Blog Details

Lawyered provides comprehensive information about the Latin legal term audi alteram partem. Our resources include case law analysis, explanations of the audi alterem partem rule in administrative law.

Audi Alteram Partem | Essentials of Audi Alteram Partem | Exceptions

What is "Audi alteram partem"?

This adage means "hear the other side," or that no man should go unheard and that both sides have a chance to be heard. Both parties will receive justice. The Latin "audiatur et altera pars" is the source of the phrase "audi alteram partem." Its meaning is identical to that which is heard on the opposing side. No one will be judged without a fair hearing under this strict rule. This dictum's goal is to provide the opposing party a chance to respond to the facts brought against him.

Lawyered provides comprehensive information about the Latin legal term audi alteram partem. Our resources include case law analysis, explanations of the audi alterem partem  in administrative law.

 Evolution

Natural justice has changed as society has progressed. Natural justice is a common law principle that calls for fairness, reason, equality, and equity. The constitutional provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of India are based on the concept of natural justice. The idea that everyone should be treated equally is enshrined in Article 14. In its decision in Maneka Gandhi v. The Union of India, according to established precedent, laws and procedures must be fair, just, and reasonable in nature. When no one is harmed in any administrative action, the natural justice principle is in effect. The foundational idea behind natural justice is the Audi Alteram Partemis premise. According to this philosophy, no one should be condemned without a hearing. This guarantees that both sides receive a fair trial and just punishment. Both sides have the option to speak under this doctrine. A conclusion cannot be made without hearing both sides. This approach is to provide both parties a chance to present their defence.

There are two natural justice principles

The main natural justice principles are two. These are the two principles:

"Nemo judex in causa sua," it says. No one should be allowed to assess their own case, and bias is strictly forbidden.

To hear the other side, or that no one should be convicted without being heard, is to "audi alteram partem."

Important components

The following are the key components of this audi alteram partem rule:

Notice

The first component of audi alteram partem rule is issuance of notice, prior to taking any legal action against the impacted party. To submit a defence against the suggested action and pursue his application, a notification must be given to them. Any order that is passed without notice violates the natural justice principle and is void ab initio, which implies that it is void from the start.

Hearing

Fair hearing is the second most important component of audi alteram partem rule. The authority's decision will be deemed illegitimate if it was made without consulting the party or providing him a chance to be heard.

Few landmark audi alteram partem case laws are- Fateh Singh v. State of Rajasthan; Ajay Kumar v. National Co-operative Bank; and Harbans Lal v. Commissioner.

It was decided in this instance that receiving a fair hearing or a reasonable opportunity to be heard is a necessary component of the audi alteram partem rule. Unless the statute under which action is taken by the authority specifies otherwise, this criterion is accompanied by the authority's granting a written or oral hearing, at the authority's discretion. It is the responsibility of the person in charge to decide whether or not to give affected parties a chance for an oral or personal hearing.

Evidence

When all parties are present and the evidence is submitted before the court, it is regarded as one of the most crucial parts because the judicial or quasi-judicial authority will then decide how to proceed based on the evidence.

Stafford v. Minister of Health is a very important audi alteram partem case law.

According to the ruling of this landmark audi alteram partem case law, no evidence shall be accepted in the other party's absence, and if any such evidence is recorded, the appropriate authority is required to make it available to the other party.

Audi Alteram Partem in Administrative Law

The principle of audi alteram partem in administrative law requires that before an administrative decision is made that affects a person's rights, interests, or legitimate expectations, that person must be given an opportunity to be heard. This means that the person must be given notice of the decision and the reasons for it, and they must be allowed to present their case and respond to any evidence or arguments that are presented against them.

Exceptions for Audi Alteram Partem Rule

The term "exception" is actually a misnomer in the context of natural justice, but in the exclusionary cases listed below, audi alteram partem rule is held to be inapplicable not as an exception to "fair play in action," but rather because there is no unfairness to be inferred from denying the opportunity to present or meet a case. But in every civilised culture, such instances where nothing wrong can be inferred by not providing a fair hearing must be rare and extraordinary. Natural justice principles are ultimately weighed against other fairness considerations, so the courts have been cautious about applying these principles in circumstances when doing so might result in more injustice than justice.

A party could lose its right to an audience, for instance, if an unfair advantage is being used to safeguard the proceedings and defeat its goals. These are the few exceptions to this rule, as evolved through the landmark audi alteram partem case laws:

Legislative Exclusion:

Natural justice is presumed by the courts when the parent statute under which an action is being taken by the administration is silent as to how it should be applied. If the right to a hearing is not included in the legislative provision, the affected individual is not automatically denied a hearing. A law may explicitly forbid natural justice or may imply that it does not apply. However, as Art. 14 allows for challenges to such statutes, they must be justified.

Legislative Purpose:

The fact that the in-question administrative action is legislative and not administrative in nature is one reason why a hearing may be excluded. Ordinarily, a general command that doesn't apply to a single or small group of people is considered to be legislative in character.

The principles of natural justice do not apply to legislative action, whether it be plenary or subordinate, as it establishes a policy without regard to a specific person. By the same reasoning, a constitutional provision may also exclude the principles of natural justice. The principles of natural justice are expressly disallowed by the Indian Constitution in Art. 22, 31(A), (B), (C), and 311(2). However, courts may strike down such a provision in accordance with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution if the legislative exclusion is arbitrary, irrational, or unfair.

Emergency:

In India, it is commonly accepted that hearings should only be held in circumstances of great urgency where doing otherwise could compromise the interests of the general public. Natural justice would not need a hearing before condemnation, and the requirement of notice and hearing may be waived in extraordinary emergency situations where immediate preventive or remedial action is required. As a result, if the opportunity to be heard would stymie the process, it would be prohibited by law.

Confidentiality:

When maintaining anonymity is required and expected, natural justice may also be excluded.

The Supreme Court ruled in Malak Singh v. State of P&H, which is a landmark audi alteram partem case law, that the surveillance register kept by the police is a confidential record that neither the individual whose name is on the register nor any other member of the public can access. Furthermore, the Court noted that following natural justice principles in such a circumstance might negate the whole purpose of monitoring and that there is a strong likelihood that the goals of justice will be frustrated rather than fulfilled.

Impractibility:

When it is possible to do so, natural justice can be observed and applied. Nevertheless, in circumstances where it is impossible to do so, natural justice can be disregarded.

Academic assessment:

No right to a hearing may be asserted if the authority is exclusively administrative in nature.  In another landmark audi alteram partem case law, Jawaharlal Nehru University v. B.S. Narwal,- B.S. Narwal, a JNU student, was dismissed from the rolls for subpar academic performance, without being given a pre-decisional hearing. The Supreme Court ruled that academic adjudication appears to negate any right to a hearing by its very nature. Therefore, the principles of natural justice may be disregarded if the appropriate academic authorities review and evaluate a student's work over time and find it to be inadequate.