What Are the Rules of Natural Justice and Fairness

Public confidence as the basis of the rule against bias is also expressed in the oft-quoted words of Lord Hewart, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, that „it is not only of some importance, but also fundamental that justice should not only be done, but should obviously be regarded as done“. [16] „I firmly believe that if all decision-makers adhered to these basic principles in drawing conclusions and making decisions, there would be very few complaints about the fairness of decisions, except from those for whom a response other than the one they want is unacceptable.“ 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 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] Natural justice is an artificial term that refers to specific procedural rights in the English legal system[1] and the systems of other nations that flow from them. It is similar to the American concepts of due process and due process, the latter having roots that correspond to some extent to the origins of natural justice.

[2] In India, this concept was introduced very early. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. As Chief Electoral Commissioner, the Court concluded that the concept of fairness should be included in any law, whether judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative or administrative. The principles of natural justice are the rules established by the courts such as the minimum protection of the rights of individuals against arbitrary procedure that may be issued by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority when making an order affecting those rights. Simply put, English law recognizes three principles of natural justice, as explained below: – This is an important rule of natural justice and its pure form is not to punish anyone without good and reasonable reason. A person should be notified in advance so that they can prepare to know what charges will be laid against them. It is also known as the Fair Trial Rule. The elements of a fair trial are neither fixed nor rigid.

This varies from case to case and from authority to authority. The responsibility [to inform the defendant of his or her defence options or what might be more beneficial to his or her case] does not pass to the judge (or the prosecution) simply because the defendant is unrepresented. This will place a burden on the judge. In addition, the judge will fulfill two totally irreconcilable and incompatible roles – one as an arbitrator, the other as a de facto defence lawyer. The principle of natural justice is a very old concept and originated at a young age. The Greeks and Romans were also familiar with this concept. In Kautilya`s time, Arthashastra and Adam recognized 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 God. Before the verdict, Eve had a fair chance to defend herself, and the same procedure was followed in Adam`s case. The right to be heard in response to accusations before an impartial tribunal is exemplified by the Singapore case Tan Boon Chee David v. Medical Council of Singapore (1980). [56] During a disciplinary hearing, Board members were not conscientious about their attendance or did not attend the entire hearing.

This means that they did not hear all the oral testimony and submissions. The High Court found that this had significantly affected the appellant and constituted a fundamental breach of natural justice. On the other hand, the mere absence of a hearing does not necessarily result in unreasonable disadvantage. In Re Teo Choo Hong (1995),[57] it was decided that the function of a lay member of a disciplinary committee of lawyers was to observe, not to vote or pass judgment. The Appellant therefore suffered no unreasonable disadvantage. Right to cross-examination – The right to a fair trial includes the right to cross-examine the parties` statements. When the courts deny the right to cross-examination, it violates the principles of natural justice. And all the necessary copies of the documents must be provided, and if this does not happen, it will also undermine the principle. The ministry should provide representatives to participate in the investigation and conduct cross-examination. Cross-examination is defined in section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act (Amendment), 1872.

The right to a fair trial is crucial when you are faced with administrative procedures such as regulatory body (college) procedures or hospital procedures. In Canada, the right to fair treatment is known as natural justice or procedural fairness. It may seem abstract, but the principles of natural justice can have a huge impact on the course of the case against you, as shown in the following scenario, which is based on a compilation of CMPA records. If the issuance of an injunction requires authorization to follow the principles of natural justice, but does not, the general judicial opinion is that the injunction is void. It has been suggested that the differences between the two tests are largely semantic and that the two tests work similarly. In the Locabai case, the judges stated that in a large proportion of cases, the application of both tests would lead to the same result. It was also stated that „[t]he fact that the court, as the personification of the reasonable man, adopts an approach based on general common sense, and without undue reliance on special knowledge, details of the trial or other matters beyond the competence of the reasonably well-informed ordinary public, There should be no risk: that the courts will not ensure that justice is done as well as it is perceived by the public. to do.“ [20]: 477 In the Singapore High Court decision Tang Kin Hwa v.

Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board (2005),[14] the Commissioner of Justice, Andrew Phang, concluded that the test of true likelihood is in fact similar to that of reasonable suspicion. First, probability is actually a „possibility,“ as opposed to the higher standard of proof, which focuses on „probability.“ Second, he proposed that actual probability could not be understood as „real“ because this criterion refers to an apparent bias, not a real bias. He also noted that the views of the Court and the public are „part and parcel of a holistic process“ without the need to make a clear distinction between them. [14]: 617–8 In India, the situation is well regulated that an order made in violation of the principles of natural justice is null and void.