Methodology
There are two types of methodology, which are used for making assignment on any topic. Which are namely primary and secondary. Primary methodology is one where the assignment is made by researching in field level or laboratory.
On the other hand secondary methodology is one where the assignment is made by collecting data from internet, magazine or books.
Here, I used secondary methodology for making this assignment. Because I have collect information from text books and website.
Hypothesis
I have, made this assignment on natural Justice. The main object of my assignment was observation of the real meaning of natural justice, it’s principle and enforceability.
After making assignment I finding natural justice is a branch of public law. It is a formidable weapon which can be wielded to secure justice to citizens.
There are three basic principles to natural justice which are – No man should be a judge in his own case, No man should be condemned unheard, and justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.
Natural justice is ensured in the Bangladesh Constitution by Article 29 and 35 (2).
Introduction
Natural Justice means some fundamental procedures which are necessary for the proper exercise of judicial power of any authority. There are three basic principles of natural Justice which have been derived from common law. Natural Justice is an important concept in administrative law. In the words of Me Garry, it is justice that is simple and elementary, as distinct from justice that is complex, sophisticated and technical.
Article 29 of the Bangladesh Constitution observes, “Violation of natural Justice result’s in arbitrariness which is same as discrimination.”
Article 35 (2) of the Bangladesh Constitution directly mentioned one principle of natural justice which is “No man should be condemned unheard”.
Definition: It is not possible to define precisely and scientifically the expression ‘natural justice’. Though highly attractive and potential, it is a vague and ambiguous concept and, having been criticized as ‘sadly’ lacking in precision, has been consigned more than once to the lumber room. It is a confused and unwarranted concept and encroaches on the field of ethics. Though eminent Judges have at times used the phrase ‘the principles of natural justice’, even now the concept differs widely in countries usually described as civilized.
It is true that the concept of natural justice is not very dear and, therefore, it is not possible to define it; yet the principles of natural justice are accepted and enforced. In reply to the Lord Reid in the historical decision of Ridge Vs. Baldwin observed:
“In modern times opinions have sometimes been expressed to the effect that natural justice is so vague as to be practically meaningless. But I would regard these as tainted by the perennial fallacy that because something cannot be cut and dried or nicely weighed or measured therefore it does not exist”.
Nature and Scope: Natural justice is branch of public law. It is a formidable weapon which can be wielded to secure justice to citizens. Rules of natural Justice are ‘basic Values’ which a man has cherished throughout the ages. They are embedded in our constitutional framework and their pristine glory and primacy can not be allowed to be submerged by exigencies of particular situations or cases. Principles of natural justice control all actions of public authorities by applying rules relating to reasonableness, good faith and justice, equity and good conscience. Natural justice is a part of law which relates to administration of justice. Rules of natural justice are indeed great assurances of justice and fairness.
Historical Growth: The term natural justice expresses the close relationship between the common Law and the moral principles and describes what is right and what is wrong. It has an impressive history. It has been recognized from the earliest times: it is not judge – made law. In days bygone the Greeks had accepted the principle that ‘on man should be condemned unheard’. The historical and philosophical foundations of the English concept of natural justice may be insecure, nevertheless they are worthy of preservation Indeed, from the legendary days of Adam and of Kautilya’s Arthashastra, the rule of law had this stamp of natural justice which makes it social justice.
Principles of natural Justice: There are three basic principles of natural Justice. Which and following.
(i) No man should be a judge of his own cause:
When a judge has slight interest in the subject matter he can not be judge in that Case. This principle also Known as “rule against bias”.
(ii) No man should be condemned unheard:
The second principle of natural justice is the “no man should be condemned unheard”. Before passing any order of taking any action both the parties must be heard.
(iii) Justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. It is third principle of natural justice.
Requirement of natural Justice: Following are the requirements of natural justice.
(i) A judge must be natural and impartial and must be free from bias and must decide the case objectively on the basis of evidence. In other words, a person cannot be a competent witness in a case in which he is a judge.
(ii) The case of Shajahan Ali Bishas Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Khulna Ramge, 17 DLR. The court held that, a judge cannot give evidence before himself and while the same coming in decision.
(iii) There must be substantial possibility of being biased.
