Those
of you who have practiced as lawyers must have come across the concept of
natural justice. Of course, the laws of nature are designed to promote survival
rather than justice. Nature is governed by principles such as the survival of
the fittest and prevalence of might over right. When a herd leaves its weak
members behind there is no question of the weak being supported or protected.
Therefore, ‘natural’ justice is not justice found in nature; it is a compendium
of concepts which must be naturally associated with justice, whether these
concepts are incorporated in law or not. Justice is a great civilizing force.
It ensures that the rule of law rather than the rules of nature prevail in
regulating human conduct.
The
principles of natural justice have evolved under common law as a check on the
arbitrary exercise of power by the State. As the State powers have increased,
taking within their ambit not just the power of governance but also activities
in areas such as commerce, industry, communications and the like, it has become
increasingly necessary to ensure that these powers are exercised in a just and
fair manner. The common law, which is a body of unwritten laws which govern the
legal systems of England, USA, Canada, Australia and other commonwealth
countries including India, has responded to this need to control the exercise
of State powers through applying the principles of natural justice to the
exercise of such powers.
There
is only one more principle that has slowly taken root as a part of natural
justice. This is the principle that every decision must contain reasons for the
decision. Reasons may be elaborate or may be brief. But these are beginning to
be considered necessary to ensure fair decision making.
What
exactly are these principles? Basically, these are principles which are
necessary for a just and fair decision making. These principles are often
embedded in the rules of procedure which govern the judiciary. For example, the
Civil Procedure Code prescribes a detailed procedure under which the Defendant
has the right to reply to the Plaint; both sides have the right to inspect the
documents relied upon by the other side and both sides have the right to
cross-examine one another’s witnesses. The judgment must give reasons for the
decision.
