If a person refuses to be represented by counsel, a higher “standard” of natural justice cannot be expected. This was pronounced in Singapore in Ho Paul v. Singapore Medical Council (2008). [64] Dr. Ho, who had been charged with professional misconduct, decided to appear before Council in person and refused to cross-examine the Board`s key witness. He then argued that he should have been warned of the legal consequences if he had not been legally represented. The High Court rejected this argument, finding that he had not suffered any prejudice. Mr. Ho was given a fair opportunity to present his own arguments and, most importantly, he was not denied the right to cross-examine witnesses. The principles of natural justice refer to the legal concept that administrative proceedings must be conducted in a manner that is fair to the parties involved. It applies to proceedings before administrative bodies such as hospital authorities, universities, courts, commissions or agencies. The principles of natural justice relate to how decisions are made by these administrative tribunals. Although the degree of fairness varies according to the type of proceeding, the parties concerned should at least have a fair opportunity to participate in the proceedings.

Although natural justice has an impressive ancestry[3] and is intended to express the close relationship between common law and moral principles,[4] the use of the term today should not be confused with the “natural law” of canonists, medieval philosophers` visions of an “ideal model of society,” or the 18th-century philosophy of “natural rights.” [5] While the concept of natural justice is often retained as a general concept, in jurisdictions such as Australia,[6]583 and the United Kingdom,[3]:320 it has been largely replaced and expanded by the more general “duty to act fairly.” Natural justice is identified with the two components of a fair trial,[3][3] which are the rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua or “no one is judge in his own case”) and the right to a fair trial (audi alteram partem or “to hear the other party”). [7] The Supreme Court has stated that obtaining a reasonable and justified judgment is the purpose of judicial and administrative bodies. The primary purpose of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice. The rule of bias is based on the need to maintain public confidence in the legal system. Bias can take the form of actual bias, imputed bias, or apparent bias. Actual bias is very difficult to prove in practice, while presumed bias, once demonstrated, leads to the invalidity of a decision without the need to investigate the likelihood or suspicion of bias. Currently, two cases in different jurisdictions apply two tests of obvious bias: the “reasonable suspicion of bias” test and the “real likelihood of bias” test. One view that has been argued is that the differences between these two tests are largely semantic and work similarly. Natural justice simply means establishing a reasonable decision-making process on a particular issue. Sometimes it doesn`t matter what the reasonable decision is, but at the end of the day, it`s the procedure that counts and who is involved in making the reasonable decision. It is not limited to the concept of “fairness”, it has different colors and shades that vary depending on the context. While the concept of natural justice is not explicitly codified in statute or statute, it is essential to any decision-making process that infringes on the fundamental rights of individuals.

The idea of natural justice is not present in the Indian constitution. However, the authorities consider it a mandatory element of the administration of justice. It is an idea of ordinary law that comes from “ius natural”, which means natural law. Simply put, the principles of natural justice determine the differences between good and evil. In the case of Bombay Province v. Khushaldas Advani was informed that natural justice will be enforceable by law, as it is a fundamental principle of natural justice that leads to fairness and justice. Although the principles of natural justice are not explicitly enshrined in any legislation, they have been sufficiently taken into account in the rules applicable to the various reparation investigations. Because of this involvement, the investigative process ensures that all parties involved have an equal and fair opportunity to present and defend their case before the Authority reaches a final conclusion and thus serves the purpose of justice. After all, it has long been recognized that “justice should not only be done, but should obviously and unmistakably be considered done.” 1) Second, the “bias rule” generally states that the panel must be free from bias in its decision-making.

The decision should be made in a free and fair manner that can be consistent with the principle of natural justice. Right of legal representative – In the application process, each party has the right to have a legal representative. Each part is presented by the person trained in law and no one can deny it (A.K.Roy). Similarly, the department has the same right to direct its official, although there are investigators who conduct a decisive case (sanghi textile processor versus commissioner). The principle of natural justice is not limited to limited limits on the applicability of the principle, but depends on the characteristics of jurisdiction, the granting of administrative authority and the nature of the rights affected by individuals. 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 beyond the characteristic 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] The principles of natural justice under the common law in England are based on two Latin maxims (derived from ius natural).