Doctrine of Audi Altrem Partem | Administrative Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

Audi Alteram Partem

The principle of audience alteram partem, which emphasizes the importance of hearing both sides before making a decision, gained significant traction following the House of Lords' decision in Ridge v. Baldwin. In this landmark case, the House of Lords firmly established the necessity of providing a fair hearing to all parties involved in a decision-making process.

One of the key aspects of the Ridge v. Baldwin case was the recognition that the principle of audience alteram partem is deeply rooted in the natural law tradition. The natural law perspective underscores the inherent fairness and justice in allowing all parties an opportunity to present their case before any adverse action is taken against them.

• Ridge v. Baldwin case has significantly influenced administrative law.
• The case highlights the importance of fair hearings and considering the perspectives of all involved parties.
• The dismissing of the plaintiff by the watch committee without a hearing was declared a nullity.
• Lord Reid provided certainty to the rule regarding fair hearings.
• The principle audi alteram partem has a long history in law and appears in many judgments.
• Natural justice has been criticized as vague, but it remains a crucial aspect of law.
• Basic values described as natural law or divine law must be applied to human affairs.
• The rules of natural justice ensure fundamental liberties and rights of subjects.
• Natural justice serves the public interest.
• The doctrine of natural justice prevents miscarriage of justice.
• Its essence is good conscience in a given situation.
• Natural justice protects individuals from arbitrary administrative actions.
• One objective of fair hearings is to prevent illegal actions or decisions.
• Audi alteram partem means 'hear the other side', emphasizing that no man should be condemned unheard.
• This principle is a foundational concept of the rule of law.
• It sets a norm for implementation by all courts and tribunals.
• Fair trial protections are necessary for the interest of people.
• Fair adjudication must incorporate various flexible requirements.
• The requirements for a fair hearing vary from case to case.

Right to Notice

• The term 'notice' comes from the Latin word notitia, meaning being known. In general usage, it refers to information or knowledge.
• Legally, notice involves awareness of circumstances that should raise suspicion or belief, as well as direct information about a fact.

Principle of Fairness

• Notice is grounded in the principle of fairness and must precede any adverse action.
• It should be clear and precise, providing the party with adequate information about the case they need to address.

Adequacy of Notice

• Adequacy of notice is relative and varies case by case.
• Generally, a notice is considered adequate if it contains all necessary information.

Essential Elements of Notice

• Adequate notice should contain specific essential elements, as depicted in the clockwise image.

Objective of Notice

• The main objective of notice is to provide the concerned individual with an opportunity to present their case.
• If the party is aware of the charges or allegations, a formal defect in the notice may not invalidate it, unless it causes prejudice to the individual.

Prejudice and Inquiry Validity

• The determination of prejudice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
• For example, if a government servant is suspended and the inquiry takes place far from their residence, and they cannot attend due to nonpayment of subsistence allowance, the inquiry may be invalidated.

Reasonable Opportunity in Notice

• Notices must provide a reasonable opportunity to comply with the requirements stated.
• For instance, giving only 24 hours to dismantle a structure deemed dilapidated is not considered proper and renders the notice invalid.

Notices under Article 311 of the Constitution

• When an inquiry is conducted under Article 311 of the Constitution of India, two separate notices should be issued.
• The first notice outlines the charges or allegations, while the second notice proposes the punishment.

Different Charges in Notices

• If a notice regarding one charge has been issued, the individual cannot be punished for a different charge for which no notice or opportunity to be heard was provided.

Supreme Court Emphasis on Sufficient Reasons

• In the case of State of U.P. v. Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd., the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of having sufficient reasons before issuing any notices.
• Reasons must be included in the notice and are a prerequisite for issuing it.

Rectification of Mistakes and Notice

• Even in cases of rectification of mistakes, notice must be given to avoid causing serious prejudice to the individual.
• Rectification should not deprive a vested right.

Joseph Vilanganandan v. Executive Engineer

• In this case, the court found the notice given to be inadequate.
• The appellant received a letter from the executive engineer requesting to show cause why the contract work should not be terminated due to delay.
• The Supreme Court ruled that the notice did not adequately inform the appellant of being barred from future contracts with the PWD.

