Aristotle’s Theory of Justice and Natural Justice

 

Aristotle’s Theory of Justice and Natural Justice

                                                                                Shah Mohommad Omer Faruqe Jubaer[1]

Abstract: The aim of this research paper is to clarify the concept and the doctrine of Natural Justice and its apparatus in the judicial, quasi-judicial, and regulatory frameworks is not new. It appears to be as matured as the framework of the dispensation of equity itself. It has by presently accepted the significance of being, so to say, "an essential inbuilt component" of the component, through which the decision-making process passes, within the things touching the rights and freedom of the individuals. It is no question, a procedural requirement but it guarantees a solid safeguard against any Legal or authoritative; arrange or action, antagonistically influencing the substantive rights of the people. 'Natural Justice' is an expression of English common law. This hypothesis has also been created with the significant help of a few logicians. Afterward, when the equitable circumstance has kept up there in various nations, such standards ought to be overseen to back this democracy. In this paper, I attempt to investigate the concept of characteristic Justice, the root of common.

Keywords: Theory of Justice, Natural Justice, Concept of Natural Justice, Development of the principles of Natural Justice, Principles of Natural Justice.

 

Introduction: In English law, natural justice is specialized phrasing for the rule against inclination (nemo iudex in causa sua) and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem). Whereas the term characteristic of justice is frequently held as a common concept, it has generally been supplanted and expanded by the common “duty to act fairly”. Natural equity could be a lawful logic utilized in a few purviews within the assurance of fair, or reasonable, forms in legitimate procedures. The concept is exceptionally closely related to the guideline of natural law which has been connected as a philosophical and commonsense guideline within the law in a few common law purviews. Common equity in pith seems fair to be alluded to as ‘Procedural Fairness’, with a reason of guaranteeing that decision-making is reasonable and sensible. Common equity must support departmental decision-making as those choices influence the interface of people or corporations.

Agreeing to Roman law certain essential lawful standards are required by nature, or are so self-evident that they ought to be connected generally without requiring to be ordered into law by a legislator. The rules or standards of natural justice are now frequently connected by the courts in both common law and Roman law wards.[2] Natural justice works on the standards that man is essentially great, that an individual of great aim ought to not be hurt, and one ought to treat others as one would like to be treated. Natural equity incorporates the idea of procedural decency and may consolidate the taking after guidelines: A person blamed of wrongdoing, or at the hazard of a few shapes of misfortune, ought to be given satisfactory take note approximately the procedures (counting any charges). An individual making a choice ought to pronounce any individual intrigued they may have within the proceedings. An individual who makes a choice ought to be impartial and act in great confidence. He hence cannot be one of the parties within the case or have an interest in an outcome.

 

Historical backdrop of Justice:

Within the antiquated time, all powers of a state counting official, administrative and legal power were kept up by the king. Hence, the advancement within all circles of these powers was just within the hand of the ruler. The state was fed by the caution of the lord. So, the king’s personality, cleverness, insights, thoughtfulness, and brainpower were played an exceptionally important role in expanding the estimate and administration of the state. In that case, the bolster of the common people was too fundamental to hold that kind of enormous State for a ruler. In case the ruler seems not to hold any kind of cleverness, insights, thoughtfulness, brainpower, and identity, the individual's support was not there. Subsequently, the lord was bound to change or make the code of law to maintain peace as well as consistency of the State. Additionally, the awesome Babylonian lord Hammurabi too composed with respect to the commitments of officials that, - “a judge who comes to an erroneous choice is to be fined and evacuated from the seat permanently.” So, without a doubt, it can be said that the standards of normal equity are not a modern concept. Other than that, we are able moreover say that it is additionally not a concept that has been made by human creatures. It is that kind of concept which has been determined from our center ethical heart. Afterward, the concept was more outfitted by Aristotle. He sensibly told almost the application of common equity. In spite of the fact that he never talked against the ruler arrangement of a lord, yet he needed to change the mode of equity at that time with the consideration of the political logic. In that case, Aristotle‟s works, “Nicomachean Ethics” and “The Politics” illustrate the near connect between legitimate and political philosophy. In “Nicomachean Ethics”, Aristotle contended that law underpins a high-minded presence, advances the lives of people, and advances the „perfect community‟. He proposed individuals should employ practical intelligence or dynamic reason in arrange to act in a way that's steady with a virtuous presence. Aristotle characterized equity as a state of intellect that empowers a man to perform just actions. In “The Politics”, Aristotle proposed the law ought to work to advance the „perfect community‟. For Aristotle, the perfect political substance was a polis or city-state ruled by a balance of tyranny and popular government, a combination that makes the foremost steady state. Aristotle too recommended individuals are „political animals‟ and are normally suited for life in a city-state. So, to advance them, a reasonable method is fundamental within the legal system.

