasons and these reasons are legally wrong, certiorari lies to annul the decision. [67]: 352 It has been stated that “no single factor has impeded the development of English administrative law as seriously as the absence of a general obligation on the authorities to give reasons for their decisions”. [68] Simply put, English law recognizes three principles of natural justice, as explained below: – In English law, natural justice is a technical terminology for the rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua) and the right to a fair trial (audi alteram partem).