Scribd
Upload
55 views

Audi Alteram Partem (Hear The Other Side) : Meaning

Uploaded by

Gauri
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
55 views

Audi Alteram Partem (Hear The Other Side) : Meaning

Uploaded by

Gauri
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Audi Alteram Partem (Hear the other side)

Meaning
“Audi Alteram Partem” means “hear the other side” or “no man should be condemned unheard”
or “both the sides must be heard before passing any order”.

Doctrine explained
This is the basic requirement of rule of law. It has been described as “foundational and
fundamental” concept. It lays down the norm which should be implemented by all courts and
tribunals at national as also at international level.
Before any order is passed against any person, reasonable opportunity of being heard must be
given to him. Generally, this maxim includes: 1. Notice, and 2. Hearing.

Notice
The other party must be given the notice with the relevant information that what charges are
there on the accused to whom the notice is issued.
The notice should be in proper format.

Hearing
The person concerned must be given an opportunity of being heard before any adverse action is
taken against him.
In State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei (1967), the petitioner compulsorily retired from the service
on the ground that that she had completed the age of 55 years. No opportunity for hearing was
given to her before this order was passed. The Supreme Court set aside the order as it was
violative of principal of Natural Justice.

Disclosure of Materials
An adjudicating authority must disclose all the evidence and materials placed before it in the
court of proceedings. The object of such disclosure is such that to provide an opportunity to the
person to enable him to prepare his defence, and rebut the evidence relied upon the complainant
against him and put forward his case before the authority.
In Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. C.I.T (1955), the Supreme Court set aside the order
passed by the appellate tribunal on the ground that it did not disclose some evidence produced by
the department and used against the assesse.
Cross examination
It was never considered as a part and parcel of the doctrine of Natural Justice. It always depends
upon the facts and circumstances of the case of each case whether the opportunity to cross
examine should be given to the party against whom the proceedings are initiated.
If the statute permits the cross examination of witnesses, then the opposite party can claim right
to cross examine them.
In Khem Chand v. U.O.I (1958), the S.C held that an opportunity to defend a delinquent by
cross examining the witness produced against him is an important right.

One who decides must hear


As a general rule, “he who hears should decide” or “one who decides must hear”. This is the
statutory principle based on the proper administration of justice.

“Empty formality” theory


The following propositions can be said to have been established.
1. The adjudicating authority must be impartial and without any interest or bias of any type.
2. The adjudicating authority must give full opportunity to the affected person to produce all
the relevant evidence in support of his case.
3. The adjudicating authority must give an opportunity to the party concerned to rebut the
evidence and material placed by the other side.
4. As a general rule, hearing should be pre-decisional hearing. In exceptional cases,
however, post-decisional hearing is permissible.
5. Representation through Counsel or an advocate cannot be claimed as a part of natural
justice.

Oral (personal) hearing


Every adjudicating authority must principles of natural justice and a reasonable opportunity must
be given to the person against whom the action is sought to be taken.
In India, oral hearing is not regarded as sine qua non (a necessary condition without which
something is not possible) of natural justice. A person is not entitled to an oral hearing, unless
such a right is conferred by the statute. (A.K GOPALAN v. STATE OF MADRAS (1950))

Pre-decisional and Post-decisional hearing


Pre-decisional hearing is a hearing afforded before taking a decision or passing an order.
Post-decisional hearing, on the other hand, is a hearing given by the adjudicating authority after
taking a decision or passing an order.it is developed to maintain a balance between
administrative efficiency and fairness between the individuals. It can be resorted only when Pre-
decisional hearing is not possible.
Right to Counsel
Right to representation by a lawyer is never considered to be a part of natural justice and it
cannot be claimed as of right, unless the said right is conferred by the statute.

You might also like