When there is no favouritism toward anyone during any regulatory action, the natural justice rule takes effect. The fundamental idea of the natural justice concept is the Rule of Audi Alteram Partem. It also states that no one should be condemned without first being heard. Each party will have the chance to receive justice and a fair trial.
This maxim also guarantees that each party will have a fair trial and that justice will be served, as each has the opportunity to speak. The court will hear from both parties before making any decisions. Each party is afforded the chance to safeguard themselves.
audi alteram partem constitution of india: About
- “Hear the other side” is what Audi Alteram Partem literally means.
- It means that all parties will have a chance to be heard and that no one will be left out of a lawsuit.
- Every side will have a chance to present evidence and make a plea in accordance with this doctrine.
- This guarantees both parties a fair trial and just treatment.
- A decision cannot be made until both parties have been heard. This approach allows each party a chance to present their own defense.
- The notion is the fundamental idea behind the natural justice principle.
audi alteram partem constitution of india: Elements
- Notice: The impacted party must be provided a notice to show cause against the planned action and request an explanation before any action is taken. The jurisdiction in which the case is brought, the charges, the intended action against the individual, and the time, place, and date of the hearing must all be included in the notification.
- Hearing: Fair hearing is the second most important component of Audi Alteram partem. Any order issued by the authorities that was made without providing the party with a chance to be heard or without their consent will be deemed null and void.
- Evidence: When both parties are present in court, evidence is seen as a crucial component that is presented, and the court’s judicial or quasi-judicial power will take action based on the evidence presented.
- Cross-examination: The individual in question and the evidence used against him may not be revealed by the court during a fair hearing, but he should be given the opportunity to contest the claims made against him. The primary query posed to the adjudicating body is whether or not the witness needs to be put through a cross-examination.
- Legal Representation: Not everyone has the ability to make a forceful case. So that he can make his case, he needs some help from a professional lawyer. Every individual in India has the constitutional right to legal aid as well.
audi alteram partem landmark cases
There are major audi alteram partem case laws in India. They are:
- In the case of Punjab National Bank v All India Bank Employees Federation, the notice that was provided to the party contained a number of charges, but it was not stated anywhere that the charges carried a penalty. Therefore, the charges that resulted in the penalty were not given to the parties as notice. Because the notice was improper, the penalty that was applied was void.
- In the case of Harban Lal. v commissioner, it was said that an impartial hearing is a necessary component of the Audi alteram partem. The authorities have the responsibility of guaranteeing that the parties are afforded the chance to participate in a written or oral hearing.
- In the case of Hira Nath v Principal, it was decided that this rule applies to any information on a prior conviction that the court may use without providing the party in question an opportunity to refute it, not just formal evidence.
- In the case of Kanungo& co. v collector of customs, under the marine customs legislation, officers searched an individual’s business property and took some timepieces. The information provider was not permitted to be cross-examined. However, in this instance, the commodities confiscated in accordance with the Sea Customs Act do not breach the principle of natural justice. Because the interested party cannot cross-examine the witness in a natural justice setting.
- In the case of J.J Mody v State of Bombay and Krishna Chandra v UOI, it was decided that the party should be given another opportunity to be heard since they were unable to comprehend the law and their denial of legal representation amounted to a violation of natural justice.
Natural justice is an idea that has existed since the dawn of humankind. The cornerstone of natural justice is the dictum “Audi Alteram Partem.” These supporters of the true spirit of justice fight for the right to a fair trial hearing. It covers things like the notice being sent out, the right to cross-examine, and a fair chance to submit evidence. This adage is founded on the ideas of justice, equity, and fairness. Nonetheless, some extreme circumstances reduce the application of this maxim’s principles. These circumstances include the exigency, impracticability, agreement, temporary order, etc. However, it is pointed out that even in cases when the provisions are loosened, justice is always maintained.
