This article has been written by Manpreet Kaur from Lovely Professional University, Phagwara

Introduction:

The concept of natural justice holds special importance in our judicial system from ancient times. It represents fairness, equality and reasonability in every administrative action that affects the right of an individual.

One of the core principles of natural justice is that every party to a suit gets an adequate opportunity of fair hearing to present his case and the judgement shall only be pronounced after that. The main objective of this principle in litigation is to meet the ends of justice. This principle is popularly known as the doctrine of “Audi Alteram Partem“. It has evolved through this maxim which means judgement which is given should be fair and reasonable. Equity and equality should be there.

In India, the principle of natural justice can be traced from Article 14 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Article 14 says about the equality before the law and Article 21 talks about the protection of life and personal liberty. Article 21 was defined in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. The Union of India.

Meaning:

The literal meaning of Audi Alteram Partem is to “hear the other side”. In other words, it denotes that every party shall get an opportunity of hearing and no one shall go unheard in a case. The maxim Audi Alteram Partem is derived from the Latin phrase “audiatur et altera pars” which means that every party shall be heard. This maxim is one of the fundamental rules of administrative law that ensures justice to both parties.

As per this maxim, every party shall get an opportunity to plead and assert evidence to support his case. This rule means is that both parties should be given a fair chance to present themselves with their relevant points and a fair trial should be conducted.

This is an important rule of natural justice and its pure form is not to penalize anyone without any valid and reasonable ground. No decision-making authority can decide any matter hearing only one side.

No decision can be taken exparte in the absence of the other party. Both parties must be judged with a fair hearing. The main purpose of this principle is to give both parties an equal opportunity of being heard with a just and fair hearing and they both must have equal opportunity to defend themselves in any hearing. Thus this principle forms the very base of the ‘fundamental justice and equity’

Essential Elements Of Audi Alteram Partem

The maxim includes two ingredients

1. Notice

2. Hearing

1. Notice:

Notice is the beginning of stage of any hearing. A notice must be given to the opposite party before taking any action against them to provide them an opportunity to defend themselves and present their contentions before the court of law. If any order is passed by any court without giving any notice to the other party, the order violates this principle and it will be treated as void. Before initiating a hearing, the other party must not be deprived of their right to know about the facts, causes, or charges against him/her under which the proposed actions are going to be taken.

The notice must contain:

1.The time, date, place of hearing,

2. Matter of facts

3. The charges against him/her, and

4. Also the jurisdiction under which the case is filed. If anything is found to be absent in any notice, it will not be treated as valid.

In the case of Kanda vs. Government of Malaya, the court held that notice must directly and clearly specify on the matter of bias, facts and circumstances against which needs to be taken. It’s one of the rights of the individual to defend himself so he should be familiar with the relevant matter so he may contradict the statement and safeguard himself.

The notice should be with regard to the charges framed against the accused person and proceeding to be held. He can only be punished on the charges which are mentioned in the notice, not for any other charges.

In the case of Punjab National Bank vs. All India Bank Employees Federation, the notice which was given to the party contain certain charges but it was not mentioned anywhere that penalty was imposed on the charges. Hence, the charges on which penalty was imposed were not served as a notice to the parties concerned. The notice was not proper and thus, the penalty which was imposed was invalid.

Maneka Gandhi vs. U.O.I, The case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that established the principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side) as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.This principle requires that no person can be deprived of their life or liberty except according to the procedure established by law.

The Court was considering a challenge to the Passports Act, 1967, which empowered the government to impound or cancel a passport without giving the passport holder a hearing.

It held that this was a violation of the audi alteram partem principle and that the passport holder must be given an opportunity to be heard before their passport is impounded or cancelled. In the context of the Maneka Gandhi case, the audi alteram partem principle is related to the notice requirement.

The the passport holder must be given notice of the government’s intention to impound or cancel their passport. This notice must be in writing and must specify the reasons for the government’s action. The passport holder must then be given an opportunity to respond to the notice and to present their case. Only after this process has been completed can the government decide whether or not to impound or cancel the passport.

The notice requirement is an essential part of the audi alteram partem principle. It ensures that the person concerned is aware of the government’s action and has an opportunity to make representations in response. This helps to ensure that the decision-making process is fair and just, and that the person concerned is not deprived of their rights without being given a chance to be heard.

