Law and You > Administrative Law > Audi Alterem Partem

The second principle of natural justice is Audi Alterem Partem literally means: to hear the other side or no one should be condemned unheard. This is necessary for providing a fair hearing and no doubt the rule against bias would also be a part of the procedure. A corollary has been deduced from the above rules and particularly the audi alteram partem rule, namely ‘qui aliquid statuerit parte inaudita alteram actquam licet dixerit, haud acquum facerit‘ that is, he who shall decide anything without the other side having been heard, although he may have said what is right, will not have been what is right or in other words, as it is now expressed, justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done. Audi Alterem Partem is the second long arm of natural justice which protects a person from arbitrary administrative actions whenever his right to person or property is jeopardized. The significance of this expression is that a person must be given an opportunity to defend himself and this principle is a sine qua non of every civilized society.

In Dr. Bentley’s (1723) case Dr. Bentley was a professor of great eminence. A process was sent to him by the V-C of Cambridge University. He ignored it & remarked that the Vice-Chancellor had acted like a fool. The University deprived him of his degrees. The case was nullified by the Court on the ground that Dr. Bentley was not heard. The judge Fortescue said ‘…” EvenGod himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was
called upon to make a defence”.

In R. v. Susex Justices, ex parte McCarthy, (1924) KB 256 case, Lord Hewart’s observations regarding the principles of natural justice (Audi alteram partem rule) that it is not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seem to be done. Perhaps this rule of natural justice was even Invoked by God when He meted out punishment to Adam and Eve for disrespecting His command.

In Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works (1863) 143 ER 414 case, the principle was thus stated:- Even God did not pass a sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence. “Adam,” says God, “where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat.

In Bhagvant Sing v. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1985 SC 256 case, the Court held that particular aspect of Notice & hearing cannot be waived by citing administrative difficulties and no justification will exist for depriving a person of the opportunity of being heard.

In India, it may be maintained that administrative agencies are not strictly bound by the technical rules of procedure of the ordinary law court and particularly, for this reason, the need arises for following the minimum procedure of fair hearing. It is agreed on all hands that principles of natural justice will apply to all proceedings where a civil rights of persons is adversely affected.

In Mohinder Singh Gill V. Chief Election Commissioner AIR 1978 SC 851 case, the Court held that bypassing vernal booby traps, civil consequences undoubtedly cover infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. In its comprehensive connotation, everything that affects a citizen in his civil life inflicts a civil consequence.

Ridge v. Baldwin Case, (1964 AC 40)

This was a long and tortuous case fought, by the plaintiff, against the watch committee, the Home Secretary, the Queen’s Bench Division, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. All these bodies and persons decided against him, except a majority in the House of Lords. The learned author Allen considers this case to be the “Magna Carta of natural justice”.

By section 191 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1882; (1) “The watch committee shall from time to time appoint a sufficient “number of fit men to be borough constables. (4) The watch “committee…may at any time suspend, and… dismiss, any borough “constable whom they think negligent in the discharge of his duty, “or otherwise unfit for the same”.

In 1956 the appellant Charles Ridge was appointed chief constable of a borough police force, the appointment being subject to the Police Acts and regulations. On October 25, 1957, he was arrested and charged, together with other persons, with conspiracy to obstruct the course of justice. On October 28, 1957, he was suspended from duty by the borough watch committee. On February 28, 1958, he was acquitted by the jury on the criminal charges against him. However, during the course of judgment Donovan J. said that the facts admitted in the course of the trial “establish that neither of you had that professional and moral leadership which both of you should have had and were entitled to expect from the chief constable”. On March 6, 1958, on a charge alleging corruption against the appellant, on which no evidence was offered, the judge passed similar remarks. After his acquittal the appellant applied to be reinstated, but on March 7, 1958, on the basis of remarks of judge the watch committee headed by George Baldwin at a meeting decided that he had been negligent in the discharge of his duties as chief constable and, in purported exercise of the powers conferred on them by section 191 (4) of the Act of 1882, dismissed him from that office. No specific charge was formulated against him.

On the appellant’s appeal to the Home Secretary, the decision given was “that there was sufficient material on which the committee could properly exercise their power of dismissal under section 191 (4)”. Queen’s Bench and the Court of appeal ordered against Charles Ridge. Soon, this decision was reversed by the House of Lords consisted of Lords Reid, Evershed, Morris, Hodson, and Devlin by a 4:1 majority and the order of dismissal was, therefore, not upheld. 

