The principles of natural justice have been adopted and followed by the judiciary in order to protect public rights against arbitrary decision by the administrative authority. It`s easy to see that the rule of natural justice includes the concept of fairness: you stay alive and support to protect fair practices. Natural justice is an art term that refers to specific procedural rights in the English legal system and other nations` systems based on it. It is similar to the American concepts of due process and due process, the latter having roots that correspond to some extent to the origins of natural justice.  The principle of natural justice is not limited to limited walls and the applicability of the principle, but depends on the characteristics of jurisdiction, the granting of administrative power and the nature of human rights. The principles of natural justice should be free from bias, the parties should have a fair chance to be heard, and all reasons and decisions of the court should be communicated by the court to the respective parties. The principle of natural justice is a very old concept and originated at a young age. The Greeks and Romans were also familiar with this concept. In Kautilya`s time, Arthashastra and Adam recognized the concept of natural justice. According to the Bible, in the case of Eve and Adam, when they ate the fruit of knowledge, they were forbidden by God. Before the verdict, Eve had a fair chance to defend herself, and the same procedure was followed in Adam`s case. Nor is it the duty of a court to provide assistance if a party presents its case without legal representation. In Rajeevan Edakalavan v.
Prosecutor (1998), the accused appeared in person before a magistrate 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. The Court stated: 19 Natural justice allows a person to assert his or her right to adequate notice of the date, time and place of the trial and detailed notice of the matter to be satisfied.  This information gives the individual sufficient time to effectively prepare his or her own case and respond to the complaint against him. In Cooper v. Wandsworth, Chief Justice William Erle went so far as to state that Cooper`s failure to give notice and hear could be described as a form of abuse, since he had been treated as if he had played no role.  As Lord Mustill stated in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p Doody (1993): “Since the person concerned cannot usually make valid submissions without knowing what factors may weigh against his or her interests, fairness will very often require that he or she be informed of the substance of the matter to be answered.”  : 582 It has also been suggested that if a lawsuit concerns the reputation or livelihood of the individual, it is more necessary to allow for legal representation, as this confirms the idea of equality before the law.
 Natural justice is simply making a reasonable decision on a particular issue. Sometimes it doesn`t matter what the reasonable decision is, but at the end of the day, it`s the procedure that counts and who is involved in making the reasonable decision. It is not limited to the concept of “fairness”, it has different colors and shades that vary depending on the context. Right of legal representative – In the application process, each party has the right to have a legal representative. Each part is presented by the person trained in law and no one can deny it (A.K.Roy). Similarly, the department has the same right to direct its official, although there are investigators who conduct a decisive case (sanghi textile processor versus commissioner). There are two main rules. The first is the rule against bias, that is, against deviation from the standard of impartial justice required of those who exercise judicial functions – nemo judex in causa sua (or in propria causa): no one can be a judge in his own case. This means that any decision, however just it may seem, is invalid if it is taken by a person who has a financial or other interest in the outcome or a known bias that may have affected his impartiality (R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex p Pinochet Ugarte [No 2]  2 WLR 272 (HL); Porter v. Magill  UKHL 67,  2 AC 357; Davidson v.
Scottish Ministers  UKHL 34,  SC 7). The second rule is known as audi alteram partem: listen to the other side. It clarifies that a decision can only be upheld if the person directly concerned by it has had a fair opportunity both to present his case and to know and respond to the opposing party`s case (R v Chief Constable of North Wales Police , ex p Evans  1 WLR 1155 (HL); R v Army Board of the Defence Council, ex p Anderson  QB 169; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Doody  1 AC 531 (HL). The rules of natural justice provide a minimum standard of procedural fairness, and the exact requirements vary depending on the context. There are cases where a disqualified arbitrator cannot be replaced because no one else has the right to act. It was stated that “the challenge of an arbitrator shall not be permitted to destroy the sole court empowered to act”.  In such cases, natural justice must give way to necessity in order to preserve the integrity of judicial and administrative systems.  “Natural justice is a sense of what is wrong and what is just.” At present, the principles of natural justice in the United Kingdom and some other jurisdictions do not contain a general rule that decisions must be reasoned.
  In R. v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Shaw (1951), Denning C.J. stated: “I believe that the minutes must contain at least the document initiating proceedings; any written pleading; and decision; But neither the evidence nor the motives, unless the court decides to include them. If the court gives its reasons and these reasons are legally wrong, certiorari lies to annul the decision. : 352 It has been stated that “no single factor has impeded the development of English administrative law as seriously as the absence of a general obligation on the authorities to give reasons for their decisions”.  In English law, natural justice is a technical terminology for the rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua) and the right to a fair trial (audi alteram partem). Although the concept of natural justice is often used as a general term, it has been largely replaced and expanded by the “duty to act fairly.” In CMPA medico-legal cases, which involve a physician being examined and disciplined by a hospital or health authority, the fairness of the procedure is often at stake. As a medical director, it is important to know your organization`s statutes, policies, and procedures for physician review and discipline. They can also play an important role in ensuring that laws, policies and procedures are sound and properly applied.1 The Supreme Court has stated that obtaining a reasonable and justified judgment is the goal of judicial and administrative bodies.
The primary purpose of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice. The rule of bias is based on the need to maintain public confidence in the legal system. Bias can take the form of actual bias, imputed bias, or apparent bias. Actual bias is very difficult to prove in practice, while presumed bias, once demonstrated, leads to the invalidity of a decision without the need to investigate the likelihood or suspicion of bias. Currently, two cases in different jurisdictions apply two tests of obvious bias: the “reasonable suspicion of bias” test and the “real likelihood of bias” test. One view that has been argued is that the differences between these two tests are largely semantic and work similarly. If a person refuses to be represented by counsel, a higher “standard” of natural justice cannot be expected.