Introduction
Principle of Natural Justice is derived from the word “Jus Naturale”of Roman law, which means law of nature and it is closely related to comman Law and moral principles, but it is not codified.
It is a law of nature which is not derived from any statute or Constitution.To understand the principle of Natural Justice, we should first know about what Natural Justice is .
In General Sence, Natural Justice refers to the wisdom used to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong. All arrangements made for fair and impartial justice are forms of justice.
Natural Justice is a fundamental procedural principle, consisting strong, inherent, and judge-made rules ensuring fairness and impartiality in decision making .
The principle of Natural Justice is based on the concept of Common Law Systems.
The principle of Natural Justice is the set of values and principles followed by decision-makers to make decisions in a manner that reflects neutrality and impartiality, while being self-disciplined and controlled.
This is not a rule of justice explicitly outlined in writing, but rather impartial justice that is naturally granted.
In the eye of principle of Natural Justice, all are equal and its principles are based on fairness, reasonableness, equity and equality.
The principle of Natural Justice as jurisprudence suggests, has been developed from Natural Law School.
This principle is an important principle of administrative law, which is considered the foundation of a fair trial and impartiality in decision-making. It helps to secure justice and prevent the miscarriage of justice.
In the case Lord Evershed in Vionel V. Barrett (1885) remarked that “Natural Justice is the natural sense of what is right and wrong.”
This principle is originated from the concept of natural justice. However, natural justice is not the justice of the jungle where the lion devours the lamb and tiger feeds upon the antelope. Natural Justice is of the ‘higher law of nature’ or ‘natural law’ where the lion and lamb lie down together and the tiger frisks with the antelope.
The principle of natural law is also known as Natural Law, Divine Law, etc. in different ages.
Major Principle of Natural Justice
- Audi alteram Partem (Hear the otherside/fair hearing)
- Nemo Judex in Causa sua (Principle against Bias)
- Reasoned Decision
1. Audi Alteram Partem (Hear the otherside/fair hearing)
“No decision against anyone should be made without hearing ” is another principle of natural justice.
Audi alteram partem is a Latin which basically means that no person can be condemned or punished by the court without having a fear opportunity of being heard.
The concept is developed in a such way that it is followed in all the national and international resolutions.
Principle of hearing is mainly practiced through notice and hearing. The person should be notified by the court or the decision maker if the decision is related to him/her. it is the main idea of fair trial.
If a decision is made against a person without prior notice, It is a violation of the principle of Natural Justice and also the decision becomes invalid.
In the case laws ,
- Shatrughan Kumar Nepal vs Shreejana Nepal(2073)
The supreme court of Nepal recognised that principle of fair hearing the court .The court stated that, According to the principle of natural justice, the accused should know the whereabouts of the case, S/he needs to know the details about his/her mistakes and also should get the chance of submitting his?her claims.Further the court also state that the judicial process can’t be valid without providing the proper chance of hearing.
- Yagya prasad Pandey Vs P.M and OPMCH et. al.(2075)
The Supreme Court observed that in order to ensure the principle of hearing, the following three things should be considered:
(i) Before rendering the decision against a person,the person should be informed,about the proceedings.
(ii) After being informed, the person should be given an opportunity to speak(hearing) and,
(iii) Finally the decision maker should reach a decision with the grounds and reasons.
In this way, Providing an opportunity to Speak to the both parties prior to rendering a decision brings clarity and fairness in the administration of Justice.
This Prevents the decision maker from making arbitrary decisions. Both the judiciary and the administrative body should abide by this principle in the course of their work. Decision made without following this principle is unfair and arbitrary. The decision will be invalid when the cases is appeal to the higher court of law.
In brief , the principle of hearing is based on the concept of guaranteeing the representation of both parties in the case.
Fair hearing include :
- Right to Notice
- Right to Present Case and Evidence
- Cross Examination
- Legal representation
- Receiving evidence in the presence of the concerned party
- one who decides must hear .
The constitution of Nepal 2072 has also incorporated the rights regarding fair hearing under Part-3, Fundamental rights and Duties. As per Article 20(9), ” Every person shall have the right to a fair trial by an independent, impartial and competent court or judicial body.”
2. Nemo judex in causa sua (principle against bias )
Nemo Judex in Causa sua is a Latin term which means, literally “No one can be judge in his own case.”
It emphasizes that decision-makers must be impartial and free from personal bias or conflicts of interest when making Judgments.
According to the Principle of the rule against prejudice, “Justice should not be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”
The very first condition for the principle of natural justice is that the judge should be neutral,fair and without any prejudice. S/he always needs to deliver justice objectively. There shouldn’t be any influence on the subjectivity of decision makers.