Lord Reid held that an officer could not lawfully be dismissed without first telling him what was alleged against him and hearing his defence or explanation.

Ingredients of Fair Hearing: Notice

The term ‘notice’ originates from the Latin word ‘notitia’ which means ‘being known’. The hearing starts with the notice by the authority concerned to the affected person. Consequently, notice may be taken as the starting point of hearing. Unless a person knows the case against him, he cannot defend himself. Therefore, before the proceedings start, the authority concerned is required to give to the affected person the notice of the case against him. Several statutes expressly provide for giving of it before passing certain orders. However, even if there is no such provision in the Act, if an order is likely to affect the rights of an individual, a clear specific and unambiguous notice should be given to him before taking any action against that person. The proceedings started without giving notice to the affected party, would violate the principles of natural justice.

In Dr Bentley’s (1723) case Dr Bentley was a professor of great eminence. A process was sent to him by the V-C of Cambridge University. He ignored it & remarked that the Vice-Chancellor had acted like a fool. The University deprived him of his degrees. The case was nullified by the Court on the ground that Dr Bentley was not heard. The judge Fortescue said ‘…” EvenGod himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make a defence”.

In J. B. Parikh v. University of Bombay, AIR 1987 Bom 332 case, an action was taken against a student (Jayesh Bhupatri Parikh) for having copied the answer from the answer book of another student (Milan Parikh). On the basis of the similarity of both the answers. The action was taken against Jayesh without giving him notice and without giving him an opportunity to be heard. The Court held that there was a violation of natural justice in this case and struck down the action taken by the University.

Essential Elements of Notice:

In India, there are no statutory requirements of notice but the courts insist the compliance with the following requirements in order to treat it as reasonable and adequate. It must give sufficient information so as to enable the person concerned to prepare his defence effectively. For this purpose, the contents and the time of giving notice etc. are taken into account.

• It must mention the time, place and nature of the hearing;
• It must mention legal authority under which hearing is to be held;
• It must mention the statement of specific charges (or grounds) and proposed action (or grounds) which the person has to meet;
• It must be clear, specific and unambiguous;
• It must mention the action proposed to be taken.
• It must mention the evidence to be used against him.
• It must give a reasonable opportunity to the person to comply with its requirements.

In Laxmi Narain Anand C.S.T. (1980) 46 S.T.C. 41 and Cooperative Society v. A.P. Govt., A.I.R. 1977 SC 313 cases the Court held that the notice is required to be served on the concerned person properly.

In Public Prosecutor v. K.P. Chandrashekharan, (1957) 8 S.T.C. 6 (Mad) case, the Court held that the notice must give sufficient time to the person concerned to his case.

In Satish Chandra v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1983 Delhi, 1 case, the Court held that whether the person concerned has been allowed time or not, depends upon the facts of each case.

In Punjab National Bank v. All India Bank Employees Federation, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 16 case, the notice contained certain charges but the penalty was imposed on the charges other than those mentioned in the notice. Thus, the charges on which the penalty was imposed were not contained in the notice served on the person concerned. The notice was not proper and, therefore, the imposition of penalty was invalid.

A notice must mention the evidence to be used against him. In Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1955 SCR (1) 941 case, the appellate income tax tribunal did not disclose the information supplied to it by their department. The Supreme Court held that it is against the principle of natural justice and every person has right to know the evidence to be used against him.

A notice must give a reasonable opportunity to the person to comply with its requirements.  In State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Haji Wali Mohd. AIR 1972 C 2538 case, the Court held that a notice giving twenty-four hours to demolish a structure alleged to be in the dilapidated condition is not proper or valid notice.

A notice must mention the statement of specific charges (or grounds) and proposed action (or grounds) which the person has to meet. In Annamunthodo v. Oilfields Workers (1931) 3 All ER 621 case, the Court held that if a notice is given to a person about one charge or allegation,  he cannot be punished for different charge or allegation, regarding which no notice has been given to him.

