Nor is it the duty of a court to provide assistance if a party presents its case without legal representation. In Rajeevan Edakalavan v. Public Prosecutor (1998),[65] the accused appeared before a judge in person and pleaded guilty. He subsequently applied to the High Court for criminal review, arguing that his plea was ambiguous because the judge had not informed him of the defences available to him. This is the first principle of natural justice, which states that no individual should be a judge in his or her own case, or that a decision-making authority should be neutral and impartial in the consideration of a case. The principle of natural justice was developed by the courts. In order to obtain justice from the administrative authorities, the judgment of the courts should be fair and proportionate. The rule of natural justice provides that it is not biased in any activity. It treats every action equally and without bias. The principle of natural justice not only seeks justice, but also prevents miscarriages of justice. In India, the principle of natural justice is found in Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Article 14 deals with equal treatment of all citizens and equal protection before the law, while article 21 deals with the protection of life and personal liberty. The mere fact that the law gives a decision-maker a wide margin of discretion is not a reason to weaken the requirements of natural justice. In the context of the United Kingdom, this is illustrated by Ahmed v. H.M. Treasury (No. 1) (2010). [41] The Department of Finance had exercised the power to freeze the complainants` financial assets and economic resources on the basis that it had reasonable grounds to suspect that the complainants were persons who, under the Anti-terrorism (UN Measures) Regulations, 2006[42] and the Al-Qaida and Taliban (United Nations) Order, 2006,[43] were subject to the law of the United Nations of 1946[43] committed acts of terrorism, attempted to participate in or facilitated the commission of terrorism. [44] The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom held that, since the Al-Qaida Order did not provide for fundamental procedural fairness, it effectively deprived the persons designated under the Order of the fundamental right of access to a judicial remedy and that, therefore, the power conferred by the United Nations Act 1946 to make the Order was ultra vires. [45] The foundation of impartiality is the need to maintain public confidence in the judicial system. The erosion of public trust undermines the nobility of the legal system and leads to chaos. [14] The nature of the necessity of impartiality was established by Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, in Metropolitan Properties Co (FGC) Ltd v Lannon (1968):[15] “Justice must be rooted in trust and trust is destroyed when the righteous go away thinking, `The judge was biased.`” [15]: 599 The maxim Audi Alteram Partem is considered a principle of fundamental justice or equity or a principle of natural justice.

This principle includes the right of one party to be heard or to have a fair opportunity to challenge the evidence presented by the other party, the right to present evidence or to convene counsel. The principle essentially means that no one can be condemned, punished or weakened by the law without being heard. In Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works, the plaintiff was a contractor hired to build a house in Wandsworth County Section 76 of the Metropolis Local Management Act allows the county council to alter or demolish a house only if the builder acted negligently to give notice of construction. The council, without giving further information, destroyed the house. The demolition of the house was considered illegal simply because the city council did not give the plaintiff an opportunity to be heard. In that case, it was clearly stated that no one can be deprived of his property by an administrative authority without having had the opportunity to be heard. In the case of A.K. Kraipak V/s Union of India, where the Acting Chief Conservator of Forests, as well as UPSC members, were members of the selection committee for the position of Chief Conservator. In this case, the court found that there was indeed a conflict between his private interests and the duty imposed on him, such that the decision thus made violated the principles of natural justice. Each party has the right to have a legal representative to represent it before the court. Each party will have a legally trained person who will present it, and no one will be able to deny that.

But in some situations, when they are denied the right to legal representation, it leads to a violation of the principle of natural justice. However, when a hearing requires the balancing of several polycentric issues, such as natural justice and the protection of confidential information on national security grounds, public safety concerns and the right to a fair trial must be given due consideration. In AF,[54] the House of Lords, pursuant to the decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights A v. United Kingdom (2009)[55], has held that a person charged with terrorism and subject to a control order must be given sufficient information about the allegations against him in order to give effective instructions to his special advocate. If this requirement is met, a fair hearing may be conducted without detailed disclosure of confidential information that could endanger national security. According to the facts of the case, a special advocate was not permitted to contact an applicant or his or her ordinary legal representatives unless he obtained permission from the Special Immigration Appeals Board (SIAC) after inspection of confidential (or “closed”) documents. The House of Lords has acknowledged that, although the usefulness of a special advocate is somewhat precluded from not having further instructions after reviewing these documents, if SIAC decides to make a control order primarily on the basis of non-confidential (or “open”) documents, a plaintiff cannot be considered to have been deprived of the opportunity to challenge the adequacy of the government`s beliefs and suspicions to his or her Against. to be questioned.

If the evidence against the plaintiff is largely confidential, but the allegations in the public documents are sufficiently specific, the plaintiff should be able to provide information to its legal representatives and special advocate to rebut it (e.g., an alibi if the open material claims it has been in a certain location for a certain period of time) without needing to know the details or sources. closed evidence. However, if the evidence disclosed to the individual consists only of general allegations and the proceedings against the individual are based solely or to a large extent on undisclosed adverse evidence, the due process rule is not respected in natural justice. [54]: 350-2 There is no customary law inherent in representation before a national court. A court has the discretion to admit a lawyer or an unqualified lawyer to assist the person appearing before it on the basis of the facts of the case. [61] In determining whether a party should be offered legal aid, the arbitrator should consider, first, whether the right to be heard applies and, second, whether the assistance of defence counsel is necessary for an effective hearing in light of the purpose, having regard to the consequences of such a refusal. [35]: 192 Even though we go back to antiquity during the reign of Adam and Kautilya Arthashastra, the rule of law has received its seal of natural justice, making it social justice.