Our children need to study social science topics such as Economics, Political science ete..ete…During our primary education we studied topics as Civics,History ete and the Radio Ceylon at that time provided very valuable news items for the children. I remember Lalith S Maithripala till now. The Rupawahini provides rubbish for the population at the expence of the indirect taxes of the populalation to dignify some political crooks. Very sad indeed!!!

Hi off the cuff

I think the real definition of natural justice is much more than a what you say. It is derived from natural law which continues to inform how the legal system’s use of natural justice. I have elaborate it in the following article.

http://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/part-ii-judiciary-at-war-against-the-constitution/

Hi

Thanks. Feel free to translate it to Sinhala and Tamil. Here is another part of it.

http://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/part-ii-judiciary-at-war-against-the-constitution/

PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

Lecture delivered by Justice T.S.Sivagnanam
at Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy on 01.06.2009 to the newly recruited Civil Judges (JR Division) during Induction Programme 2009

1. The Principle and essential elements of Natural Justice:

In a famous English decision in Abbott vs. Sullivan reported in (1952) 1 K.B.189 at 195 it is stated that “the Principles of Natural Justice are easy to proclaim, but their precise extent is far less easy to define”. It has been stated that there is no single definition of Natural Justice and it is only possible to enumerate with some certainty the main principles. During the earlier days the expression natural Justice was often used interchangeably with the expression natural Law, but in the recent times a restricted meaning has been given to describe certain rules of Judicial Procedure.

There are several decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which I shall refer at the appropriate place and these Judgments are sufficient to summarize and explain the two essential elements of Natural Justice namely

a. No man shall be Judge in his own cause

b. Both sides shall be heard, or audi alteram partem

The other principles which have been stated to constitute elements of Natural Justice are

i. The parties to a proceedings must have due notice of when the Court / Tribunal will proceed

ii. The Court / Tribunal must act honestly and impartially and not under the dictation of other persons to whom authority is not given by Law

These two elements are extensions or refinements of the two main principles stated above.

————————–
Nora Farrell, Ombudsperson, Ryerson University

The two basic components of natural justice are:
Component one

That the person affected by the decision:

Will receive notice that his or her case is being considered;
Will be provided with the specific aspects of the case that are under consideration so that an explanation or response can be prepared; and
Will be provided with the opportunity to make submissions (written or oral) relating to the case

Component Two

That the decision-maker(s) will be unbiased.

To be unbiased is to be and to be seen as objective of impartial about the matter you are considering. The best way for decision-makers to be unbiased is:

To understand what bias is, i.e. if you have a firmly held, favourable or negative opinion about a matter or an individual. Therefore, if you cannot be objective about a matter that is within your purview, you should remove yourself from the decision-making process.

If you are part of a committee of decision-makers, each member must feel free to make his or her own decision. Therefore, each member of the committee must be free of influence from other committee members, from outside third parties, or from the influence of those who have designated them as decision-makers.

Sometimes bias is alleged because it is believed the decision-maker knows too much about the matter under scrutiny. A well-informed decision-maker is not biased if she or he has an open mind and is open to persuasion by the information provided through the decision-making process.

It is my firm belief that if all decision-makers abided by these basic principles when forming conclusions and making decisions there would be very few complaints about the fairness of decisions other than from those for whom any answer other than the one they want is unacceptable.

—————

What are the rules of natural justice?

The principles of natural justice concern procedural fairness and ensure a fair decision is reached by an objective decision maker.

Maintaining procedural fairness protects the rights of individuals and enhances public confidence in the process.

A word used to refer to situations where audi alteram partem (the right to be heard) and nemo judex in parte sua (no person may judge their own case) apply.

The principles of natural justice were derived from the Romans who believed that some legal principles were “natural” or self-evident and did not require a statutory basis.

These two basic legal safeguards govern all decisions by judges or government officials when they take quasi-judicial or judicial decisions.

Three common law rules are referred to in relation to natural justice or procedural fairness.

The Hearing Rule

This rule requires that a person must be allowed an adequate opportunity to present their case where certain interests and rights may be adversely affected by a decision-maker.

To ensure that these rights are respected, the deciding authority must give both the opportunity to prepare and present evidence and to respond to arguments presenting by the opposite side.