There are four kinds of bias, They areas follows :
- Pecuniary bias
- Personal bias
- officials bias or bias as to the subject matter
- Judicial obstinacy
1. Pecuniary bias
It refers to the financial bias, where a judge, decision maker, or authority figure has a monetary interest in the outcome of a case.
It is a violation of the principle of natural justice, as decisions must be free from any financial influence or personal gain.
In Mana Las VS Dr. Prem Chand Case of India,
The Supreme court of India followed the principle and held that decisions can’t be made if there is pecuniary interest in the case. The decison state that it is obvious that pecuniary interest, however small it may be in the subject matter of the proceeding, would wholly disqualify a member from acting as judge.
2. Personal bias
The concept of personal bias is considered as the part of natural justice in which the decision- maker is not allowed to make a decision if any of the parties in the case to be decided contains his/her relatives, friend(s).
It is thought that in such cases the decision maker might be biased or might show prejudice in the decision-making process.
For Example : A judge deciding a case where their brother is a party.There must be a chance of personal bias while the decision must in favor of his brother.
In Raj Kumar Adhikari vs HMG(2055) Case,
The Nepalese Supreme Court has also observed that the judge should not hear the case if there is a personal bias in the case.
3. officials bias or bias as to the subject matter
There is a possibility of official bias based on the involvement of the decision-making authority, and the Possibility of subjective bias remains when there is interest in the subject matter of the conflict.
Bias as to the subject matter refers to a situation where an official or judge has a predetermined opinion about the case or issue at hand.
This goes against the principle of natural justice, as every party has a right to a fair hearing before an impartial authority.
For Example: In an immigration tribunal, if a judge has openly criticized immigration policies in past speeches, their bias as to the subject matter could affect their fairness in deciding asylum applications in present.
4. Judicial Obstinacy
Judicial obstinacy happens when a judge refuses to change their opinion or decision, even when higher courts have ruled differently or there is clear evidence showing they are wrong.
It’s when a judge stubbornly sticks to their past decision, even if those decisions have been challenged or overturned.
For Example: A judge in a lower court(District Court) repeatedly rules that certain evidence is inadmissible, even though a higher court has already ruled that this type of evidence should be allowed. Despite the higher court decision the judge continues to ignore it and sticks to their own previous ruling, showing judicial obstinacy.
Therefore, the decision given by a Judge or decision maker in judicial obstinacy or bias would be invalid cause it is against the principle of natural justice.
The constitution of Nepal 2072 has also incorporated the rights regarding fair trial under Part-3, Fundamental rights and Duties. As per Article 20(9), ” Every person shall have the right to a fair trial by an independent, impartial and competent court or judicial body.”
3. Reasoned Decision
Reasoned decision is considered as another Component of the principle of Natural Justice.
A reasoned decision means the decision of an adjudicating authority with proper reason. When the adjudicating bodies gice reason to support their decision, the decision is treated as a reasoned decision.
Lord Denning observed that the giving of reasons in decision is the fundamental of good administration.
The idea of reasoned decision is developed from the concept that the parties of a disputes should have information about the judicial process, along with sufficient explanations and reasons supporting the decision. So it is considered as the third principle of natural justice.
Every adjudicating body must give reasons for its decisions. This bodies has to explain why, on what facts, and on which laws it has taken these decisions.
This requirement refers to both the final judgement and various decisions during proceedings. It is a guarantee that the court’s decisions has not been taken authority and the parties have been heard in the decision making process.
There would be three reasons behind the concept of reasoned decisions.
First, the reasons and explanations mentioned in the decision can be challenged while appealing or finding an alternative treatment against the decision.
Seconds, Discretionary power can’t be misused while making a reasoned decision.
Third, The reasoned decision satisfies the parties to the cases .
The reasoned decision should reach the conclusion with relevant, reliable and convincing facts of the dispute, along with the proper interpretation and explanation on the basis of the facts and laws.
In Devendra mandal vs Government of Nepal(2064) case,
The supreme court has observed that in this case a reasoned decision becomes fair and transparent as it mentions everything. In the reasoned,fair and transparent decisioned, there is less abuse of authority or discretion.
It is also known as speaking order. In such a case, the order speaks for itself or it tells its own story. which means the judgments or decisions that clearly explain its reasoning behind the decision . It reflects the story of how and why the decision was taken in cases.
Therefore, Every court must give reasons for its decisions. The court has to explain why, on what facts and on which laws it has taken these decisions.
Exceptions to the principle of natural justice.
The principle of natural justice should need to be applied in every case and legal process to render justice, and maintain law and order. However, there are some situations where it is not mandatory to follow these principles of natural justice to uphold rule of law and provide fair justice. which are as follows:
- Emergency situations
- Confidential information
- National security and public interest
- Disciplinary actions
- Contempt of court
- Internal administrative matters e.t.c.
