Natural justice allows a person to exercise his or her right to reasonable notice of the date, time and place of the hearing, as well as detailed notice of the matter to be satisfied. [35] This information gives the individual sufficient time to effectively prepare his or her own case and respond to the complaint against him. In Cooper v. Wandsworth,[37] Chief Justice William Erle went so far as to state that Cooper`s failure to give notice and hear could be described as a form of abuse, since he had been treated as if he had played no role. [48] As Lord Mustill stated in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p Doody (1993): « Since the person concerned cannot usually make valid submissions without knowing what factors may weigh against his or her interests, fairness will very often require that he or she be informed of the substance of the case to be answered. [49] [6]: 582 In Ridge v. Baldwin, Lord Reid took a close look at the authorities and tackled the root of the problem by showing how the term « justice » had been misinterpreted by requiring an additional characteristic that went beyond the test that power interfered with a person`s rights. In his view, the mere fact that the power affects rights or interests is what makes it « judicial » and therefore subject to the procedures required by natural justice. [33]: 413–5 [39] It is believed that this removal of the previous misunderstanding about the importance of justice gave the judiciary the flexibility it needed to intervene in judicial review cases. [40] Right to be heard The parties to the proceeding must have a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

This possibility may be made orally or in writing. Rule 6(6) provides that the designated authority may give any interested party or its representative an opportunity to submit information orally. It is interesting to note that while the anti-dumping rules provide that the Authority « may » authorize parties to submit information orally, in India such a hearing must be mandatory if the principles of natural justice are respected. 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. Natural law affects companies from an ethical point of view, but they must not deceive their customers or other stakeholders. For example, the marketing of drugs should be done with full disclosure of potential harms and not be sold as snake oil. Later, the concept of natural justice was accepted by the English jurist.

The word natural justice is derived from the Roman words « jus-naturale » and « lex-naturale, » which provided for the principles of natural justice, natural law, and equality. Natural justice is also called « substantive justice », « fundamental justice » or « universal justice » is the result of the need for equality and establishes its relationship between common laws and moral principles, but is not a codified law because it is procedural in nature. The first category is Nemo Judex in Causa Sua, also known as the « doctrine of bias » or « rule against bias, » meaning that no human being should be a judge in his own case. Here, the word « bias » can be understood to mean that no one should be inclined or biased for or against any person or group, ultimately leading to fairness. Therefore, judges should be above suspicion and the justice they dispense should not only be done, but manifestly and beyond doubt. There are two essential aspects to this principle. The first is that the judge must be impartial, as in J. Mahopatra & Co. v. State of Orissa[4], and second, that the case must be decided fairly on the basis of evidence. Therefore, the administrative authority that operates the judiciary must be free from bias.

The right to legal assistance is one of the important features of Audi Alteram Partem and its refusal will constitute a breach of natural justice, as the party may not be able to effectively understand the legal issue – Krishna Chandra v. Indian Union.[18] In Hussainara v. Home Secretary[19] and M.H. Haskot v. In the state of Maharashtra,[20] it has been established that providing free legal aid to the poor is a fair and equitable process. Since natural law presupposes universalizing rules, it ignores the fact that different people or cultures may see the world differently. For example, if people interpret differently what it means when something is fair or equitable, the results will be different. In such cases, there are strong political considerations that support the principle that a trial can never be considered fair if a person is kept in the dark about the charges against him.

First, because reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is involved in terrorist activities can range from irrefutable evidence to innocent misinterpretation of facts that can be explained by the individual, in many cases it is impossible for courts to be sure that disclosure of the evidence makes no difference to the plaintiff. Second, the individual, family and friends will feel resentful if sanctions are imposed without adequate justification and if the non-disclosure of information puts the individual in a position where they cannot adequately defend themselves. As Lord Phillips said: « If the general public is to have confidence in the justice system, they must be able to see justice done, rather than being asked to accept it with confidence. [54]: 355 Essentially, natural justice requires that a person be given a fair and impartial hearing before making a decision that affects him or her negatively. The three main requirements of natural justice that must be met in all cases are: adequate notice, fair trial and no bias. The second principle of natural justice, the fair trial rule, is an umbrella term that encompasses a set of rules that ensure that no one is convicted without being heard. The procedure of a quasi-judicial body must guarantee the right of self-defence of every individual by giving him or her a fair chance.

Les commentaires sont fermés.