2. Hearing: Both sides must be given the opportunity of fair hearing. The decision passed by a deciding authority without given reasonable opportunity of fair hearing to both parties, the decision will be treated invalid. This is considered to be one of the most essential components of this principle.

In the case Fateh Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, it was held that if a person gets a reasonable opportunity of being heard or fair hearing it is an essential ingredient of the principle of ‘audi alteram partem’. This condition is accompanied by the authority providing written or oral hearing which is the discretion of the authority unless the statute under which action is taken by the authority provides otherwise. It is the duty of the authority to ensure that affected parties should get a chance of oral or personal hearing or not.

Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works , Plaintiff, builder, was employed to build a house within the Wandsworth district. He had already reached the second storey, when the defendants, without giving him any notice, sent their surveyor and a number of workmen, at a late hour in the evening. Building razed to the ground. Conflicting evidence as to whether or not the plaintiff had given the notice required by the 76th section of the Metropolis Local Management Act, of his intention to bild.

Admitted by the plaintiff that he had commenced digging out the foundations within five days of the day on which he alleged he had sent notice. The Court held the demolition was unlawful because the Board had not given Cooper a hearing. No one is to be deprived of property by an administrative authority, without an opportunity of being heard.

Two types of hearing :

1. Oral Hearing: An oral hearing is a type of legal proceeding in which the parties to a case present their arguments and evidence orally to a judge or jury. Oral hearings are often used in cases where the facts are complex or where there is a need for expert testimony. It is not a sine qua non, which means that it is not an essential requirement for natural justice.

A person cannot claim the right to an oral hearing unless it is specifically provided for in the relevant statute or regulation. The principle of natural justice requires that a person be given a fair hearing before any decision is made that could affect their rights or interests. However, this does not necessarily mean that the hearing must be oral.

In some cases, it may be sufficient for the person to be given written notice of the decision and an opportunity to make written representations. The decision of whether or not to hold an oral hearing will depend on the specific circumstances of the case.

2. Fair Hearing: A fair hearing is a legal proceeding in which a person is given an opportunity to present their case to an impartial decision-maker. Fair hearings are often used in administrative proceedings, such as those involving the denial of a license or the imposition of a fine.

The principles of fairness include the following:

1. The person must be given adequate notice of the hearing and the issues that will be considered.
2. The person must be given access to all relevant information, including the evidence that will be relied upon and the legal arguments that will be made.
3. The person must be given an opportunity to present their case, including the opportunity to call witnesses, cross-examine opposing witnesses, and make submissions.
4. The decision-maker must be impartial and must not have any conflict of interest.
5. The decision-maker must consider all relevant evidence and arguments before making a decision.

In M.H Hoskot vs. State of Maharashtra, the apex court ruled that right to free legal aid at the cost of the state to an accused, who could not afford legal services by reasons of poverty, indigence or inability to communicate the situation, was part of fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21.

Free legal aid to the poor person has been declared to be a statutory duty and not governmental charity. This right not only arises at the commencement of trial but also attaches when he is for the first time produced before the magistrate.

Exceptions to the Audi Alteram Partem

1.Statutory exclusion: Statutory exclusion is an exception to the principles of natural justice that allows a statute to expressly exclude the application of those principles. This means that, if a statute provides that a decision of a particular administrative body is final and cannot be challenged on the grounds of natural justice, then the courts will not review the decision on those grounds.

The rationale for statutory exclusion is that the legislature is free to decide how administrative power should be exercised. If the legislature has decided that a particular decision should be made without following the principles of natural justice, then the courts will respect that decision.

Example: The Immigration Act, 1976 of India provides that the decision of the Central Government to deport a foreigner is final and cannot be challenged in any court. This means that the Central Government can deport a foreigner without giving the foreigner notice of the decision or an opportunity to be heard.

Case Law:

In the case of Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India held that the principles of natural justice did not apply to the government’s decision to impose restrictions on the circulation of newspapers during a period of internal security unrest.

The Court reasoned that the government’s actions were necessary to maintain public order, and that following the principles of natural justice would have undermined the government’s authority. It also held that the government’s decision was protected by statutory exclusion.

The Defence of India Act, 1971 provided that the government’s actions under the Act were not subject to judicial review. This meant that the Court could not review the government’s decision on the grounds of natural justice, even though the government had not given the newspapers notice of the decision or an opportunity to be heard.

Union of India v. J.N. Sinha, The competent authority acting under Rule 56 (J) of the Fundamental Rules passed order compulsorily retiring a government servant. It did not provide for giving any opportunity to the government servant concerned to show cause against the proposed action. The Supreme Court upheld the said decision.

