Rule of Fair Hearing (Audi Alteram Partem)

What is Principle of Natural Justice?

The principle of natural justice is a cornerstone of fair decision-making in legal and administrative processes. Rooted in the idea of fairness, equity, and equality, it ensures that decisions are made without bias and after giving all concerned parties an opportunity to present their case. This principle is essential for protecting individual rights and maintaining public confidence in the legal and administrative systems.
This principle is not codified in a single statute but is derived from common law.

Rules/ Maxims of Natural Justice

1. NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA: No one should be judge in his own case. This maxim asserts that a person cannot judge a matter in which they have a personal interest, whether it is pecuniary, personal, or professional.
2. AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM: Hear the other side. This maxim guarantees that every individual has the right to be heard before a decision affecting them is made.
3. REASONED DECISION: Speaking orders. This principle requires that decisions must be supported by clear, logical, and justifiable reasons.

Rule of Fair Hearing (Audi Alteram Partem)

The rule of fair hearing, derived from the Latin maxim Audi Alteram Partem (meaning “hear the other side”), is a cornerstone of natural justice. It mandates that no person should be condemned or adversely affected without being given an adequate opportunity to present their case. This principle ensures fairness in administrative, judicial, and quasi-judicial proceedings.

Essential components:

1. Notice: the person must be informed about the allegations or case against them. The notice should clearly mention the charges, reasons, and the time, date and place of the hearing. Failure to provide proper notice renders the proceedings void.
2. Hearing: the affected party must have a reasonable opportunity to be heard. This includes the right to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and provide explanations or defenses.
3. Access to evidence: the individual must be allowed to access the evidence against them to prepare a proper defense. This ensures transparency and prevents surprises during the hearing.
4. Representation: in complex matters, parties may have the right to legal representation. Denial of representation, if required, may amount to a breach of natural justice.
5. Impartiality: the authority conducting the hearing must be free from bias. Any conflict of interest invalidates the decision.
6. Reasoned decision: the decision must be based on logical reasoning and evidence presented during the hearing. It should include reasons for the conclusion, ensuring accountability.

Exceptions to the Rule

1. Urgency: actions taken during emergencies may override the rule. Example, preventive detention under national security laws.
2. Public Interest: where public safety outweighs individual rights. Example, revocation of licenses affecting public health.
3. Waiver: if a party voluntarily forgoes their right to a hearing.
4. Statutory Exclusion: when specific legislation excludes the right to a hearing. Example, administrative decisions related to policy matters.

Case Laws

Hira Nath Mishra v. Principal, Rajendra Medical College

Facts: Three students from a medical college in Ranchi were kicked out for two years after an incident at the girls’ hostel. They took their case to the highest court in India, the Supreme Court, after the lower court, the Patna High Court, ruled against them. The students were accused of sneaking into the girls’ hostel late at night. The girls claimed the students climbed the walls, were naked, harassed them, and tried to grab one of them. The girls pointed out these three students and one other. The college investigated, and the students were given a chance to explain themselves. They denied everything, saying they were in their own rooms. However, the college found them guilty and expelled them. The students argued that the college’s investigation wasn’t fair. They said they weren’t allowed to be present during the investigation, they didn’t get to see the evidence, and they couldn’t question the girls who made the accusations. The lower court, the High Court, said that the rules of fairness don’t always have to be followed strictly, and in this case, they thought the investigation was fair enough. So, the students decided to take their appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether rules of natural justice had not been followed before the Order was passed against them expelling them from the college?
Judgement: The court looked at how the college investigated the incident. They found that the college had set up a fair committee of three teachers to look into what happened. This committee took statements from the girls in private and then told the accused students what they were accused of. The students gave written explanations, but the committee wasn’t satisfied.
The girls identified the students from photos, confirming they were involved. The students couldn’t prove they were in their own rooms at the time of the incident. The court decided that the investigation was fair, especially because it was a sensitive case and the girls needed to be protected.
The court understood that in cases like this, you can’t always follow the rules of fairness perfectly. Witnesses might be scared to speak up. The committee did its best to be fair by gathering evidence, telling the students what they were accused of, and letting them respond. The way the college principal handled the situation was fine, and there was no need for any more investigations.
The court determined that the application of natural justice varies according to the specific circumstances of each case. The court dismissed the appeal.

