"The Principles of Natural Justice are easy to proclaim, but their precise extent is far less easy to define," according to a well-known English decision in Abbott v. Sullivan, published in (1952) 1 K.B.189 at 195. It has been said that there is no one definition of natural justice; instead, the key ideas can be listed rather confidently. In the past, the terms "natural justice" and "natural law" were frequently used interchangeably, but more recently, the terms have come to refer to specific judicial procedure standards.

There are a number of Supreme Court decisions that I will mention when appropriate. These rulings adequately enumerate and clarify the two fundamental components of natural justice, which are:

A person cannot judge his own case.

Audi alteram partem, or hearing both sides, is required.

The following additional tenets have been identified as components of natural justice:

1. When the Court or Tribunal shall convene, the parties to the proceedings must be notified in a timely manner
2. The Court or Tribunal must operate with integrity and objectivity, refusing to follow the dictates of those without legal authority.

The two primary concepts mentioned above are expanded upon or improved upon by these two components.

How the expression Natural Justice came?

In Maclean vs. The Workers Union (1929) 1 Ch. 602, 624 it has been stated as follows: of course, the statement is simply used in a colloquial meaning; it does not imply that justice among people is a natural concept. The majority of savages do not believe in justice in the contemporary sense. In the past, the oppressed person carried out his own justice. In the 13th century, among our forefathers, a clear criminal offense-like murdering someone while in possession of their weapon or stealing something-could result in an immediate execution without a trial.

Once more, all students are familiar with the concepts of compurgation and ordeal. It is hardly necessary to point out that, for instance, a system of water-based ordeal, wherein floating denotes guilt and sinking represents innocence, existed for hundreds of years in this nation and has little to do with contemporary notions of justice. There is no need to provide other examples. The reality is that the idea of justice is extremely complex and has evolved over many centuries of civilization; in fact, even today, the idea varies greatly between traditionally considered "civilized" nations.

How the Principles of Natural Justice developed over the years?

The first of the two fundamental components-that no individual shall be judge in his own cause-had already been mentioned.

Judges ought to be above suspicion, just like Caesar's wife. The Principle applies to a cause in which the Judge has an interest as well as situations in which he is a real party to the action. "Interest" is not to be confused with "favor." It is defined as a legal or financial interest. A judge who has such an interest is ineligible. The disqualifying interest (or bias) must have something to do with the legal issue at hand. A magistrate's eligibility will not be revoked based only on their general interest in the goal of the case.

An interest in the specific case or anything that is reasonably likely to sway or affect the magistrates' decisions in that particular case constitutes a bias or interest that disqualifies. By establishing this stringent regulation, the law hopes to foster trust in the administration of justice rather than taking into account any potential conflicts of interest that might sway the judge. As the well-known proverb states, justice must be done, but it must also clearly and unquestionably look to have been done.

The adage "Audi Alteram Partem," which states that no one should be condemned without first being heard, is the second principle. This idea can be broadly categorized as falling under:

1. Party to an action is prima facie entitled to be heard in his presence.
2. He is entitled to dispute his opponent's case, cross-examine his opponent's witnesses, and is entitled to call his own witnesses and give his own evidence before Court.
3. He is entitled to know the reasons for the decision rendered by a Court / Tribunal.

The well-known ruling of the Honorable Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, which is documented on page 1416 of the 1985 AIR Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was asked to decide how to interpret Articles 309, 310, and 311 of the Indian Constitution, specifically in light of the second proviso to Clause 2 of that article's amendment by the Constitution (forty second amendment) Act, 1976. The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the concepts of natural justice, even though the decision's subject matter concerned a service matter and the protections granted in Article 311 to individuals working in civil capacities under the State or the Union of India.

The Supreme Court examined the question of how courts have interpreted natural justice principles and to what extent they should be applied in the Tulsiram Patel case. It was said that two norms that express the ideas of natural justice in judicial proceedings, including those in quasi-judicial and administrative processes, have developed through a process of judicial interpretation. They being:

A person cannot judge his own case.

Listen to Audi Alteram Partem, the other side.

A corollary of the above two rules is that justice should not only be done, but it should also appear to be done. To put it another way, whoever makes decisions without listening to the other side will not have done what is right, even though he may have said what is right.

The ambit of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which addresses the effect of foreign judgments, was taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1963 SC page 1, Viswanathan vs. Abdul Wajid, during the adjudication of a civil dispute over the Estate of one Ramalinga Mudaliar. It might be helpful to refer to paragraphs 40 and 41 of the Judgment for the purposes of today's discussion.

The argument that a foreign judgment is against natural justice must be evaluated in the context of Indian statute law. S. 13 does not support the interpretation that a claim of this kind is only admissible in cases where the party bringing the argument has not been properly served or has not had a chance to be heard.

A court's judgment must be obtained through proper observance of the legal process; that is, the court issuing the judgment must adhere to the fundamental standards of natural justice, which include being composed of impartial individuals who act fairly, impartially, and in good faith. A foreign court's decision is final even if it is based on an incorrect interpretation of the law or the evidence, provided that the following minimal standards of the legal system are met:
The municipal court does not base its acknowledgment of a judgment's conclusiveness on the accuracy of the law or the evidence. Not one of the neither the trial's procedural law nor any foreign substantive law will be identical to or comparable to that of the municipal court. However, if the process by which a decision was achieved is at odds with natural justice, it will not be decisive.

Written By: Akanksha