• Principle of Natural Justice All laws are made for human welfare. This is not a principle made by man, but it is made by nature for human benefit.
• The principle of natural justice means the principle of justice that has evolved naturally. Therefore, justice that is provided impartially is natural justice.
• It is believed that the theory of natural justice was developed from the Roman jurists’ concept that some legal principles are natural and do not require laws. Whether or not it is mentioned in the law that the principles of natural justice should be followed, these principles should be followed.
• Natural justice means principles of justice developed naturally. Such principles have been called by ancient philosophers the harmony of nature and animals (including humans). This principle has become a more important tool of justice for humans.
• Natural justice treats all the big and small, the rich and the poor, the rulers and the ruled equally without discrimination. There is fairness in such judgements. In this way, natural justice is the justice given fairly by nature. It is also called God-given justice.

Elements of Natural Justice

Also, it is self-controlled and disciplined. Therefore, according to the principle of natural justice, neutrality and impartiality are accepted.

The principle of natural justice is related to the broad aspects of the procedure or procedure to be adopted in the administration of justice.

The following things can be considered under this theory:

1. Fairness

When determining the prosecution or civil liability against any person, the decision should be made on the basis of the Acts and regulations that are in place before the creation of the criminal dispute.

• Transparency

The public should be able to see and understand what happens and how it happens in judicial proceedings. This includes information on open court decisions, decisions with reasons, etc.

• Equality in the eyes of the law

Everyone should be treated equally in the application of the law.

d.  Freedom from bias

The personal interest of the decision-maker in the matter to be decided should not be self-interest, urge or bias.

e.  Right to be heard

The party who is aggrieved by the decision has the right to present his case before the decision-maker and to present evidence.

Types of Principles of Natural Justice

1. Theory of Bias

a. The duty to act fairly

• The principle of impartiality is that the judge must administer justice without bias. While giving justice, the justice should not be done under any temptation or financial gain or personal attachment or any other kind of greed. It is also called the principle of prejudice.
• In other words, when the judge administers justice, he/she gives more priority to any side of the case or is biased by treating one side closely and the other side far away. There can be no justice through biased behavior. Therefore, there is a principle of natural justice that the judge should be impartial while hearing the case.
• The principle of fairness is based on the principle that justice should be done without bias.

b. The rule against bias

• Decisions made by the judge with the intention of influencing the judgment by taking financial or personal benefits and advantages in the case or directly or indirectly benefiting one side of the case and causing damage to the other side are called prejudiced decisions.
• Judges should not decide in a way that causes damage or injustice to the other party by taking one side while delivering justice. If such a decision is made, the decision will be biased and instead of justice, injustice will be caused by the judge.
• It is the principle of natural justice that if the decision-maker is unable to make a fair decision in the case or has a selfish relationship with one of the sides of the case, decision-making cannot provide pure justice and such a decision is biased.

Types of Theory are as follows

1. Financial Bias

When making a decision on a case, the decision maker makes a prejudicial decision by taking financial benefit from one of the parties in the case or hoping that financial benefit will be obtained, then such decisions are called decisions motivated (Mens Rea) by financial bias. When making such decisions, the decision makers do not have the intention to do justice. As a result, the judge cannot remain as a real judge. This makes the judge ineligible to deliver justice.

1. Personal Bias

Another reason why a judge may become biased while hearing a case is personal bias. There can be various reasons for personal bias in justice, such as relatives, friends, professional colleagues, and related people. Such a relationship can make the judge biassed. Because of this, fair justice cannot be done.

Conflict of interest issues should not be considered (According to the National Civil Procedure (code), 2074 of Section 271 and National Criminal Procedure (code), 2074 of Section 176

 No judge shall proceed, hear and adjudicate any of the following cases:

(a) If the case involves their own rights or those of a close relative, defined as specific family members with inheritance priority.

(b) If they are an attorney, law practitioner, or witness in the case.

(c) If, in their capacity as a judge, they have previously decided or issued a final order in any court.

(d) If they have given an opinion on whether or not to initiate the case.

(e) If the case poses a significant conflict of interest for them, a family member living with them, or any person mentioned in clause (a).

If the above-mentioned situation is observed, the judge hearing the case will have to issue an order for the case not to be heard.

