Natural justice is a concept of art that refers to specific procedural rights in the English legal system[1] and the systems of other nations based on it. It is similar to the American concepts of fair trial and due process, the latter having roots that correspond to some extent to the origins of natural justice. [2] In English law, natural justice is a technical terminology for the rule against prejudice (nemo iudex in causa sua) and the right to a fair trial (audi alteram partem). Although the notion of natural justice is often maintained as a general concept, it has been largely replaced and expanded by the “general duty to act fairly”. Natural justice can be sought when acting in court or in a quasi-judicial manner, such as panchayat and courts, etc. It includes the concept of fairness, basic moral principles and various types of bias and the reasons why natural justice is necessary and the special cases or situations in which the principles of natural justice are not applicable. The principle of natural justice is a very old concept and it was born at an early age. The peoples of the Greeks and Romans were also familiar with this concept. In Kautilya`s time, Arthashastra and Adam were recognized as 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 announcing the verdict, Eve had a fair chance to defend herself, and the same trial was followed in Adam`s case.

Thus, at all stages of the procedure in which authority is granted, the judicial function is not only accepted, but the main motive of the client is to prevent miscarriage of justice. It is imperative to note that any decision or order that violates natural justice is declared null and void, so it must be borne in mind that the principles of natural justice are essential for any by-law to be declared valid. The primary objective of the principles of natural justice is to ensure equality in the economic enterprises of society and individuals. It also defends individual freedom against any arbitrary act. The mere fact that a decision-maker has broad discretion under the law is not a sufficient reason to weaken the requirements of natural justice. In the context of the United Kingdom, this is confirmed by Ahmed v H.M. Treasury (No. 1) (2010). [41] The Department of Finance had exercised the power to freeze the appellants` financial assets and economic resources on the basis that it reasonably suspected that the appellants were or could be persons who, under the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order, 2006[42] and the Al-Qaida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order, 2006,[43] under the United Nations Act 1946, were required to commit terrorism (United Nations measures) or facilitated it. [44] The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom held that, since the order did not provide for fundamental procedural fairness, the order deprived the persons designated under the order of the fundamental right of access to a judicial remedy and thus constituted ultra vires the power to issue the order conferred by the United Nations Act 1946. [45] 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 enacted by judges, and they are thought 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 emanating from the common law in England are based on two Latin maxims (which come from the ius natural). On the basis of reciprocity, the other party must also have the same chance if one of the parties is allowed to cross-examine their legal opponent at a hearing. [58] If a court decides a case on a basis that has not been raised or considered by the parties, or decides it without considering the arguments and arguments put forward by the parties on the issues, this constitutes a violation of natural justice. [59] However, a genuine error in good faith by a judge who fails to state the reasons for not considering an application is not sufficient to constitute a violation of natural justice. [60] This may be the case where comments were inadvertently omitted or so unconvincing that it was not necessary to explicitly state the evaluator`s conclusions. [60]: 758-759 The principles of natural justice should be free from prejudice, and the parties should have a fair chance to be heard, and all the reasons and decisions of the tribunal should be communicated by the court to the respective parties. The right to be heard in response to accusations made before an impartial tribunal is illustrated in Tan Boon Chee David v Medical Council of Singapore (1980).

[56] During a disciplinary hearing, The Board members were not conscientious about their participation or participated in the entire proceeding. This meant that they had not heard all the oral testimony and comments. The High Court found that this had caused significant harm to the appellant and constituted a fundamental violation of natural justice. On the other hand, the mere absence of a hearing does not necessarily entail unjustified discrimination. In The case of Re Teo Choo Hong (1995)[57], it was found that the function of a lay member of a disciplinary committee for lawyers was to observe and not to vote or make a judgment. Thus, the Claimant had not suffered any undue hardship. In such cases, there are strong political considerations that support the principle that a trial can never be considered fair if a person is held against him or her in ignorance of the case. First, since the grounds for reasonably suspecting that a person is involved in terrorist activities can range from indisputable evidence to an innocent misinterpretation of the facts that can be explained by the person, in many cases it is impossible for courts to be certain that disclosure of the evidence will not make a difference to the applicant. Second, the individual, family and friends will feel resentment when sanctions are imposed without proper justification and when they are placed in a position where they are unable to adequately defend themselves due to the non-disclosure of information. As Lord Phillips said, “If the general public wants to have confidence in the justice system, they must be able to see justice happen instead of being asked to take it in confidence.” [54]: 355 The principles of natural justice were adopted and followed by the judiciary in order to protect public rights from arbitrary decisions of the administrative authority. It is easy to see that the rule of natural justice includes the concept of fairness: they stay alive and support to ensure fair trade. 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 established a list of non-exhaustive factors that would influence the content of the duty of fairness, including the nature of the decision made and the procedure followed, the legal system under which the decision-maker operates. the importance of the decision to the person challenging it, the legitimate expectations of the person 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 decisions of a legislative and general nature are not required to act fairly, while those taking acts of a more administrative and specific nature do.