 

Aristotle’s Theory of Justice!

Concurring to Aristotle, law propelled by reason is a natural law and at whatever point the general preposition of lawful law is found to work hard to a specific case, the value must be applied to moderate and amend the brutality. It’s the normal law that gives the outline work of principles and it is cleared out to the lawful law to supply substance and blood to the legal system.

The complete Greek political thought spins around the important concept of justice. Typically an abstract concept and is troublesome to characterize it in settled terms because it is seen in an unexpected way by diverse scholars. But for Aristotle, equity is of two sorts, viz., all-inclusive equity and specific equity. The previous alludes to compliance to laws that one ought to be high-minded. As distant as specific equity is concerned,[3] it is once more of two sorts, viz., distributive equity and therapeutic or remedial equity. Distributive equity infers that the state ought to partition or disseminate merchandise and riches among citizens agreeing to the justified.

Distributive Justice:

Aristotle was of the conclusion that this frame of justice is the foremost effective law to avoid any transformation, as this equity accepts in the appropriate and proportionate allocation of workplaces, respects, merchandise, and administrations as per their prerequisite being a citizen of the state. This equity is for the most part concerned with political benefits.[4] Aristotle supported that every political organization must have it’s possess distributive equity.[5] He, be that as it may, rejected law based as well as oligarchic criteria of equity and allowed the assignment of workplaces to the highminded as it was owing to their most elevated commitments to the society since the highminded individuals are few. Aristotle accepted that most of the workplaces ought to be distributed to those few only.

Corrective Justice:

All laws related to commercial transactions are managed inside the therapeutic and remedial activities. It points to reestablish what a person had misplaced due to the treachery of society. This equity avoids infringements of one right over the other. Aristotle opined that remedial justice relates to intentional and commercial exercises such as contract, deal, and outfitting security. These activities include hostility on life, property, honor, and flexibility. In brief, this equity points at ideals and ethical brilliance of character and it is for this reason, it is called remedial justice.

Basic concept of the Natural Justice: Many writers, jurists, Lawyers tried to define natural justice. In the of case John vs. Rees (1969) Ch. D here Justice Megarry said, "It is Justice that is simple and elementary, as distinct from justice that is complex, sophisticated and technical." So, According to Megarry there are two types of justice-

1) Complex, sophisticated and technical justice Causes, circumstances, interest, which possesses the interest or r allotment the interest,[6] fact of the dispute these are the subject matter of right, complex, sophisticated and technical justice.

 (2) Simple and elementary justice Notice to plaintiff and defendant, hearing, Represent by advocate etc are the subject matter of simple and elementary justice. According to Megarry, "simple and elementary justice is the natural justice. If provision of natural justice is absent in Act or statute though the authority will follow it.[7]

According Prof. Wade, natural means the name given to contain fundamental rules which are so necessary to the proper exercise of Poe that they are projected from the judicial to the administrative sphere! Although there is no specific statute containing the principles of natural justice,[8] the Supreme Court of Bangladesh observed in the case of Abdul Latif Mirza v., Govt of Bangladesh' that it is now well recognized that the principle of natural justice is a part of the law of the country. It is well. Established that even where there is no specific Act, statute, custom, judicial to follow it.

In Byrne vs. Cinematograph Renters Society Ltd. (1958) E R, case Lord Harman enunciates, 'The requirements of natural justice in a case- Firstly, I think that the person accused should know the nature of the accusation made,[9] Secondly, he should be given an opportunity to state his case, Thirdly, of course, the tribunal should act in good faith. I do not think that there really is anything more. Here Lord Harman has mentioned three things- Person accused should know the nature of the accusation.

 (i) What is the charge against him? What is the allegation against me? Accused has right to get the notice about the charge. He should be given an opportunity to state his case. Accused

(ii) Has right to defend himself. It is the right of hearing. He must be given opportunity to say his case. He has right to defend him by advocate.

(iii) The tribunal should act in good faith. The Authority should de their works property without any bias. Natural justice and Fundament rights There is very much consistency and relationship between natural justice and human rights.

