Audi Alteram Partem in Administrative Law

INTRODUCTION

The maxim Audi Alteram Partem or rule of fair hearing is also called the second long arm of natural justice. As, it protects the “little man” from arbitrary administrative actions when his right to person or property is violated. The objective of providing a hearing in application of principles of natural justice is to prevent any illegal action or decision taking place. The principle of Audi Alteram Partem or Rule of Fair Hearing is one of the core concepts of natural justice. It is an omnipotent inherent doctrine that no person should be condemned unheard, any wrong that may adversely affect a person. So, it is imperative that a reasonable opportunity should be granted before passing an administrative order. The application of Audi Alteram Partem depends on the factual matrix to improve administrative efficacy efficiency in order to aboard uphold the principles of natural justice. The procedure adopted must be just and fair. The principle of fair hearing is sine qua non of every civilised society. An important principle of natural justice is deduced from this rule. This is, “he who shall decide anything without the other side having been heard, although he may have said what is right will not have done what is right”; which means that without hearing the other party even-though the deciding officer has ordered and the order may be right, but the act of ordering that particular order will not be right. Lord Hayward, observed for this principle as follows, “It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly we seem to be done.”

Historical Origins of Audi Alteram Partem

Jurists describe the origin of this principle back to the time of Adam and Eve. It points to when God asked them whether they have sinned, even though God himself knew they had. This signifies that even when the authority knows everything  the natural justice applies. Even in this case, when the person has nothing to tell, unless its application would result into mere formality. The notion that administrative difficulty arising via giving notice and hearing a person does not provide justification for depriving a person of an opportunity to be heard.

R v. University of Cambridge (1723) (Doctor Bentley Case)

In the case of R. v. University of Cambridge, 17231 STR 757, which is also known as Doctor Bentley case, the court of Kings Bench held that the University of Cambridge could not cancel the degree of a rebellious scholar without providing him with an opportunity to defend himself. This decision establishes the notion justice requires the hearing of both parties even when there's no statutory requirement.

Similarly, even when the legislature specifically authorises an administrative action without hearing, then accept in cases of recognised exceptions, the law would not be violative of principles Audi Alteram Partem. It is also provided under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court also held that no censure entry can be awarded without any notice and hearing. This applies even though the rules permit award of censure entry without notice and hearing. Even then the principles of natural justice would be read into such rules. Refusal to participate in an inquiry without a valid reason cannot be filed as violation of natural justice. It cannot be raised at a later stage.

Technical rules of procedures of law do not apply to administrative agencies in India. This accentuates the need to follow the minimum procedure of fair hearing. Courts from case to case have their decisions developed as a fine code of administrative procedure. It applies to every administrative decision-making but in a pragmatically flexible manner.

State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 346

In the case of State Bank of Patiala v. SK Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 346, the Supreme Court observed a key point. If a record inquiry is not contravened by a statutory provision, and the sole obligation is to observe principles of natural justice, no distinction should be made. A tribunal or court should not distinguish between a total violation of the fair hearing rule and violation of one aspect of that rule. This means a distinction must be made between “no opportunity” and “no adequate opportunity”.

In cases of no opportunity, the order passed would be invalid. The authority may be allowed to conduct proceedings again to follow the rule of fair hearing. In the case of no adequate opportunity, the effect of the violation must be examined in terms of prejudice. The court or tribunal must examine whether, in totality, the person suffered any prejudice. If the answer is affirmative, the action shall be considered invalid.

The sole purpose of fair hearing is to avoid the failure of justice. This purpose should guide the application of fair hearing in different situations. There may be cases where state interest or public interest demands curtailment of the hearing. Then the court must balance public or state interests with natural justice and reach a fair decision.

Cooper v. Wandsworth District Board of Works (1863) 14 CBNS 180

In the case of Cooper v. Wandsworth District Board of Works (1863)14 CBNS 180, Justice Byles observed; “The laws of God and man both give the party an opportunity to make his defence if he has any. I remember to have heard it observed by a very learned man upon such an occasion that even God himself did not pass sentence on Adam, where he was called upon to make his defence. ‘Adam’ says God ‘where art has thou? Has thou not eaten of this tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou should not eat? And the same question was put to Eve also.” It shall be noted that mere infraction of some legitimate expectation also would not be fair to deprive a person. Legitimate expectations have the power to void administrative actions but not to overturn or invalidate laws. As a result, even while someone may not have a legal claim to an advantage or benefit provided by a government policy, they cannot have their rightfully expected benefits taken away from them by altering the policy without according to the fair hearing standards.

Natural Justice in Company Winding-Up Proceedings: Protecting Employee Rights

Nonetheless, the public interest may take precedence over reasonable expectations and justify their rejection. In these situations, relief would only be granted in situations where the conduct is arbitrary, unjustified, and not in the public interest, or when it amounts to a deprivation of rights. As a result, no order having negative civil ramifications can be made against any individual without first providing him with a chance to challenge the order's adoption. This natural justice principle also extends to quasi-judicial and administrative processes, including petitions for company winding up. In the absence of express provisions in the Companies Act, 1956 prohibiting appearances, no legal system intended to advance justice through fair pay in action can allow the court to make a winding up order that effectively terminates a worker's employment without providing the worker with a chance to challenge the order's creation. This would be a violation of fundamental fair procedure principles. During the winding-up petition hearing as well as directing and taking part in a petition. In closing out the petition, the employees must be granted the right to voice their resentment.

CONCLUSION

De Smith stated that, “until a man has had a fair opportunity to notice the body of evidence against him, he cannot be legally sentenced to lose his property or freedom for an offense.” This is the clearest accepted argument. Until someone is given the chance to be heard, they will not suffer. The fundamental principle of the humanized legislation is recognized by both divine and human laws. A reasonable opportunity to be heard must be granted to each individual before any orders are made against them. This maxim takes into account two concepts: basic justice and equity. Human progress has brought forth advancements in the rule of natural justice. It sprang not from the Indian Constitution, but from humanity itself. When allegations are brought against a person, everyone has the right to speak out and be heard. The Latin maxim "Audi Alteram Partem" is the criterion of distinctive equity, ensuring that each individual has the opportunity to be heard. The meaning of a proverb is that no one will be accused without being heard. Thus, judgment in a lawsuit will not be rendered in the absence of another party. There are several scenarios in which this norm of natural justice is violated and the side is not given the right to be heard. Natural justice indicates that fairness should be distributed to both parties in a straightforward, reasonable, and rational manner. Under the Court's watchful eye, both parties are equal and have equal opportunities to speak and prove themselves.