But one thing may be noted that in India, Parliament is not supreme and therefore statutory exclusion is not final. The statute must stand the test of constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court of India has the ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution and can strike down any statute that it finds to be unconstitutional.

This means that even if a statute expressly excludes the application of the principles of natural justice, the Court can still review the decision on those grounds if it finds that the statute violates the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has held that the principles of natural justice are fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. This means that a statute cannot simply exclude the application of those principles without providing a valid justification. The Court will carefully consider the competing interests involved before deciding whether or not to strike down a statute that excludes the application of natural justice.

2.Legislative actions: principles of natural justice do not apply to legislative actions. This means that legislatures are not bound by the same procedural requirements as administrative bodies when making laws. The rationale behind this exclusion is that legislatures are considered to be the ultimate representatives of the people and are accountable to the public.

This is so because these rules lay down a policy without reference to particular individual. A legislative action, for example, price fixing, is a direction of general character, not directed against a particular person or individual manufacturer or trader. There is no question of invoking principles of natural justice in such cases.

Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (1990): In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of a law enacted by Parliament that allowed the government to impose restrictions on the sale and distribution of essential commodities without providing an opportunity for affected parties to be heard. The court held that the law was a legislative action and, therefore, not subject to the principles of natural justice.

3.Emergency Exclusion : The emergency exclusion holds that the principles of natural justice may be overridden in situations where there is an immediate threat to public safety, health, or security. In such cases, the need to take prompt action to protect the public interest may outweigh the need to comply with the procedural requirements of natural justice. The emergency exclusion is based on the principle of necessity. In situations of emergency, it may be impractical or even impossible to follow the principles of natural justice before taking action.

For example, if a fire breaks out in a public building, the authorities may need to evacuate the building without giving prior notice to the occupants. Similarly, if a contagious disease breaks out, the authorities may need to impose quarantine measures without giving prior notice to the affected individuals.

Thus, where a dangerous building is required to be demolished to save human lives or where a Banking company is required to be wound up to protect the interest of depositors.

Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (1990): In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of a law enacted by Parliament that allowed the government to take immediate action to prevent a threatened famine without providing an opportunity for affected parties to be heard.

The Court held that the government’s actions were necessary to protect public health and safety and, therefore, not subject to the principles of natural justice.

4.Impractibility: The impractibility exclusion recognizes that there are situations where it is impractical or impossible to comply with the strict requirements of natural justice. This may occur due to various factors, such as:

The number of individuals affected: When a decision affects a large number of individuals, providing each individual with an opportunity to be heard can become an overwhelming task, rendering the process impractical. In situations involving complex and multifaceted issues, following the principles of natural justice can be unduly time-consuming and resource-intensive.

The urgency of the decision: When prompt action is required to protect the public interest, the strict adherence to natural justice procedures may hinder timely and effective decision-making.

Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhash: The candidates at the Secondary School Examination of the Board at one Centre indulged in mass-copying. The Chairman of the BSEB, acting under Section 9(3) of the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952, passed an order canceling the examination at the center and allowing the examinees to reappear in the Supplementary Examination. The Board subsequently approved this decision. The respondents, who were the examinees at the center, challenged the Board’s decision in the Patna High Court. They argued that the Board had acted arbitrarily and without following the principles of natural justice. Specifically, they contended that they had not been given an opportunity to be heard before the decision was made. The High Court quashed the Board’s order, holding that the Board had failed to follow the principles of natural justice. The Court reasoned that the examinees had a right to be heard before their examination results were canceled. The BSEB appealed to the Supreme Court of India against the High Court’s decision. The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment delivered in 1970, reversed the High Court’s decision and upheld the Board’s action. The Court held that the Board had acted within its powers and that the principles of natural justice did not apply in this case.

5.Academic Evaluation Exclusion: The academic evaluation exclusion is a principle of administrative law that exempts academic institutions from following the strict rules of natural justice when evaluating students.

This means that academic institutions have a certain degree of discretion in determining students’ grades and other academic outcomes, without having to provide students with a detailed explanation of their decisions or an opportunity to challenge them. Where a student is removed from an educational institution on grounds of unsatisfactory academic performance, the requirement of pre-decisionnal hearing is excluded.