Natural justice or human rights, which are guaranteed by the Constitution, are called fundamental rights. Constitution ensures fundamental rights. Flooding, clothing is human rights but these are not guaranteed by the constitution so these are not fundamental rights. Case: Abbot v. Sulivan In this case Lord Everstad said- about natural justice- they are better known than described and easier proclaimed than defined: It is easy to know natural justice but difficult to describe it. We cannot define it. It is very easy to proclaim it but very difficult to describe it.[10] Natural justice has meant many things to many writers, lawyers and systems of law. It has many colors and shades.

 It is also known as- i) Substantial justice; ii) Fundamental justice; iii) Universal justice; IV) Fair play in action.

Principle Maxims Relating to the Principle of Natural Justice:  The main principles of natural justice are based on these two legal maxims:

1. Nemo judex in causa sua – It means no one shall be a judge in his own case.

2. Audi alteram partem – It means both the parties/sides must be heard. No man should be condemned unheard.

Explanation of Principle maxim Number-1:

Bias means an operative prejudice, whether conscious or unconscious in relation to a party or issue. Such operative prejudice may be the result of a preconceived opinion or a predisposition. Therefore, the rule against bias strikes against those factors which may improperly influence a judge in arriving at a decision in a particular case. The requirement of this principle is that the judge must be impartial and must decide the case objectively on the basis of the evidence on record.[11] A person cannot take an objective decision in a case in which he has an interest, for, as human psychology tells us very rarely can people take decisions against their own interests. Therefore, the maxim that a person cannot be a judge in his own cause.[12]Moreover, “Justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”. The minimal requirement of natural justice is that the authority must not be biased.

Bias manifests itself variously and may affect decisions in a variety of ways:

(1) Personal Bias- Personal bias arises from a certain relationship equation between the deciding authorities and the parties which incline him unfavorably or otherwise on the side of one of the parties before him.

 

In order to challenge administrative action successfully on the ground of personal bias, it is essential to prove that there is a reasonable suspicion of bias or a real likelihood of bias. In this area of bias the real question is not whether a person was biased. It is difficult to prove the state of mind of a person. Therefore, what the courts see is whether there is reasonable ground for believing the question of bias judges have to take into consideration the human possibilities and the ordinary course of human conduct. But there must be a real likelihood of bias rather than just a probability of bias.[13] The apprehension must be judges from a reasonable, healthy and competent point of view.

(2) Pecuniary Bias- Judicial approach is unanimous and decisive on the point that any financial interest, howsoever small it may be, would vitiate administrative action. The disqualification will not be avoided by non-participation of the biased member in the proceedings if he was present when the decision was reached.

(3) Subject matter Bias- Those cases fall within this category where the deciding officer is directly, or otherwise, involved in the subject matter of the case. Here again mere involvement would not vitiate the administrative action unless there is a real likelihood of bias.

(4) Departmental Bias- The problem of departmental bias is something which is inherent in the administrative process and if it is not effectively checked, it may negate the very concept of fairness in the administrative proceeding.

(5) Preconceived notion Bias- Bias arising out of perceived notions is a very delicate problem of administrative law. On the one hand, no judge as a human being is expected to sit as a blank sheet of paper, on the other, preconceived notions would vitiate a fair trial. In Stevenage case the appellant challenged the stevenage new town designation order, 1946 on the ground that no fair hearing was given because the minister had entertained bias in his determination. Though the court did not accept the challenge on the technical grounds that the minister confirming the report was not any quasi-judicial function,[14] but the problem still remains that the bias arising from strong convictions as to policy may operate as a more serious threat to fair action than any other single factor.

Explanation of the Principle Maxim Number: 2

One of the objectives of giving a hearing in application of the principles of natural justice is to see that an illegal action or decision does not take place. The principle of audi altarem partem is the basic principle of natural justice. The omni potency inherent in the doctrine is that no one should be condemned unheard. In the field of administrative action, this principle has been applied to ensure fair play and justice to affected persons. The expression audi altarem partem simply implies that a person must be given an opportunity to defend himself. This principle is sine qua non of civilized society. Administrative difficulty in giving notice and hearing to a person cannot provide any justification for depriving the person of an opportunity of being heard.[15] The whole course of decisions beginning with Dr Bentley’s Case in which the Court of King’s Bench held that the university of Cambridge could not cancel the degree of a great but rebellious scholar without giving him an opportunity to defend himself, firmly establishes that although there may not be a statutory requirement that both parties shall be heard, yet the justice of common law will supplant the omission of the legislature.