When conducting an investigation in relation to a complaint it is important that the person being complained against is advised of the allegations in as much detail as possible and given the opportunity to reply to the allegations.

The Bias Rule

This second rule states that no one ought to be judge in his or her case. This is the requirement that the deciding authority must be unbiased when according the hearing or making the decision.

Additionally, investigators and decision-makers must act without bias in all procedures connected with the making of a decision.

A decision-maker must be impartial and must make a decision based on a balanced and considered assessment of the information and evidence before him or her without favouring one party over another.

Even where no actual bias exists, investigators and decision-makers should be careful to avoid the appearance of bias. Investigators should ensure that there is no conflict of interest which would make it inappropriate for them to conduct the investigation.

The Evidence Rule

The third rule is that an administrative decision must be based upon logical proof or evidence material.

Investigators and decision makers should not base their decisions on mere speculation or suspicion.

Rather, an investigator or decision maker should be able to clearly point to the evidence on which the inference or determination is based.

Evidence (arguments, allegations, documents, photos, etc..) presented by one party must be disclosed to the other party, who may then subject it to scrutiny.

——————–

Put simply, the principles of natural justice require a decision maker to give a person or organisation who will be affected by the decision maker’s decision an opportunity to “have their say” about the case against them, which the decision maker must then take into
account when making a decision.

Another principle of natural justice requires a decision maker making a decision not to have a personal interest in the outcome and to make
a decision impartially.

WHAT HAPPENS IF A DECISION MAKER DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF
NATURAL JUSTICE?

If a decision maker does not comply with the principles of natural justice when making a decision, a court can declare the decision to
be invalid and order that the decision be made again.

More info at

http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/arcHome.nsf/Page/Publications_Reports_Downloads_ARC_Best_Practice_Guide_2_-_Natural_Justice

Thanks.

Yes you are correct. Natural justice is a highly contested concept.
I use the concept natural justice is much broader than how it is used among many legal scholars to simply mean ‘procedural fairness’ or just ‘fairness.’ (based on rules of Audi alteram partem and Nemo judex in causa sua)

I used the term natural justice interchangeably with natural law. Natural law is more than the general jurisprudential concept the term now denotes in some legal circles. Deriving natural justice from natural law makes it an ethical and moral concept, which also has connotations of natural obligations and duties. The natural law is universal, that is to say, it applies to the entire human race, and is in itself the same for all.

Thomas Aquinas called law without moral content a “perversion of law”, because of the essential connection between law and morality. This view is frequently summarized by the maxim: “an unjust law is not a true law”. It follows that if it is not true law we need not obey it.

Aquinas outlines the following principals of natural law (I could find similar ones in Buddhist teachings as well, although there are fundamental differences between Buddhist and Christian understanding of morality)

(1) Natural inclination for the good “do good, shun evil”
(2) natural inclination for the preservation of life those means which help to preserve
life belongs to natural law. [e.g. “do not kill,” “live healthily,” etc.]
(3) Natural inclination for the preservation of the species, i.e. for generating matters
Regarding sexuality and education belong to the natural law. [E.g. “do not commit
Adultery”]
(4) Natural inclination to know the truth precepts such as “shun ignorance” [or do not
lie]
(5) natural inclination to live in society precepts such as “do not offend anyone” [and
generally the precepts of justice, e.g. “don’t take the goods of another.”]

Natural law holds that law and morality are connected. Law is not simply what is enacted in statutes, and if legislation is not moral, then it is not law, and has no authority.

I certainly does not subscribes to legal positivism that makes a separation between law and morality and reduce the law to a set of abstract principals. Abstract laws and their interpretive frames are not void of morality. In fact the very idea of abstraction is a moral act. Moreover, if the laws are not moral there is no obligation to obey them. Appeal to obedience is based on morality. Also if the law were merely a system of rules, we would not need lawyer.

The problem today is that many legal scholars believe that there exist a separation between law and morality. This is self deceptive.

It would be useful to everyone IF the article (all the parts) is translated into Sinhalese and Tamil and published and distributed FREE or at a nominal price to the interested public to make them aware of the contents of the Constitution and the three branches of the Government.

Something being done after 64 years of Independence (?) and that too after a real controversy arose between the Judiciary on one hand and the Executive and Legislative together on the other hand.