1) INTRODUCTION
The Principles of Natural Justice (PNJ) form the cornerstone of administrative law in India, in specific, and across existing legal systems in countries across the world, in general. In India, there has been no statutory limit that has been set within which the administrative agencies are supposed to exercise their decision making powers. This limit has been set by the Indian judiciary through various decisions over the years, through application of the PNJ.
Simply put, PNJ entails fairness, equity and equality. In a welfare state like India, the role and jurisdiction of the administrative agencies are increasing manifold with the passage of time. The concept of Rule of Law would lose its validity if the instrumentalities of the state are not
The Rule against Bias flows from the following two principles:
i) No one should be a judge in his own cause ii) “Justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”-Lord Hewart, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.
The essence of this principle is to ensure impartiality in decision making. Without impartiality, public confidence cannot be maintained in the legal system. A lack of impartiality would result in loss of nobility of the legal system and would ensure chaos. Lord Denning observed in Metropolitan Properties Co. (F.G.C.) Ltd. V. Lannon : “Justice must be rooted in confidence and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking: 'The judge was biased.'"
However, impartiality of the judge is not required in isolation. In addition, it is required that the judge is in a position to apply his mind objectively to the dispute before him. The Rule against Bias, thus, has two main aspects:
i) The administrator exercising adjudicatory powers must not have any personal or proprietary interest in the outcome of the
In addition to this, the analysis of law was not considered thoroughly during judicial decisions. Therefore, the court uses backward reasoning where it uses the expected results it wants to deduce to make decisions. Such activities in the justice department have a lot of impediments to the impartiality of judicial system. The rights of the criminal in many instances are affected by the use of such methods to deliver justice. According to Marshall, the legal analysis used to determine the outcome of the courts has reduced since the changes in the judicial system. The rights of the individuals have significantly reduced with the changes in the court system because only the nine judges are privy to the outcome of the court proceedings; they are also not liable to the questions that may be raised about the legality of their
To provide the legal powers and make people aware of the offences in relation to public health and consumers interest
One of the key components of the rule of law is that the law should apply to everyone equally and fairly, whether, monarch, government or citizen (Ellis 2013). As A V Dicey believed, no one should be above the law and everyone should be subject to the rule of law (Ellis 2013). Within the rule of law, there are five vital components to the operations. These include fairness, rationality, predictability, consistency and impartiality (Hinchy 2015). Fairness and rationality ensures the rule of law applies to everyone including citizens and the government. Predictability pertains that if a law is broken, the consequences will be known. Consistency, warrants consistency that the rule of law is being applied to everyone the same. Lastly, impartiality, which is an individual that decides on issues to do with the law (Hinchy 2015). The rule of law maintains consistency and equality within nations, yet there are countries where the rule of law is not common practice (Ellis 2013). Overall,
Put yourself in the shoes of the suspect. How do you think he feels about some of Tyler 's (1988) procedural justice considerations like the procedural justice and motive-based trust? Why?
purpose of establishing justice, and that when they fail to do this they become dangerously
There is no justice when humans are living in the state of mere nature in “this war of every man against every man...nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong or just and unjust have there no place.”(188) These are the conditions that constitute mere nature. Justice has to battle all of human desire just to begin to establish a foothold in an arena where force and fraud are the supreme virtues.(188) Anything and everything is allowed in mere nature and absolute liberty “without impediment”(189) is used accordingly, as ones own reason dictates. When Human desires and aversions are pursued for only self preservation this puts us in a state of perpetual war with one another on an individual level, each of us doing whatever is necessary to survive. Therefore to establish justice is to first institute laws and government, but before this can be done you have to decide who or what entity has the right to do so? How is this power transferred to them? And at what
all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or may they act by representatives, freely and
Trial by Jury was first introduced during the reign of King Henry II as a mechanism to uncover the King’s rights, but it wasn’t until King Henry III that the jury was molded into a body of witnesses to call on their knowledge. Presently, our jury system is a body of witnesses that determine the guilt or innocence grounded upon a presentation of facts and evidence. The current structure of trial by jury is not sufficiently democratic. Jury panels are not selected democratically, but instead are chosen through a process call “voir dire” where attorneys and the judge ask a series of questions to establish the “impartiality” of the potential juror. This aspect of jury selection rejects the democratic notion that everyone is equally qualified to rule. The unanimity of the verdict is another key component of trial by juries that is not appropriately democratic because it forces people to fall under the coercion of others. This feature discards the fundamentals of democratic rule, which is a majority rule. These aspects of trial by jury do not ensure the effectiveness of a trial and actually hinder the possibility for a fair verdict. With the increasing number of trials all over the United States, reform of these components are necessary to guarantee the just and democratic ruling of trials.
Law Commission accepted that there are compelling reasons due to which the concept of overriding interest cannot be abolished altogether. And denying of overriding status will contradict paramount policies. However, LRA 2002 has affected it in a number ...
The Fairness or Justice Approach: the decision progress should treats everyone the same unless there is a justifiable reason not to, and does not show favoritism or discrimination;
Legal Pluralism is the presence of various legal systems within a single country or a geographical area. Legal Pluralism is omnipresent although it is generally assumed to exist in countries only with a colonial past. This is because in most countries with a colonial past, colonial laws co-exist alongside indigenous laws. However, if we look at the expansive definition of legal pluralism, it can be said that every society or country if legally plural. The modern definition of legal pluralism also deals with the issues of relation between state and non-state legal orders. It shows the dichotomy that exists between customary legal norms and state law. The judiciary of India has upheld this principle of pluralism in many cases by showing that
important to ensure justice for all parties affected. Instead of giving the key role to the goverment. It
John Rohr views on Democratic Morality and the Administrative Law and how these laws affect the organizations. Democratic Morality deals with the issue that large organizations will have more control or influence on the development of policy. The Administrative law is concern with the legal aspect of the organization and the fairness across the board. The author examines the administrative law of democratic morality between the periods of 1800s and 1900s, with emphasis on the how democratic morality was used to bring about changes in the organizations. The author point is that bureaucrats who deal with policies should look to the Supreme Court for guidance on the constitution. It is important to understand the constitution and be able to explain why the attack on separation of powers in Congressional Government calls for changes in amendments to the constitution of the United States. The democratic morality policies as it relates to the law are constructed around the perspective of democratic responsiveness, public opinion, citizens, religious, and partisanship affect adoption of policy; these policies will include the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has a profound effect on policy-making in America.
The given statement suggests that the emphasis on judicial diversity is unnecessary since there is no guarantee that a diverse judiciary would arrive at a different decision than that of a conservative judiciary. This essay attempts to argue that although there is no evidence that a diverse bench would radically change the outcome of a given case, the quality of justice will be substantially enhanced by the inclusion of a range of perspectives from which are currently not represented by the English judiciary.
Justice is an important aspect of the United States and it should always prevail. It is important for justice to be blind because it hurts the reputation of the criminal court of law in the United States if it isn't. Justice has three important elements. It needs to be credible, fair, and balanced. These three elements help make justice the best sense of law in the United States, for all of its citizens.