The Latin maxim, ‘Audi Alteram Partem’ is the principle of natural justice where every person gets a chance of being heard. The literal meaning of  Audi Alteram Partem is to “hear the other side”. The meaning of the maxim itself says no person shall be condemned unheard. Hence, no case or judgment can be decided without listening to the point of another party.Since ancient times, the idea of natural justice has been given significant weight in our legal system. It stands for justice, equality, and reasonability in every administrative decision that affects a person’s right. One of the fundamental tenets of natural justice is that judgement shouldn’t be rendered until every party to a litigation has had a fair opportunity to state their case. To fulfil the goals of justice is the primary goal of this legal theory. This idea is sometimes referred to as the “Audi Alteram Partem” theory.

1. Notice: no decisions can be made during the course of judgement without providing a notice towards the parties denoting the relevant information like:

1. Date of hearing
2. Time of hearing
3. Place of hearing
4. Charges against the person
5. Jurisdiction under the case is filed

Both the parties should be aware of the information’s regarding the case. The order will be held invalid if any of this relevant information is not referred to in the notice.

In bagg case A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 16 32 James Bagg, a Chief Burgess of Plymouth had been disfranchised for unbecoming conduct in as much as it was alleged that he had told the Mayor, ‘ you are a cozening knave. I will make thy neck crack’ and by ‘turning the hinder part of his body in an inhuman and uncivil manner’ towards the mayor, said, ‘come and kiss’ he was reinstated by mandamus as no notice or hearing was given to him before passing the impugned order.

2. Hearing: It is the fundamental aspect of Audi alteram partum to hear both sides before passing any judgements. The authorities are bounded to ensure that a fair chance is provided to the parties to defend themselves.

Harban Lal. v. commissioner A.I.R. 1973 Punj. 263 33 : in this case, it was stated that fair hearing is an essential ingredient of Audi alteram partum. It is the duty of the authorities to ensure that the parties are provided with an opportunity to attend a written or oral hearing.

3. Evidence: It is an important aspect during the course of the judgement. It is produced before the court during the presence of the parties and the decisions are made by the member of the judiciary or quasi-judicial authority.

In case of Keshav Mill Co. v. Union of India [1992] 2 SCC 206 the Supreme Court was not ready to lay down an inflexible rule that it was not necessary to show the report of enquiry committee to the affected person. The court made it clear that whether the report of the enquiry committee should be furnished or not depends in every individual case on merits of the case

4. Cross-Examination: The court, during a fair hearing may not be able to disclose the person concerned or the material taken against him, but should give him a chance to refute the evidence. The major question raised before the adjudicating authority is that the witness should be cross-examined or not.

Kanungo& co. V. collector of customs A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2136: in this case, the business property of an individual was searched and some watches were seized by police under the sea customs act. The person who provided the information wasn’t allowed for cross-examination. But here, the principle of natural justice isn’t violated in the case of goods seized under the sea customs act. Because natural justice doesn’t allow the concerned person to cross-examine against the witness.

5. Legal representation: In a fair hearing, representation through a lawyer is not considered to be mandatory. But in some cases, if legal representation is not allowed then it will amount to infringement of the rule of natural justice.

Krishna Chandra .V. Union of India A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1589 in this case, the party was denied legal representation and amounted to a violation of the law of natural justice as the party wasn’t able to understand the question of law effectively.

Exemptions

It is important to clarify that the word exception doesn’t mean the principles of natural justice and fair play will not be there. These exceptions only denote those conditions in which nothing Unfair will occur even if certain conditions of this maxim are relaxed.  These conditions or exceptions are as follows:

1. Statutory Exclusions: in this case omission of the right of hearing will not amount to a violation of the rule of natural justice. Because here a statute can omit the rule of natural justice explicitly or implicitly but such statute might get challenged under article 14. So, the omission should be justifiable.

2. Legislative Functions: the rule of natural justice is not applicable to legislative actions because these policies under the rule are not subjected to a particular individual. An action is said to be legislative in nature, if it is not applicable to just one or two individuals. Similarly, the principles of natural justice can also be excluded from certain provisions of constitution as well. The application of natural justice is excluded from article 22, article 31(A),(B),(C) and 311(2)  of the  Indian constitution as a matter of policy. If the court found the application of legislative functions to be unreasonable, arbitrary and unfair, the court may scrap such provision under article 14 and article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

3. Impracticability: the rule of natural justice can be followed when it is practical to follow it but in certain cases where it is impracticable to follow the rule of natural justice then it can be excluded.

4. Academic Evaluation: if the power of authority is completely administrative then the rule of natural justice can be excluded.

5. Interdisciplinary Action: no rule of natural justice applicable in any situations of interdisciplinary actions like suspension.

6. Relaxation In Cases Of Interim Preventive Action

The principle of natural justice can be relaxed in case of the order of the administration is a preventive or interim order. In the case of Abhay Kumar Vs. K.,Srinivasan, the university order debarred a student from entering the university and attending classes until criminal proceedings against him is settled in the court. The student challenged this step of the university on the ground of violation of natural justice. The court stated that the order is merely interim or temporary in nature with an objective to maintain peace on the campus, thus it can be excluded from the purview of natural justice.

7.Relaxation in Case of Statutory necessity or exception

As per this provision, if a person comes into a situation in which he is the single person to decide and make the decision on a matter, then we can’t question his decision on the ground of biasedness. This exception is very important for the working of the entire administration department.

8. Exclusion In Case Of Contractual Arrangement

If some parties mutually agreed to terminate some provisions of natural justice, then the court can intervene in that matter. In the case of the State of Gujarat V. M.P. Shah Charitable Trust, the court held that the principles of natural justice will not be attracted in case of any arrangement in the contractual field. The termination of an agreement is not a quasi-judicial function and it can’t be subject to the scrutiny of the judiciary.

Furthermore, In our legislative framework, there are certain statutes in which hearing is prohibited thus, the principle of natural justice can be relaxed.

Conclusion

The principle of natural justice has emerged since the beginning of mankind. The maxim “Audi Alteram Partem” is the foundation stone of natural justice. These advocates for the right of fair hearing in a trial to achieve justice in the true spirit. It includes the issuance of the notice, fair opportunity to present evidence, right to cross witness, etc. This maxim is based on the principle of just, fairness and equity. However, In certain extreme conditions, the elements of this maxim are relaxed. These conditions involve the state of emergency, impracticality, contractual arrangement, interim order etc. But it is specifically noted that fairness always remains there even though the provisions are relaxed.