'Natural Justice Essay\r'

'4) What is congenital justness?\r\nNatural reasoned expert is a inborn sense of what is practiced and wrong. It is a procedural concept and does non imposed either substantive restriction. Besides that, inborn jurist is also a fair administrative procedure to be followed by the administrative body in arriving at a right determination. Natural jurist has dickens main comp cardinalnts; the rule of listening or rights to be comprehend or audi alteram partem and the rule once against submit or nemo-judex in causa sua.\r\n5) What are the main portions in nemo-judex causa sua?\r\nNemo-judex causa sua centre the rules against twist. It means that a homosexual should non be a prove in his own cause. The principle that bias modify an individual from acting as an adjudicator flows from two innate maxims; a man should not be a judge in his own cause; and justice must(prenominal) not provided be make just be seen to be done. The fountain of judicatory justice must not only be pure but it must also fuck public confidence and credibility. The adjudicator must not only be free from bias but in that respect must not even be manner of bias. There are three types or components of bias; Pecuniary bias, Personal bias and Policy bias. A fiscal fire, however sm only, in a broil disqualifies a someone from acting as a judge. In DIMES v GRAND JUNCTION CANAL, a public limited company filed a grapheme against a land owner in a matter largely involving the interests of the company. The Lord Chancellor who was a shareholder in the company heard the typesetters someonea and gave the desired relief to the company. The finding was quashed by the post of Lords because of the Lord Chancellor’s pecuniary interest in the company.\r\nPersonal bias whitethorn nobble in the adjudicatory right, or in spare of, one society to the dispute sooner him to a lower place many varied circumstances, for example relationship, friendship or business de alings with or hostility or animosity against a society may modify an official to act as an adjudicatory in a dispute. All these circumstances create bias either in favour of, against a party to the dispute. In AK KRAIPAK v UNION OF INDIA 1970 SC 150, a Selection Board was formed to select employee of severalise service to the Indian Forest Service was one of the candidates and he was a member of the Selection Board. The every last(predicate) overbearing judicature held that a member of a decision making body cannot be both a party and a judge in the equal dispute. In the eccentric person of official bias, the adjudicatory is not influenced by any personal or pecuniary but he is so imbued with the desire to publicise official policy of his department that he becomes finesse to the existence of the interests of the private individual.\r\nWhen an administrator acts as decision maker to decide a dispute among an individual and his department, there is a tendency that he wa s an official or policy bias towards his department. In ALKAFF & CO v THE GOVERNER-IN-COUNCIL, the Commissioner of Law was a member of Singapore Improvement Trust ( baby-sit). SIT approved trustworthy scheme and applied to the regulator-in-Council for approval. The Governor appointed the Commissioner to inquire and to make report on the proposal. The commissioner recommended approval of the scheme. Therefore held, the appointment of Commissioner to inquire the moral excellence of the scheme could result in suspicion that justice might not be done. The order was quashed.\r\n6) What is the element in audi alteram partem?\r\nAudi alteram partem is the rule which requiring fair hearing. It has few elements. The scratch line element is plug-in. Notice is a basic norm of inbred justice is that before initiating adjudication proceedings, the party refer should be wedded notice of the flake against him so as to enable him to adequately defend himself. The right of hearing beco me illusory if the party has no be intimateledge of allegations which he need to meet. Notice indeed regarded as the sine qua non of the right of hearing. The notice means an adequate notice as regards the details of the case against the party. Any proceeding buildn against a person without adequate notice to him infringes natural justice and is therefore invalid. It is necessity that all the lay downs on which swear out is proposed to be taken must be communicated to the person concerned. If it transpires later that run was taken on a ground which had not been taken communicated to him earlier than the action will be invalid. In the case analyse of MARADANA MOSQUE TRUSTEES v BADI-UD-DIN MAHMUN [1967] 1 AC 13, the government took over the school on two grounds overdue to the failure to pay salaries of teachers and unable to manage the school, but the manager was asked to rationalise only one ground which is the failure to pay salaries.\r\nThe managers had no notice of the early(a) grounds, which influenced government’s decision. Privy Council held that the decision to take over the school was quashed as the managers were not given notice of one ground. The minister was acting in quasi-judicial capacity and was bound to observe the rule of natural justice. Relating to the case above, a notice must be served in order for the person concerned to know the blooms he had to meet; and have a ample season to prepare his defence. For example, in the case of SURINDER SINGH KANDA v GOVT OF MALAYSIA [1962] MLJ 169, Lord Denning stated that if the right to be heard is to be real which is worth anything, it must hold with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. The notice must be given a sane fortune to comply with its requirements. Sufficient time must be given to the concerned person to prepare his defence.