Administrative agencies in India are not bound by the technical rules procedure of law courts; this accentuates the need to follow the minimum procedure of fair hearing.

Law is clear on the point that in cases classified as “quasi-judicial” there is a “duty to act judicially” i.e. to follow the principles of natural justice in, nut in cases which are classified as “administrative” there is only a “duty to act fairly” which simply means that the administrative authority must act justly and fairly and not arbitrarily or capriciously. Yet observed:

“The only essential point that has to be kept in mind in all cases…that the administrative authority concerned should act fairly, impartially and reasonably.”

The basic purpose behind developing the fairness doctrine within the area of ‘administrative or executive’ functions of the administration where principles of natural justice are not attracted is to reconcile “fairness to the individual” with the “flexibility of the administrative action”. It is an attempt of over-judicialization of administrative process. Therefore, where an administrative authority is not exercising quasi-judicial powers and as such there is no duty to act judicially because the principles of natural justice are not attracted in such cases,[16] Court may still insist on a “duty to act fairly”. As both doctrines operate in different areas of administrative action, so there is no chance of any conflict.

The right to fair hearing is a code of procedure and hence covers every stage through which an administrative adjudication passes,[17] starting from notice to final determination. Detailed requirement of audi alteram partem range is a continuum from notice to the final determination.

(1) Right to Notice- Notice means knowledge of circumstances that ought to induce suspicion or belief, as well as direct information of that fact. Generally a notice in order to be adequate must contain the following: (a) Time, Place and nature of hearing.

                   (b) Legal authority under which hearing is to be held.

                    (c) Statement of specific charges which the person has to meet.

Consequences of non-issue of notice: It has no effect on the jurisdiction of the authority. If prejudice has been cause by non-issue of notice then it would vitiate the entire proceeding. However, if the party itself is responsible for non-delivery of notice to it then there would be no effect on the overall proceedings.

Right to know the evidence against him and rebut it- Every Peron has a right to inspect the evidence against himself as and when a case is filed against him. Thus, nothing can be used against a person which has not been brought to his notice. Right to present case and evidence- The party shall be allowed to present his case either orally or in writing at the discretion of the authority. Oral hearing is not a requisite.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exclusion of Principles of Natural Justice

1. Where a statute or act expressly excludes or a particular provision of it excludes the applicability of the rule. Like there may be some sections that allow decisions to be made ex-parte and both parties are not heard.[18]

2. Where the action is legislative in nature. That is, the legislature itself denies for applicability of the rule in the act.

3. Where doctrine of necessity applies. If a decision is to be made urgently on a shorter notice, then the rule may be excluded.

4. Where facts are admitted or undisputed, then there is no need to call the party again for readmitting the admitted facts. The court can proceed further with admissions made.

5. Where an enquiry is confidential, then there can be ignorance of the principles of natural justice.

6. Where preventive action is to be taken. Like in the case of section 144 CrPC, where immediate action is required, and no reasonable or due time can be given to the other party.

7. Where urgent action is necessary for a government policy decision. Not all rules can be made after discussion. Some rules are commanding in nature.

 

Constitutional Exclusion:  The Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh provides that"

a) No Govt. servant shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed;[19]

b) No civil servant shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given an opportunity of showing cause. But he should not be given an opportunity of showing cause, when he is-

a) Accused and convicted for a criminal offence;

b) Opportunity of showing cause not partible;

c) Security of state so requires, President satisfied that opportunity of showing cause not expedient.[20]

 

 

Other Aspects of Natural Justice An important aspect of natural justice is that a decision maker must give reasons for their decision. This is done for the following reasons:

 

a) Reasons demonstrate transparency and accountability in decision

b) Transparency and accountability encourage greater community involvement, which is the aim of our school system. Making which are desirable traits in Crown entities.[21]

c) Giving reasons helps the decision maker identify the relevant considerations and give due weight to the evidence.

d) Reasons demonstrate to the parties that their arguments have been duly considered and understood. e) The reasoning can help shape future behavior.

f) If the decision is well reasoned, it is less likely to be appealed or if it is, the appellate authority will be able to understand the decision.

