Skip to main content

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.

          
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more