\r\nFor example, in the case of RE LIVERPOOL TAXI OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION [1967] 2 MLJ 186, a letter was s ent to the association to set up cause by return of post against the place of fresh taxi licenses. The notice was held to be inadequate. It is against natural justice to call upon the concerned person to dis post cause immediately and to permit him no time to consider the belts against him. If the notice is inadequate, the decision will be invalid as it is against the natural justice. The second element is hearing. Natural justice requires an adjudicatory body to not to make a decision adverse to a party without affording him an affective chance of adequately coming upon the allegations against him and presenting his own case. There is no fixed hearing procedure which has to be followed in all cases. It varies from note to situation. It is ultimately for the court to decide whether the procedure adopted in a specific situation accords with natural justice or not. In the case force field of PHANG MOH SHIN [1967] 2 MLJ 186, the inquiry officer embarked on the inquiry immediat ely after reading the charge to the officer against whom the inquiry was being held.\r\nHis request for an licentiousness to enable him to prepare his defence was standd. It was held that there was a denial of natural justice. The third element is reasonable opportunity of being heard. There are certain elements need to be observed. The first element is the adjudicating representation should disclose all information, evidence or real(a) which the permit wishes to use against the individual concerned in writing at its decision. The general rule is that all the germane(predicate) material which is being relied upon by an adjudicating authorisation for giving its decision against a person, should be brought to his notice and he be given an opportunity to comment, criticise, explain or disown the same. For example in the case of AZIZ BIN ABD RAHMAN v ATTORNEY GENERAL capital of Singapore [1979] 2 MLJ 93, the court held that as vital and relevant evidence had not been disclosed t o him, there was despoil of natural justice insofar as he was denied an opportunity of correcting or controverting the medical evidence considered relied upon by the medical board.\r\nThe second element is the way should experience the evidence and all relevant material which the party concerned may wish to produce before it in its defence. In an oral hearing, the adjudicatory authority is obligated to give the person concerned opportunity to produce evidence on behalf of the affected person may amount to breach of natural justice by the authority concerned. Based on the case MALAYAWATA STEEL BHD v UNION OF MALAYAWATA STEEL WORKERS [1978] 1 MLJ 87, the company challenged an award of the Industrial Court on the ground of breach of natural justice as the company was denied the opportunity to call witnesses. The High Court held that there had been a denial of natural justice when the applicant was not allowed to call his essential witnesses to say evidence at the hearing and was th erefore denied a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case.\r\nThe third element is the authority should give to the individual concerned an opportunity to rebut the material against him. In oral hearing, cross-examination of witnesses testifying against a party should be permitted. It is actually not regarded as an incumbent on(predicate) part of natural justice in all cases. Whether an opportunity for cross-examination is to be given or not depend upon the circumstances of each case. Based on the case CEYLON UNIVERSITY v FERNANDO, the argument of the appellant that he had not been given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses testifying against him was rejected by the Privy Council on the ground that he neer claimed such right. Even where cross-examination of witnesses is allowed, the authority may refuse to permit unnecessary cross-examination of a witness. Even if cross-examination of witnesses is not an obligatory part of natural justice, it is still necessary for the d ecision-making authority to give the party concerned a fair opportunity of commenting on the evidence produced against him and of contradicting the same.\r\nThe twenty-five percent element is reasoned decision. Traditionally, the British courts had taken the catch up with that natural justice does not obligate an adjudicatory body to give reasons for its decisions. In BREEN v A.E.U. [1971] 2 Q.B. 143, Lord Denning did emphasize that the giving of reasons is one of the fundamental principle of good administration. The obligation to give reason avoids cheating(prenominal) or arbitrary decisions by adjudicatory bodies; assay for reasons for their decisions is bound to make these bodies alert and careful. Reasoned decisions secure that decision-making bodies apply their mind to the points and circumstances of the matters they decide and that they do not act in a mechanistic manner. In India, however, the Supreme Court has insisted time and again that natural justice obligates de cision-making bodies to give reasoned decisions. The one-fifth element is the right to be counsel. Generally, appearance of a lawyer is not claimable as a matter of right in a quasi-judicial hearing.\r\nBut in a case where complicated questions of law and fact arise, where the evidence is elaborate and the party concerned may not be in a position to meet the situation himself effectively, denial of legal care may amount to denial of natural justice. In PEET v GREYHOUND RACING ASSOCIATION [1968] 2 solely ER 545, the Court of Appeal ruled that natural justice required that the plaintiff should be presented finished a lawyer as he was cladding a serious charge concerning his reputation and livelihood. til now in the case of FRASER v MUDGE [1975] 3 every(prenominal) ER 78, the court ruled that in a disciplinary matter there was to be hearing but no legal representation. In this case, a prisoner with an offence against prison disciplines sought legal representation before the Boar d of Visitors while enquiring into the charge before him.\r\n'