Bias: According to Dictionary meaning bias means “anything tends or may be regarded as tending to cause such a person to decide a case otherwise than on evidence must be held to be biased”. In other words, bias means an operative prejudice, whether conscious or unconscious, in relation to party or issue.
Bias can be classified into three types which are following:
(i) Pecuniary Bias: It is well settled that as regards pecuniary interest, the least pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the litigation will disqualify any person from acting as a judge. The leading case on this point is Dimes Vs. Grant Junction Canal (1852). In this case the suits are declared by the Vice – Chancellor and the appeals against that decree were filed in the court of Lord Chancellor. The appeals were dismissed by him and decree were filed in favor of the canal Company in which he was as substantial shareholder.
(ii) Personal Bias: A number of circumstances may give rise to personal bias. Here a judge may be a relative, friend of business associate of a party. The leading case on this point is A.K. Karipak Vs. Union of India (1969). In this case it was held that. “it is against all canons of justice to make a man judge in his own cause”.
(iii) Official Bias: This may arise when a Judge has a general interest in the subject matter. A mere general interest in the subject matter would not disqualify a judge from deciding the matter. There must be some direct connection with the litigation. The leading case in this regard is Krishna Bus Service Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (1985). In this case the legality and validity of the notification issued by the State Government conferring the powers of Deputy commissioner of police on the General Manager, Haryana Road ways was challenged by private operators of motor vehicle on the ground to interest and bias. Surveillance register by the police is a Confidential document. Neither the person whose name is entered in the register nor any other member of the republic can have access to it.
Circumstances for excluding natural justice.
It the following cases, the principles of natural Justice may be excluded:
(i) Exclusion in case of legislative action:
Where the action is legislative in character, plenary or subordinate.
(ii) Exclusion in case of necessity: Disqualification on the ground of bias against a person will not or authorized to decide that matter or take action. But the necessity must be genuine and real.
(iii) Exclusion in case of confidentiality: In the case of Malak Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1981), the court held that, the maintenance of
(iv) Exclusion in case of interim preventive action: If the action of the action of the administrative authority is a suspension order in the nature of a preventive action and not a final order, the application of the principle of natural justice may be excluded.
(v) Exclusion in case of Emergency: Incase of emergency where prompt and immediate action is to be taken the principle of natural justice may be excluded.
On the other hand secondary methodology is one where the assignment is made by collecting data from internet, magazine or books.
Here, I used secondary methodology for making this assignment. Because I have collect information from text books and website.
Hypothesis
I have, made this assignment on natural Justice. The main object of my assignment was observation of the real meaning of natural justice, it’s principle and enforceability.
After making assignment I finding natural justice is a branch of public law. It is a formidable weapon which can be wielded to secure justice to citizens.
There are three basic principles to natural justice which are – No man should be a judge in his own case, No man should be condemned unheard, and justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.
Natural justice is ensured in the Bangladesh Constitution by Article 29 and 35 (2).
Introduction
Natural Justice means some fundamental procedures which are necessary for the proper exercise of judicial power of any authority. There are three basic principles of natural Justice which have been derived from common law. Natural Justice is an important concept in administrative law. In the words of Me Garry, it is justice that is simple and elementary, as distinct from justice that is complex, sophisticated and technical.
Article 29 of the Bangladesh Constitution observes, “Violation of natural Justice result’s in arbitrariness which is same as discrimination.”
Article 35 (2) of the Bangladesh Constitution directly mentioned one principle of natural justice which is “No man should be condemned unheard”.
Definition: It is not possible to define precisely and scientifically the expression ‘natural justice’. Though highly attractive and potential, it is a vague and ambiguous concept and, having been criticized as ‘sadly’ lacking in precision, has been consigned more than once to the lumber room. It is a confused and unwarranted concept and encroaches on the field of ethics. Though eminent Judges have at times used the phrase ‘the principles of natural justice’, even now the concept differs widely in countries usually described as civilized.
It is true that the concept of natural justice is not very dear and, therefore, it is not possible to define it; yet the principles of natural justice are accepted and enforced. In reply to the Lord Reid in the historical decision of Ridge Vs. Baldwin observed:
“In modern times opinions have sometimes been expressed to the effect that natural justice is so vague as to be practically meaningless. But I would regard these as tainted by the perennial fallacy that because something cannot be cut and dried or nicely weighed or measured therefore it does not exist”.
