Audi Alteram Partem
Literal Meaning
“Listen to the other side”, or “Let the other side be heard as well”
Origin
Latin
Explanation
This legal doctrine is based on the principle of natural justice and fair trial. According to this Latin legal maxim, every party has the right to be heard and present their arguments and evidence in a court of law. In other words, it can be said that this principle implied that no party should go unheard.
The origin of this maxim can be traced back to the Roman Legal System, which focuses on fair hearing. This maxim also played a critical role in Common Legal tradition, wherein it evolved the concept of procedural fairness in the various legal systems around the world.
For better understanding of this maxim, let us look into its core components:
- Notice- The notice is served to the party to inform about the hearing of the case concerned. It includes the time, place, date, charges and jurisdiction under which the case is filed. The serving of notice has been expressly mentioned in various provision of the Indian Legal system, such as, –
Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, mandates an individual to send notice to the authority concerned for its grievances and allows a person to sue only after completion of 2 months after the notice.
Sections 61 to 69 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, deal with the service of summons, specifying the procedures for serving notices to defendants or respondents in criminal proceedings.
- Right to Present the Case- Every party to a suit has the right to present their case in a fair and impartial manner. This is the basis of this maxim. The right to present arguments and respond to the evidence presented by the opposition party are presented not only in the court but also before the administrative tribunals or quasi-judicial bodies.
- Evidence- To support the argument, various evidences are presented before the court such as witnesses, documents and other legal evidence. This evidence are impliedly supporting the maxim of Audi Altrem Partem.
- Legal Representation- There are certain groups of people who do not able to present themselves in a court of law. Thus, the constitution of India provides legal aid to those who are in need of legal representation. In this way, it promotes the principle of equality in the society. Article 39-A of the Indian Constitution provides the right to legal counsel is inextricably linked to the right to a fair trial, which is one of the fundamental human rights.
Benefit of Audi Alteram Partem
- Justice and Fairness- As stated above, the core principle of this maxim is to promote natural justice and fairness in trial. By giving the opportunity to be heard to both the parties, the legal system ensures the establishment of a just and equitable society.
- Protection of Individual Rights- This maxim, it gives them chance to individual to defend themselves, thereby protecting their individual rights.
- Impartial decision making- Through unbiased and impartial decision procedures, the decisions made are more balanced towards the society and resolve the conflict among the parties.
Criticism of Audi Alteram Partem
- Delay in Decision Making- The process of fair hearing is complex and time-consuming. To serve notice, gathering evidence and presenting arguments require a lot of time and resources, which might affect the effectiveness and efficiency of the decision.
- Emergency- During an emergency situation, it is impossible to rely on the principle of Audi Altrem Partem. In this situation, it is very difficult to hear both the parties as it in a matter of security of the nations. Generally, this principle is avoided to reach at a conclusive result on the emergency situations.
- Challenges in Implementation- The application of this principle faces several challenges. Example- Ex parte hearing, in this the other party is absent and hence the decision is taken on the absence. Thus, these types of situations can be faced during the application of this principle.
Case Law
- In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution to include the right to a fair hearing, thereby reinforcing the application of the principle of natural justice.
- The case of Tulsiram Patel v. Union of India (1985) is a landmark judgment that elaborated on the scope and application of the audi alteram partem rule. The Supreme Court of India held that even though the rule is flexible and may not apply with the same rigor in every situation, the essentials of the rule must be observed unless expressly excluded by law.
- In the case of D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. (1993), the dismissal of an employee without a proper hearing was questioned and regarded as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
