Monday, 24 January 2022

DOCTRINE OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM

 


                         DOCTRINE OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM


INTRODUCTION

Natural justice implies fairness, reasonableness, equity and equality. Natural justice another name is common sense justice and is based on the natural sense of man of what is right and what is wrong. Rule of Audi Alteram Partem is a main factor of principle of natural justice. The maxim audi alteram partem is derived from a Latin phrase audiatur et altera pars and it means to hear both the side. The maxim Audi alteram partem means hear the other side. No person can be condemned or punished by the court without having a fair opportunity of being heard. The component of fair hearing are not fixed or rigid in nature. It varies from case to case and authority to authority. In Maneka Gandhi vs. union of India, Article 21 of the constitution was defined and in this case it was held that law and procedure which is followed should be just, fair and reasonable kind. The case is widely known as passport case and in this case many concept are discussed and many new concepts are added and new meanings are added for many Articles.

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS

The maxim have many essentials, they are:

  1. Issuance of notice: The term notice is originated from a Latin word notitia which means being known. In its popular sense it is equivalent to information, intelligent or knowledge. Valid and proper notice should be given to required parties of the matter to further proceed with the procedure of fair trail method. Before any move is made against the party who is impacted. A notification should be given to them to introduce a reason against the proposed activity and seek after his application. In the event that any request is passed without pulling out, it is contrary to the guideline of normal equity and is void ab initio which means void all along. The notice should be with regards to the charges framed against the accused and proceeding to be held. The person can only be punished on the charges which are mentioned in the notice. In keshav mills co. Ltd Vs. union of India, it was held that the notice issued which is given to the parties should be clear and unambiguous, if the notice is ambiguous and not clear  then the notice will not be considered as reasonable and proper.

  2. Hearing:  the second most essential of the maxim is fair hearing. The person should get a reasonable opportunity to being heard in the court. In Harbans Lal Vs. commissioner, the court held that the person should get a reasonable opportunity of being heard or fair hearing and it is the most important ingredient of the principle of audi alteram partem. 

  3. Right to know an evidence:  every person before an administrative authority exercising adjudicatory powers has the right to know the evidence to be used against him. This principle was firmly establishes in Dhaksheshwari Cotton mills vs. CIT, in this case appellate income tax tribunal did not disclose the information supplied to it by the Department. The Supreme Court held that there was not given a fair hearing.

  4. Cross examination: cross examination is defined under section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. According to the section the examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called as cross examination. But there are many exception to cross examination. In Hari nath Mishra vs. Rajendra medical college, male student induced behaviour towards female student the right to cross examination was denied.

  5. Right to legal representation: normally representation through a lawyer in any administrative proceeding is not considered an indispensable part of the rule of natural justice, or oral hearing is not included in the minima of fair hearing. This detail of legal representation is justified on the ground that lawyers tend to complicate matters, prolong the proceedings, and destroy the essential informality of the proceedings.  In J.J.Mody v State of Bombay it was held that refusal of legal representation is violation of principle of natural justice because the party was not able to understand the rules and laws and they should get a fair opportunity to present their case through a lawyer.

           CONCLUSION

        Rule of natural justice has progressed by human advancement. It has not created from the Indian Constitution yet rather from humanity itself. Every individual has the honour to talk and be heard when charges are being put towards the individual being referred to. The Latin maxim, Audi Alteram Partem is the norm of trademark value where every individual gets a chance of being heard. The meaning of an adage itself says no person will be condemned unheard. Subsequently, judgment of a case will be not given without another party. There are various circumstances where this standard of natural justice is banned, and no open door is given to the party of being heard. Natural justices suggests that value should be given to the both parties in a straightforward, sensible and reasonable way. Under the careful attention of the Court, both the gatherings are same and have a comparable opportunity to talk and to substantiate themselves.


By,

Asha Sebastian.

          



No comments:

Post a Comment

Equality before law

  Equality before law “The state shall not deny to any person equality before the law. Meaning of right to equality This means that every pe...