1. Subject matter Bias

Even if there is a relationship or involvement of the judge with the subject matter of the case, the judge can make a prejudicial decision if they cannot deliver fair justice. Such a decision is called a decision based on bias related to the subject matter. The nature of the case can also contribute to the judge’s bias.

1. Departmental Bias

In the hearing of any case, if an officer in a position above instructs the decision-maker to make a particular decision, or if colleagues or employees working under them, influence the decision, such a situation is termed departmental bias. In this way, even if departmental bias influences the decision-maker, justice may be compromised, leading to unfairness.

• Pre-conceived Bias

If the judge prepares to make a decision in a case without examining and hearing the evidence, then the decision made in that way will be biased instead of impartial. Such bias is referred to as bias towards preconceived notions.

a.     Theory of Hearing

Another important Principle of Natural Justice is that the other side in the case should be given an opportunity to be heard. If the judge reaches a decision without providing a chance for a hearing, such a decision cannot be considered fair and correct.

This principle is based on the Latin term “Audi Alteram Partem”. This principle is also known as the right of hearing.

Before making a decision, the decision-maker should inform the other side of the case about the complaint against him and provide him with an opportunity to defend himself against the complaint.

Before making a decision, the decision-maker should inform the other side of the case about the complaint against him and provide him with an opportunity to defend himself against the complaint. The decision maker should conduct the hearing impartially.

According to this principle, the following rules are mentioned.

1. Notice to be given

When a complaint is received by one of the parties to the case, the judicial body should inform the other party of the case or the defendant with the complaint and the evidence related to the case to come and respond within the time limit set by the law.

In this way, if the officer hearing the case proceeds and decides the case without giving any information, such a decision will be contrary to natural justice.

•  To be heard

The principle of natural justice dictates that a decision should be made only after listening to the accused person, granting them a chance to be heard. When given this opportunity, the accused can articulate their defense in any form—written or oral. They may present their case before the court or provide a written reply, depending on the nature of the case. Whether one needs to be present for their defense or can send a representative varies. Generally, in governmental criminal cases, the accused is expected to appear before the judicial body and defend themselves as an individualist. Providing the accused with a chance to be heard facilitates a fair judgment of guilt or innocence in the eyes of the law.

• The law should be applied appropriately

After the accused party in the case has submitted their oral or written defense to the relevant judicial body, the decision-maker should pay special attention to matters such as whether the accused has committed the alleged crime, whether the act falls under any law, or under which law the act is prohibited, and the applicable punishment. Care should be taken to ensure that the decision aligns with the law, as exceeding legal limits may lead to the violation of the principle of natural justice. Therefore, when making a decision, the decision-maker should only consider factors such as whether the matter at hand complies with existing law, avoiding actions that go beyond legal limits and boundaries.

• The judge must understand the evidence presented by the parties to the case

The judge must understand the evidence related to their claims and claims submitted by the parties to the case and the evidence related to the case. The judge is also bound to give time to submit such evidence.

If any evidence or witness is in a place and the party is unable to present the evidence for some reason and requests to understand the evidence, the judge must understand the evidence according to the request.

• The evidence submitted by the parties in the case must be shown to the parties in the case

Evidence presented by one party in the case should be shown to the other side of the case and the other side’s statement regarding the evidence should be examined and ascertained.

• The parties to the case should be given an opportunity to rebut and cross-examine witnesses and evidence

If the other party wants to refute or cross-examine the witness evidence presented by one side of the case, the decision-maker should give an opportunity to do so. Therefore, when hearing witnesses and calling witnesses, it should be done in favor of the party in the case.

• To be represented by a legal professional
• Decisions should be made with reasons and logic while making decision

When making a decision, the judge should explain the basis and reason for reaching that decision and make the decision logically.

The decision maker must have the following elements in the bases to be taken while deciding the case:

• Should have used a fair mind
• Do not follow the instructions and decisions of others
• The one who hears the case should make a decision, that is, the judge who hears the case should make the decision
• Do not make a hasty Decision: The decision-maker should understand all the evidences that need to be understood while making a decision and do it only after providing the parts of the case.

Exceptions to the rules of Principle of Natural Justice

• In time of Emergency
• If there is a need to maintain confidentiality
• If there is an urgent need to stop any work action