The rationale for the academic evaluation exclusion is that academic institutions are experts in their field and that they need the flexibility to make decisions about student performance without being constrained by rigid procedural requirements.

However, this does not mean that academic institutions are not bound by any principles of fairness. Academic institutions must still act in good faith and avoid decisions that are arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory. Students also have the right to challenge academic evaluations in certain circumstances, particularly when there is evidence of procedural irregularities, bias, or a lack of academic basis.

6. Interim disciplinary action. A student in a high school is caught cheating on an exam. The school principal believes that the student’s behavior is serious and poses a risk to the integrity of the school’s academic program. The principal decides to suspend the student pending a full disciplinary hearing. This is because the institution may need to take immediate action to protect the safety and well-being of the school community.

The interim disciplinary action exclusion is a principle of administrative law that exempts educational institutions from following the strict rules of natural justice when taking interim disciplinary action against students.

This means that institutions can suspend or expel students without having to provide them with a detailed explanation of the allegations against them or an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.

Because interim disciplinary action exclusion is that educational institutions need the flexibility to maintain order and protect the safety and well-being of their students and staff in situations where there is an immediate threat of harm or disruption. If institutions were required to follow the strict rules of natural justice before taking interim disciplinary action, it could delay or prevent them from taking necessary action to protect the school community.

Abhay Kumar v. K. Srinivasan, The institution passed an order debarring the student from entering the premises of the institution and attending classes till the criminal case against him for stabbing a co-student is under Consideration. The validity of this order was challenged on the ground of denial of the principles of natural justice. Rejecting the contention, the Delhi High Court ruled that such an order could be compared with an order of suspension pending enquiry which is preventive in character in order to maintain peace on the campus and therefore the principles of natural justice not attracted.

7.Public interest: The public interest exclusion is typically applied in situations where there is a need to act quickly to protect the public health, safety, or welfare. For example, a government agency may be able to suspend a food license without a hearing if it has evidence that the food is contaminated. The public interest exclusion can also be applied in cases where it is impractical or impossible to provide a fair hearing.

For example, it may be difficult to provide a fair hearing to a large number of people who are all affected by a government decision. However, the public interest exclusion is not absolute. Government agencies must still act reasonably and in good faith when using this exclusion. They must also have a valid public interest justification for their actions.

In Balco Employees Union vs. UOI, the Supreme Court established that the principles of natural justice had no role to play in those situations where policies considering the public at large were to be undertaken.

8.National Security: Government agencies may take action to protect national security without following the strict rules of natural justice. This is because the need to protect national security may outweigh the need for individual procedural fairness.

9. Doctrine of Necessity: The doctrine of necessity is a legal principle that allows government agencies to take action without following the strict rules of natural justice in situations where it is absolutely necessary to do so to avoid a serious and irreparable harm.

This exception is based on the idea that the public interest may sometimes outweigh the need to provide individuals with a fair hearing before taking action. The doctrine of necessity is typically applied in very limited circumstances, where there is no other reasonable alternative to taking action without a hearing.

For example, the doctrine may be applied in situations where:

1.There is an immediate and severe threat to public health, safety, or welfare.

2. It is impractical or impossible to provide a fair hearing before taking action.

3. The delay caused by providing a fair hearing would result in irreparable harm. \

Conclusion

Rule of natural justice has advanced by human progress. It has not developed from the Indian constitution but rather from human kind it self. Each individual has the privilege to talk and be heard when charge are being put to wards the person in question.

The Latin Maxim,” Audi Alteram Partem” is the standard of characteristic equity where each individual gets ab opportunity of being heard. The significance of a proverb itself says no individual will be denounced unheard.

Thus judgment of a case will be not given in the absence of another party.There are numerous situation where this rule of natural justice is barred, and no opportunity is given to the party of being heard natural justice implies that equity ought to be given to both parties in a simply reasonable and sensible way, under the watchful eye of the court, both the parties are equivalent and have an equivalent chance to speak and to prove themselves.

References

1. https://blog.ipleaders.in/audi-alteram-partem/
2. https://www.mentalhelp.net/self-help/humanistic-theory/,
3. Rule of audi alteram partem with special reference to disciplinary proceedings against civil servants under Article 311(2) of the Indian Constitution – iPleaders
4. (1960) AIR SC 160.
5. (1970) AIR 1269.
6. (1978) AIR SC 597.
7. (1994) AIR SC 2191.
8. (1863) 143 ER 414.
9. (1978) AIR SC 575.