Article 21 of the Constitution and Detention

• Under Article 21 of the Constitution, a detenu must be provided with the grounds of detention.
• If the grounds are vague, the detention order may be invalidated by the court.

Vagueness in Administrative Notices

• In other areas of administrative action, a notice is considered vague if it fails to specify the proposed action, property acquisition, or grounds for license cancellation.
• Statutory requirements for notice can be waived if it solely benefits the individual concerned.

In administrative and legal proceedings, the principle of "Audi Alteram Partem" emphasizes the importance of giving individuals the opportunity to be heard before any adverse action is taken against them. This concept is rooted in the idea of natural justice and fair play.

Hearing

• The second requirement of the "Audi Alteram Partem" maxim is that the person concerned must be given an opportunity to be heard before any adverse action is taken against them.
• In the historic case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works, the court held that even though the Board had the power to demolish buildings erected without permission, no one could be deprived of their property without a chance to be heard.
• The extent of the opportunity to be heard is not dependent on the amount of loss to the aggrieved person but is related to the demands of the situation. For example, issuing a show cause notice and considering the explanation before taking action is usually sufficient.

Disclosure of Materials

• An adjudicating authority must disclose all evidence and materials presented during the proceedings and provide an opportunity for the concerned party to respond to them.
• The purpose of this disclosure is to allow the individual to prepare their defense, challenge the evidence presented against them, and present their case effectively.

Right to Know Evidence

• Individuals appearing before an administrative authority with adjudicatory powers have the right to know the evidence that will be used against them. This principle was established in the case of Dhaksheshwari Cotton Mills v. CIT.
• The Supreme Court ruled that the SEC was not given a fair hearing because the appellate income tax tribunal did not disclose the information provided by the Department.
• While it is not always necessary to supply adverse material in its original form, it is sufficient to provide a summary of the contents, as long as it is not misleading.
• Individuals should be allowed to inspect the file and take notes of the materials used against them, ensuring that nothing is used without their knowledge.

Right to Present Case and Evidence/Oral Hearing

• Adjudicatory authorities should provide a reasonable opportunity for parties to present their cases, either in writing or orally, unless otherwise specified by the governing statute.
• Natural justice is upheld when parties are given a fair chance to present their case, even if the information is provided casually or for other purposes.
• Court decisions indicate that oral hearings are not always essential for fair hearings, except in exceptional circumstances where a person cannot defend themselves effectively without one.
• In cases involving complex legal or technical issues or significant stakes, oral hearings may become necessary.
• The right to rebut adverse evidence assumes that individuals are informed about the evidence against them. In cases where information supplied by the Department is not disclosed, like in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Limited, the court may quash the tribunal's order.
• Providing an opportunity to rebut evidence involves considerations of cross-examination and legal representation.

Cross-Examination

• Cross-examination is not always considered a mandatory part of natural justice and depends on the specific facts of each case.
• If a statute allows cross-examination of witnesses during an inquiry or adjudication, the opposing party has the right to cross-examine them.
• Generally, in disciplinary proceedings and domestic inquiries, the right to cross-examine is not denied.

Legal Representation

• Legal representation by a lawyer in administrative proceedings is not always seen as a crucial aspect of natural justice, as oral hearings are not considered a minimum requirement for fair hearings.
• Concerns about legal representation include the potential for lawyers to complicate matters, prolong proceedings, and disrupt the informality of the process.
• Allowing representation by a lawyer of choice could create an advantage for the wealthy over those who cannot afford legal assistance.
• Court rulings in India suggest that in situations where a party is illiterate, facing complex technical issues, or dealing with legal questions, professional assistance should be provided to ensure a meaningful right to defend oneself.
• In cases involving prisoners, the Supreme Court has emphasized the right to free legal services for those unable to secure legal assistance, particularly when justice demands such service.
• Legal aid is not only necessary during trials but also at the time of remand, regardless of financial constraints or administrative challenges.
• During custodial interrogation, accused individuals should be allowed legal representation, and police must wait for a reasonable time for the arrival of a lawyer.
• While the court did not mandate the provision of a lawyer for indigent accused individuals, the principle can be applied in criminal justice administration.