 

Conclusion: The concept and tenet of natural justice and its apparatus in the legal framework isn't new. Indeed, it is connected within the legal framework to induce a reasonable as well as fair continuing. Basically, justice is of two sorts, specifically, Legal Justice and Natural Justice. Lawful justice alludes to justice represented by the law of the state and Common Equity alludes to moral equity and is governed by the Laws of Value. But both don't contain diverse meanings. Both have a coextensive meaning as well as an application within the legal framework. The standards of natural justice essentially stand behind the contentions based on which the legal judgment is passed. So, in this sense, the application of the standards of the characteristic equity is as it was made to induce a fair as well as fair continuing in the legal system. On the other hand, equity done to one ought to not appear treachery to another. So the righteousness of the law is in maximizing the delight of the recipients with minimized pain to the others. Once more, in the opposite, the law cannot allow the wretchedness state of the intellect of any single one in case it is unfolded or happed to him due to any unworthy social as well as judicial order. In that case, natural justice incredibly makes a difference to illustrate this issue with a significant introduction of the due handle within the legitimate continuing. It says that on the off chance that the legitimate continuing is occurred as per the rules of the due handle, the judgment evaded from such continuing might be considered as reasonable and fair for all to maintain the rights and freedoms. Hence, this concept reflects a near association between the legitimate framework and the ethical standards. Consequently, presently it can be told that this ethical equity (i.e., the normal equity and its standards) is basically considered as the spine of the legal handle. Here, the expressions common equity and lawful justice do not display as a watertight classification. It is the substance of equity which is to be secured by both, and at whatever point, legal justice comes up short to achieve this purpose, natural justice is called in aid of legal justice.

---

[1] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5230-2030 , http://shahjubaer.com/

[2] Agrawala, P., & Agrawal, P. (1964). Indian Judiciary and Natural Justice. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 25(3/4), 282-291.

[3] Corrado, D., & Solari, S. (2009). SOCIAL JUSTICE AND DIFFERENT VIEWS OF NATURAL LAW AMONG XIX CENTURY ECONOMISTS. Rivista Internazionale Di Scienze Sociali, 117(1), 3-21.

[4] Thibaut, J., Walker, L., LaTour, S., & Houlden, P. (1974). Procedural Justice as Fairness. Stanford Law Review, 26(6), 1271-1289.

[5] Kong, L. (1967). Rules of Natural Justice for All Administrative Action? Re H. K. (An Infant). Malaya Law Review, 9(2), 349-353.

[6] SAHRDC. (2011). Judiciary's Skewed Vision of Natural Justice. Economic and Political Weekly, 46(37), 25-27.

[7] Hogan, Gerard W. "Procedural Rights under Natural Justice." Irish Jurist (1966-), New Series, 14, no. 1 (1979): 106-09.

[8] Nair, H. (2011). Interpreting 'Natural Justice'. Economic and Political Weekly, 46(39), 4-5.

[9] Jackson, P. (1973). Unfair Dismissals and Natural Justice. The Modern Law Review, 36(4), 433-436.

[10] Eekelaar, J. (1967). Breach of Natural Justice: Void or Voidable? The Modern Law Review, 30(6), 701-705.

[11] Hepple, B. (1970). The Ambit of Natural Justice. The Cambridge Law Journal, 28(2), 185-189.

[12] Weinberger, O. (1994). Natural Constituents of Justice. Law and Philosophy, 13(1), 1-25.

[13] Kliemt, H. (2001). Natural Justice and Political Stability: Comment. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE) / Zeitschrift Für Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 157(1), 155-161.

[14] Riggs, R. (1988). Legitimate Expectation and Procedural Fairness in English Law. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 36(3), 395-436.

[15] Loughlin, M. (1978). Procedural Fairness: A Study of the Crisis in Administrative Law Theory. The University of Toronto Law Journal, 28(2), 215-241.

[16] Brett, P. (1964). THE REBIRTH OF NATURAL JUSTICE. Malaya Law Review, 6(1), 100-129.

[17] De Smith, S. (1970). Natural Justice and Preliminary Inquiries. The Cambridge Law Journal, 28(1), 19-21.

[18] Chauhan, V. (1995). REASONED DECISION : A PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 37(1), 92-104.

[19] McFadden, J., & McFadzean, D. (2006). NATURAL JUSTICE. In Scottish Administrative Law Essentials (pp. 65-76). Edinburgh University Press.

[20] Harding, A. (1981). NATURAL JUSTICE AND THE CONSTITUTION. Malaya Law Review, 23(2), 226-236.

[21] BLANK, A. (2006). Leibniz and the Presumption of Justice. Studia Leibnitiana, 38/39(2), 209-218.