- Meaning:
The precise meaning of Audi Alteram Partem is to ‘Listen to the other side or Let the other side be heard as well.’ Put in another way, it indicates that every party shall get a chance of hearing and no one shall go unheard in a case. The maxim Audi Alteram Partem is extracted from the Latin phrase “audiatur et altera pars” which means that every party shall be heard. This maxim is one of the constitutional rules of administrative law that ensures justice to both parties. As per this maxim, every party shall get a chance to plead and assert evidence to reinforce his case.
- Essential Elements
There are some essential ingredients of this maxim which are as follows:
- Notice
- Hearing
- Evidence
- Cross-examination
- Legal Representation
- Notice
The term “Notice” is an extract from the Latin word “Notitita” which means being known to thing. Notice is the primary stage of a trial and it is set out to the opposing party to make him aware of the facts and the case before the trial itself. This notice helps the other party to arrange his defense in considering the stated facts. It is an integral element of the whole judicial proceedings and if any order is passed without the allotment of the notice, then the order will void ab initio.No decisions can be made during judgment without providing notice to the parties indicating the relevant information:
- Date of hearing
- Time of hearing
- Place of hearing
- Charges against the person
- Jurisdiction under the case is filed
- Case laws:
- Punjab National Bank v. All India Bank Employees Federation
In this case, the notice comprises the charges against the individual but lacked the facts regarding the penalty imposed. So the court proposed the notice to be inappropriate. Therefore the order passed is held to be invalid.
- Hearing
The second most crucial element of Audi alteram partem is a fair hearing. If the order is passed by the officials without hearing the party or without awarding him a chance of being heard then it will be considered invalid.
- Case laws
- Harbans Lal v Commissioner, National Co-operative Bank v. Ajay Kumar and Fateh Singh v State of Rajasthan
In this case, it was held that if a person gets a reasonable chance of being heard or a fair hearing it is a vital ingredient of the principle of Audi alteram partem. This situation is accompanied by the official providing a written or oral hearing which is the judgment of the officials unless the statute under which action is taken by the officials provides otherwise. Officials have to ensure that affected parties should get a chance for an oral or personal hearing or not.
- Evidence
It is a silent aspect of judgment. It is processed before the court during the existence of the parties and the decisions are made by the representative of the judiciary or quasi-judicial officials.
- Case laws
- Stafford v. Minister of Health
In this case, it is held that no evidence should be processed without the existence of both parties. If any such evidence is caused, the officials make certain that the same is made accessible for both parties.
- Cross-Examination:
The court, through a fair hearing, may not be able to reveal the person’s distress or the material is taken against him but should allow him to disapprove the evidence. The vital question raised before the arbitrate officials is whether the witness should be cross-examined or not.
- Case law
- Kanungo& co. V. collector of customs:
In this case, the business property of an individual was searched and some watches were clutch by police under the sea customs act. The person who provided the details wasn’t permitting cross-examination. But here, the fundamental of natural justice isn’t infringed in the case of goods clutch under the sea customs act. Because natural justice doesn’t permit the concerned person to cross-examine the witness.
- Legal representation:
In a fair hearing, portrayal through a lawyer is not considered to be mandatory. But in some cases, if legal officers are not permitted then it will amount to a breach of the rule of natural justice.
- Case laws:
- Krishna Chandra .V. Union of India:
In this case, the party was contradicting legal representation and amounted to an infringement of the law of natural justice as the party wasn’t able to acknowledge the question of law effectually.
- Exceptions
The cases where deviation provided to the rule of natural justice are rare. But there are few situations where no unfair means can be concluded and the chance of a fair hearing can be prohibited. Such circumstances are:
- Statutory Exclusions:
In this case, exclusion of the right to a hearing will not amount to an infringement of the rule of natural justice. Because here a representation can exclude the rule of natural justice expressed or unexpressed but such a representation might get questioned under Article 14. So, the exclusion should be justifiable.
- Case law:
Charan Lal Sahu vs. union of India:
The case is commonly known as the Bhopal gas tragedy. In this case, the central government was assigned as a representative of victims of the tragedy concerning the matter of compensation under the Bhopal gas disaster (processing of claims) Act, 1985. But later, the fundamental validity of the act was questioned by the victims by stating that the 22% of share at union carbide company was confined by the central government and it will amount the government to be the joint tortfeasor. Thus eliminating the central government to be the representative of the victims.
The Supreme Court confined that even though the statement is true, no other supreme body can be a representative of the victims. The doctrine of necessity is enforced here.
- Impracticability:
The rule of natural justice can succeed when it is practical to trace it but in certain cases where it is impracticable to track the rule of natural justice then it can be eliminated.
- Academic Evolution
Where the creation of power is regulatory then no entitlement of hearing can be asserted.
- Case
- Jawaharlal Nehru University v. B.S. Narwal, B.S Narwal,
In this case, a student of Jawaharlal Nehru University was dismissed from the class because his academic performance was not adequate and it was done without being given any pre-decisional hearing. The Supreme Court confines that the idea of scholastic judgment seems to be negative. In this way, if skilled academic experts look at work molded by a student over a while and declare his work inappropriate, the essence of natural justice might be declined.
- Interdisciplinary Action:
No rule of natural justice is relevant in any situations of interdisciplinary actions like suspension.
- Case
- S.A. Khan vs. the State of Haryana:
Mr. Khan was suspended from the post of deputy inspector general, Haryana due to a different cause. He filed a suit at Supreme Court by stating that he was not as long with the right to a fair hearing.
But the court hold on to that in case of any interdisciplinary action there is no requirement of a hearing.
- Conclusion
The maxim Audi Alteram Partem is extracted from the Latin phrase “audiatur et altera pars” which means that every party shall be heard. This maxim is one of the constitutional rules of administrative law that ensures justice to both parties. Notice is the primary stage of a trial and it is set out to the opposing party to make him aware of the facts and the case before the trial itself. The real essence of the maxim is that every individual is equal in the eyes of law and everyone has the right to speak and to be heard before passing any orders on them. So, we can conclude that the real core of the phrase is equity, fairness, and reasonability.
- References
- https://lawcorner.in/audi-alteram-partem-meaning-elements-and-exemptions/
- https://blog.ipleaders.in/audi-alteram-partem/