Nature and Scope: Natural justice is branch of public law. It is a formidable weapon which can be wielded to secure justice to citizens. Rules of natural Justice are ‘basic Values’ which a man has cherished throughout the ages. They are embedded in our constitutional framework and their pristine glory and primacy can not be allowed to be submerged by exigencies of particular situations or cases. Principles of natural justice control all actions of public authorities by applying rules relating to reasonableness, good faith and justice, equity and good conscience. Natural justice is a part of law which relates to administration of justice. Rules of natural justice are indeed great assurances of justice and fairness.
Historical Growth: The term natural justice expresses the close relationship between the common Law and the moral principles and describes what is right and what is wrong. It has an impressive history. It has been recognized from the earliest times: it is not judge – made law. In days bygone the Greeks had accepted the principle that ‘on man should be condemned unheard’. The historical and philosophical foundations of the English concept of natural justice may be insecure, nevertheless they are worthy of preservation Indeed, from the legendary days of Adam and of Kautilya’s Arthashastra, the rule of law had this stamp of natural justice which makes it social justice.
Principles of natural Justice: There are three basic principles of natural Justice. Which and following.
(i) No man should be a judge of his own cause:
When a judge has slight interest in the subject matter he can not be judge in that Case. This principle also Known as “rule against bias”.
(ii) No man should be condemned unheard:
The second principle of natural justice is the “no man should be condemned unheard”. Before passing any order of taking any action both the parties must be heard.
(iii) Justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. It is third principle of natural justice.
Requirement of natural Justice: Following are the requirements of natural justice.
(i) A judge must be natural and impartial and must be free from bias and must decide the case objectively on the basis of evidence. In other words, a person cannot be a competent witness in a case in which he is a judge.
(ii) The case of Shajahan Ali Bishas Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Khulna Ramge, 17 DLR. The court held that, a judge cannot give evidence before himself and while the same coming in decision.
(iii) There must be substantial possibility of being biased.
Bias: According to Dictionary meaning bias means “anything tends or may be regarded as tending to cause such a person to decide a case otherwise than on evidence must be held to be biased”. In other words, bias means an operative prejudice, whether conscious or unconscious, in relation to party or issue.
Bias can be classified into three types which are following:
(i) Pecuniary Bias: It is well settled that as regards pecuniary interest, the least pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the litigation will disqualify any person from acting as a judge. The leading case on this point is Dimes Vs. Grant Junction Canal (1852). In this case the suits are declared by the Vice – Chancellor and the appeals against that decree were filed in the court of Lord Chancellor. The appeals were dismissed by him and decree were filed in favor of the canal Company in which he was as substantial shareholder.
(ii) Personal Bias: A number of circumstances may give rise to personal bias. Here a judge may be a relative, friend of business associate of a party. The leading case on this point is A.K. Karipak Vs. Union of India (1969). In this case it was held that. “it is against all canons of justice to make a man judge in his own cause”.
(iii) Official Bias: This may arise when a Judge has a general interest in the subject matter. A mere general interest in the subject matter would not disqualify a judge from deciding the matter. There must be some direct connection with the litigation. The leading case in this regard is Krishna Bus Service Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (1985). In this case the legality and validity of the notification issued by the State Government conferring the powers of Deputy commissioner of police on the General Manager, Haryana Road ways was challenged by private operators of motor vehicle on the ground to interest and bias. Surveillance register by the police is a Confidential document. Neither the person whose name is entered in the register nor any other member of the republic can have access to it.
Circumstances for excluding natural justice.
It the following cases, the principles of natural Justice may be excluded:
(i) Exclusion in case of legislative action:
Where the action is legislative in character, plenary or subordinate.
(ii) Exclusion in case of necessity: Disqualification on the ground of bias against a person will not or authorized to decide that matter or take action. But the necessity must be genuine and real.
(iii) Exclusion in case of confidentiality: In the case of Malak Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1981), the court held that, the maintenance of
(iv) Exclusion in case of interim preventive action: If the action of the action of the administrative authority is a suspension order in the nature of a preventive action and not a final order, the application of the principle of natural justice may be excluded.
(v) Exclusion in case of Emergency: Incase of emergency where prompt and immediate action is to be taken the principle of natural justice may be excluded.
* * *
No comments:
Post a Comment