Audi Alteram Partem

AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM
The maxim Audi Alteram Partem means “hear the other

side” or “both the sides should be heard before passing
any order”. This principle is the basic concept of the
natural justice principle. In India, the principles of
natural justice are the grounds of Article 14 and 21 of
the Indian constitution. In the judgement of
MANEKA GANDHI v. THE UNION OF
INDIA , it has been held that the law and procedure
must be fair, just and reasonable kind. The aim of this
principle is to ensure a fair hearing and fair justice to
both the parties. Under this doctrine, both the parties
have the right to speak.
The person against whom an action is proposed to

be taken should be given a reasonable opportunity of
being heard must be given to him. This maxim includes
two elements.
 Notice
 Hearing
 Speaking order
NOTICE
The first ingredient of the maxim is notice, that is
before any action is taken ,against the affected party
must be given a notice to show cause against the
proposed action and seek his explanation.Any order
passed without giving notice is against the principles of
natural justice and is void ab initio.Before taking any
action, it is the right of the person to know the facts.A
notice must contain the time, place, and date of hearing,
jurisdiction under with the case is filed, the charges and
proposed action against the person. It should be clear
and unambiguous.
V. KUMARAN ERADY v. GENERAL MANAGER
It was held that disconnection of a telephone
without any valid notice to the subscriber was violative
of the principles of natural justice.
KESHAV MILLS Co. Ltd. v. UNION OF INDIA
The notice should be clear and unambiguous.If it is
ambiguous, it will not be treated as resonable and
proper notice.
HEARING
The second most essential element of this doctrine is
fair hearing.If the order passed by the authority without
hearing the party or without giving him an opportunity
of being heard then it will be considered as an invalid.
FATEH SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
In this case court held that, it is the duty of the
authority to ensure that affected parties should get
chance of written or oral hearing.
The following are some of the principle of opportunity
of hearing. They are;
 EVIDENCE
As per this maxim every party has the right shall
have the right to present the evidence before the
adjudicating authority to support his case. The
adjudicating authority who wants to utilise an evidence
against a person should disclose it to the person against
whom it is to be utilised and give him an opportunity to
rebut the same.
STAFFORD v. MINISTER OF HEALTH
In this case, it was held that no evidence should be
received in the absence of the other party and if any
such evidence is recorded then it is the duty of authority
to make it available to the other party.
 CROSS-EXAMINATION
The adjudicating authority in a fair hearing is not
only required to disclose the person concerned to the
evidence to be taken against him, but he should also
provided an opportunity to rebut the evidence. The
right to cross -examination of the witnesses depend
upon the facts and circumstances of each case and
statutory provisions.
KANUNGO & Co. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
In this case, the business property of an individual
was searched and some watches were seized by police
under the SEA CUSTOMS ACT. The person who provided
the information was not allowed for cross-examination.
But here the principle of natural justice was not violated
in the case of goods seized under the sea customs Act.
 LEGAL REPRESENTATION
In a fair hearing, representation through a lawyer is
not considered to be mandatory. But in some cases, if
legal representation is not allowed then it will amount
to infringement of the rule of natural justice.
KRISHNA CHANDRA v. UNION OF INDIA
In this case, the party was denied legal
representation and amounted to the violation of natural
justice as the party was not able to understand the
question of law.
SPEAKING ORDER
Speaking order means an order which contains reason
for the decision. The administrative authority exercising
quasi-judicial function should give a reasoned decision
or speaking order.
Giving reason in support of an order is
considered to be a a third principle of natural justice. A
party to the dispute has a right to know the result of the
inquiry and the reasons in support of the decision. It is a
safeguard against possible injustice and arbitrary
exercise of powers by quasi-judicial authority.
EXEMPTIONS
1. Statutory exclusion
In this case omission of the right of hearing will
not amount to the violation of natural justice. Because
here a statute can omit the rule of natural justice
explicitly or implicitly but the omission should be
justifiable.
2.Legislative function
The rule of natural justice is not applicable to
legislative actions because these policies under the rule
are not subjected to a particular individual.The
application of natural justice is excluded from article22,
31(A),(B),(C) and 311(2) of the Indian constitution.
3.Impracticability
In certain cases it is impracticable to follow the rule
of natural justice.
4.Academic evaluation
If the power of authority is completely
administrative then the rule of natural justice can be
excluded.
5.Interdisciplinary action
No rule of natural justice is applicable in any
situations of interdisciplinary actions like suspension.

Audi Alteram Partem

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Audi Alteram Partem

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Audi Alteram Partem

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM

The maxim Audi Alteram Partem means “hear the other

The person against whom an action is proposed to

You might also like