Personal Hearing

• An adjudicating authority must follow the principles of natural justice and provide a reasonable opportunity for the person to be heard before taking any action against them.
• In India, oral hearings are not considered essential for natural justice. A person is only entitled to an oral hearing if it is explicitly granted by law.
• In the case of M.P. Industries Ltd v. Union of India, it was emphasized that a quasi-judicial tribunal must give a party a chance to respond to relevant allegations, but this can be done through written representations instead of a personal hearing. The decision between the two options depends on the specific circumstances of each case and is usually at the tribunal's discretion.
• The principles of natural justice do not mandate a personal hearing. If all relevant factors are considered before taking action, the absence of a personal hearing does not invalidate the action.
• The principles of natural justice are adaptable, and their application depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. The key is that the adjudicating authority must be impartial and provide a fair hearing without unfair disadvantage to any party.
• Typically, a hearing is expected to be oral. Providing an opportunity for oral presentation is fundamental to fair play, especially when someone's property is at stake. In the absence of clear statutory guidance, individuals entitled to the protection of the Audi alteram partem rule have the right to present their case orally.
• Taking evidence in the absence of one party violates the principles of fair hearing. The court in Errington v. Ministry of Health discussed the importance of disclosing information obtained by the administrative authority to the party and allowing them the opportunity to rebut it.
• In the case of Hira Nath Mishra v. Rajendra Medical College, the court upheld the expulsion of students based on evidence collected in their absence, as they were given a chance to rebut the evidence later.

Speaking Order - Reasoned Decisions

• A 'speaking order' is an order that explains itself. In simple terms, every order should include reasons to support it. Providing reasons is crucial for upholding the rule of law as it connects facts to the decision, prevents arbitrary actions, and maintains public trust in judicial and administrative bodies. Reasons also reflect the principle that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done.
• Giving reasons for an order is considered the third principle of natural justice. It ensures that a party is informed not just of the outcome of an inquiry but also of the rationale behind the decision.
• In today's context, where the government has expanded its functions and administrative bodies wield significant discretionary powers, recording reasons serves as a safeguard against potential abuse of authority. While even regular courts may not always provide reasons for dismissing appeals summarily, administrative tribunals and executive authorities are held to a different standard.
• In India, unless specifically mandated by statute, there is no general requirement for administrative agencies to provide reasons for their decisions. However, when statutes require reasons, they should not be mere formalities but clear explanations linking the evidence to the conclusions drawn.
• The court in M.J. Shivani v. State of Karnataka emphasized that recording reasons is essential for a valid order, especially when required by rules. Reasons should be communicated to the affected party to allow for scrutiny in the appropriate forum.
• Even if not explicitly stated in the statute, the necessity of recording reasons can be inferred from the case's circumstances. Confidentiality of proceedings does not exempt the requirement of providing reasons.
• If an order is subject to appeal or revision, the importance of recording reasons increases. Without reasons, appellate or revisional authorities cannot effectively exercise their powers as they lack the necessary material to assess the correctness of facts, legal application, and fairness of the decision.
• Failure to provide reasons can deprive a party of their right to appeal or revise the decision.

Post-Decisional Hearing

• The concept of post-decisional hearing was developed by the Supreme Court in the Maneka Gandhi case to balance administrative efficiency and individual fairness. In this case, the petitioner's passport was impounded without prior notice or hearing. The Court emphasized that even in administrative actions, the principle of fair hearing should not be overlooked for the sake of convenience.
• Post-decisional hearing was introduced as a way to address the need for prompt administrative action while ensuring that individuals have a chance to be heard after the decision is made. This approach was also seen in the Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. UOI case, where the government's decision was validated despite the lack of a pre-decisional hearing, as long as a post-decisional hearing was conducted.
• Professor de Smith argued that while a prior hearing is preferable, a subsequent hearing is better than no hearing at all. In some cases, statutory provisions for administrative appeals or judicial review on merits may negate the need for a pre-decisional hearing.
• The Supreme Court noted that post-decisional hearing does not fulfill the requirements of natural justice. Authorities conducting post-decisional hearings are likely to approach the matter with a predetermined mindset, making it less likely for the representation to be considered fairly.