J.K. Aggarwal v. Haryana Seeds Development Corpn.

Facts: The appellant, Company Secretary of Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., a government entity, was subject to a disciplinary inquiry that could result in his termination. The inquiry was governed by the Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952. The appellant contested the proceedings, alleging a denial of natural justice, specifically regarding his request to be represented by legal counsel.
The Inquiry Authority denied the appellant’s initial request for legal representation. Subsequently, the appellant challenged the inquiry proceedings in the High Court, again asserting a violation of natural justice. The High Court summarily dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether in the course of the disciplinary inquiry, appellant was entitled to engage the services of a legal-practitioner in the conduct of his defence?
judgement: The Court acknowledged that legal representation is not an absolute right under natural justice. However, in cases involving serious charges that could lead to dismissal, the inquiry authority has the discretion to permit legal counsel. In this instance, while the Presenting Officer possessed legal expertise, the Court determined that denying the appellant legal representation constituted an improper exercise of discretion and a violation of natural justice.
To rectify this, the Court directed that the appellant be allowed to engage a lawyer for further cross-examination of witnesses and to present arguments. The inquiry officer retains the authority to deny unreasonable adjournment requests intended to prolong the proceedings.
The denial of this right, particularly given the severity of the charges, constituted a failure of natural justice. To rectify this, the appellant was granted permission to have legal counsel cross-examine witnesses. The inquiry was ordered to be completed within one month from October 20, 1990. The Court ruled that the appellant had the right to legal representation during the disciplinary inquiry.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 

Facts: In June 1976, a female journalist named Maneka Gandhi obtained her passport for work-related travel abroad.
However, in July 1977, she received a letter from the passport office informing her that the government was confiscating her passport “for public interest” under a specific law. She was instructed to return the passport within a week. Promptly, Maneka requested the reasons for this decision, as she was entitled to do under the law.
The government replied that they would not disclose the reasons “in the interest of the general public.” In response, she filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32, arguing that the government’s actions were illegal and violated her fundamental rights to equality under Article 14 and freedom of speech under Article 19.
Issue: Are the provisions under Articles 21, 14 and 19 connected with each other or are they mutually exclusive?
Should the procedure established by law be tested for reasonability which in this case was the procedure laid down by the Passport Act of 1967?
Judgement: The court observed that the language used in Article 21, “procedure established by law,” indicates that such a procedure must not be arbitrary or irrational. The framers of the Constitution did not intend for the procedure to be anything less than fair, just, and reasonable. The court overruled the Gopalan case, stating that there is a relationship between the provisions of Articles 14, 19, and 21, and that each law must meet the standards set by these provisions. The court emphasized that personal liberty should not be interpreted narrowly and strictly, but rather in a liberal and broad sense. It affirmed that the right to travel abroad is guaranteed under Article 21. The court also noted that Sections 10(3)(c) and 10(5) represent administrative orders, which can be challenged on the grounds of being unreasonable, made in bad faith, denying natural justice, or being ultra vires.
The court determined that the law allowing the government to revoke passports (Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act) was flawed. It was too vague, granting passport authorities excessive unchecked power, which violates the right to equality (Article 14). Additionally, it infringed upon the right to equality by not allowing individuals the opportunity to present their side of the story. Moreover, it violated the right to personal liberty (Article 21) because the process was neither fair nor reasonable. Despite recognizing these issues, the court did not immediately strike down the law. Instead, they ruled that the passports would remain with the authorities until a further decision was made.