The rules of natural justice are flexible if no prejudice is caused. In Ravi Naik v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1558 case, a member of the Goa Legislative Assembly was disqualified by the Speaker for certain reasons. The rules provided that, in such cases, the person should be given a notice period of seven days or such further period as Speaker may deem fit. In this case, a period of three days was given to the disqualified member. The Court held that the rules of natural justice are flexible and if no prejudice was caused to the member, the action need not be set aside. The Court said: “Whether the requirements of natural justice have been complied with or not has to be considered in the context of the facts and circumstances of a particular case.”

When Notice is Optional?

The omission to serve notice would not be fatal if the notice has been served his own fault. For example, In L.P. Singh v. Board of Governors, M.A.C.T. AIR 1982 M.P. 59 case, some students were guilty of gross violence against other students. The notice could not be served on them because they had absconded. The action of the authority was held to be valid as a notice could not be served on the students on account of their own fault.

The requirement of notice will not be insisted upon as a mere technical formality when the concerned party clearly knows the case against him and is not thereby prejudiced in any manner in putting up an effective defence. In Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1973 Punj. 263 case, the court did not quash the order of the government taking over the mill for a period of 5 years on the technical ground that the appellants were not issued notice before this action was taken, because, at an earlier stage, a full-scale hearing had already been given and there was nothing more which the appellant wanted to know.

In Maharashtra State Financial Corpn. V Suvarna Board Mill, AIR 1994 SC 2657 case, the court held that a notice calling upon the party to repay dues within 15 days failing which factory would be taken over is sufficient for taking over the factory and no fresh notice is required for pulling down an unauthorized structure when notice for removing such structure has already been given.

Ingredients of Fair Hearing: Hearing itself

The hearing starts with the notice by the authority concerned with the affected person. Consequently, notice may be taken as the starting point of hearing. Unless a person knows the case against him, he cannot defend himself. Therefore, before the proceedings start, the authority concerned is required to give to the affected person the notice of the case against him. The proceedings started without giving notice to the affected party, would violate the principles of natural justice. The notice must mention the time, place and nature of the hearing; legal authority under which hearing is to be held; the statement of specific charges (or grounds) and proposed action (or grounds) which the person has to meet; the action proposed to be taken, and the evidence to be used against him. Then the second stage of fair hearing starts and it is “hearing” itself.

In Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 578 case, the Court held that under Indian Law the requirement of hearing is an essential aspect of administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings. Any Administrative order passed by the authority without a reasonable opportunity of being heard is illegal and must be set aside.

In Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works, (1863) CBNS 180 case, the Board of Works had demolished the plaintiff’s house without giving him an opportunity to be heard. The Board did have the power to do so in cases when the house had been erected without the Board’s permission. Thus the action of the Board was not violative of the statute. But it was held that the Board had violated the rules of natural justice, as every statutory provision is subject to a qualification that no man can be deprived of his property without giving him an opportunity to be heard in the matter.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 case, where the passport of the petitioner was confiscated by the passport authorities’in public interest’ without giving the chance to the petitioner to be heard. The action was set aside by the Supreme Court on the ground that the rules of natural justice had been violated.

Essential of Fair Hearing:

• The adequate notice should be served to the accused;
• The accused must be informed about the evidence against him;
• The accused must be given a chance to present his case And evidence;
• The accused must be given a chance to rebut adverse evidence;
• The accused must be given a chance to cross-examine witnesses;
• The accused must be given a chance of legal representation;
• No evidence should be collected at back of another party;
• The person who is going to take decision must here the accused;
• The accused must get a copy of the inquiry report.

The Adequate Notice:

A clear, specific and unambiguous notice mentioning the time, place and nature of the hearing; legal authority under which hearing is to be held; the statement of specific charges (or grounds) and proposed action (or grounds) which the person has to meet; the action proposed to be taken, and the evidence to be used against him is served to accused with prescribed or reasonable time period to respond.

In Laxmi Narain Anand C.S.T. (1980) 46 S.T.C. 41 and Cooperative Society v. A.P. Govt., A.I.R. 1977 SC 313 cases the Court held that the notice is required to be served on the concerned person properly.

In Public Prosecutor v. K.P. Chandrashekharan, (1957) 8 S.T.C. 6 (Mad) case, the Court held that the notice must give sufficient time to the person concerned to his case.

Right To Know The Evidence Against Him:

Every person before an administrative authority exercising adjudicatory powers has the right to know the evidence to be used against him.

In Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. C.l.T., AIR 1955 SC 65 case, the apex court set aside the decision of the tax tribunal where the information supplied by the department against the assessee was not communicated to him. Of course, this must not signify the necessity of supplying of all adverse materials in original in all the cases.

In Mahadayal Prem Chandra v. C.T.O., AIR 1958 SC 667 case, where the Sales Tax Officer depended entirely on the advice of his senior and assessed the appellant without showing him the senior’s opinion and giving him an opportunity to state his point of view against the same. The Supreme Court quashed the assessment proceeding.

In Duli Chandra Kheria v. Collector of Customs, AIR 1965 Cal. 156 case, where betel nuts seized from the petitioner were confiscated by the customs authorities and the order was based on the reports of the experts, non-disclosure of the contents of the report was held to vitiate the confiscation proceedings.

In Bishnu Ram Burah V. Prag Saika and others, AIR 1984 SC 898 case, the question arose regarding the grant of liquor Licence by the Board of Revenue to the petitioner. The report of Deputy Commissioner was claimed to be confidential in nature. The applicant did not ask for the copy of the report, hence the question of its disclosure did not arise. The court held the even if such a demand would have been made refusal to furnish copy would not amount to a denial of natural justice. Grant of the licence is not a matter of right but merely in the nature of privilege.

In Hira Nath Mishra V. Principal, Rajendra Medical College, AIR 1973 SC 1260 case, the appellants-male students entered quite naked into the compound of the girls’ hostel late at night. Thirty-six girl students filed a complaint with the Principal of the college. The college authorities did not call the police, as girl students would not have cooperated out of sheer fright and fear of harm to their reputation. For the same, a regular tribunal was not set up to investigate the case. The Principal of the college, therefore, set up an inquiry committee of three independent members of the staff of the college. The Committee recorded the statements of the girl students but not in the presence of appellants. The appellants’ photographs were mixed up with 20 photographs of other students and the girls by and large identified the appellants. The enquiry committee thereafter called upon the appellants and the charges were explained to them. The charges against them were has given in writing by the inquiry committee and asked them to submit their statements in writing. The appellants, however, denied the charges and all allegations. But the Enquiry committee gave its decision that the appellants were guilty and expulsion order was passed against them. The order of expulsion was challenged before the Supreme Court particularly on the grounds amongst others that the committee recorded the evidence of the girl students not in the presence of the appellants and the boys were not given chance of cross-examination of the girls. But the Supreme Court held that the procedure adopted by the college authorities was right and that it was the only way of holding a “just and reasonable inquiry” without exposing the girls to harassment and rejected this contention and observed that whatever evidence was collected at the back of the appellants was brought to their notice and they were provided with an opportunity to rebut the evidence.

In City Corner vs. P.A. to Collector and Addl. Magistrate, AIR 1976 SC 143 case, the Supreme Court observed that the natural justice requirements would be complied with if the summary of the contents of the adverse material is supplied to the person concerned, provided it is not misleading.

Right To Present Case And Evidence:

This can be done through writing or orally. The courts are unanimous on the point that oral/personal hearing is not an integral part of the fair hearing unless circumstances are so exceptional that without oral hearing a person cannot put up an effective defence. Thus, in the absence of a statutory requirement for oral hearing courts will decide the matter taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of every case.

In Union of India v. J.P. Mitter, AIR 1971 S.C. 1093 case, the question arose regarding the disputed age of a High Court Judge. The President did not grant the opportunity of oral hearing even on request by the aggrieved person. But the person aggrieved has been given an opportunity to submit his case in writing. And the Supreme Court refused to quash the order of the President of India because there was no violation of the principles of natural justice.

In State of Orissa v. Binpani Dei, AIR 1967 SC1269 case, where an employee was compulsorily retired from service prematurely on the ground that he had reached the age of 55 years, the order was set aside as no opportunity of being heard had been given to him.

In Antonio S.C. Pariera V. Rocardina Naronha, (2006) 7 SCC 740 case, where the question was whether a ‘third person’ to the dispute should be heard. The Supreme Court answered the question in affirmative, court observed that even if the law does not provide for it, a third person must be heard in the same dispute if he is likely to suffer substantial injury by the decision.

In Chinni Ramakrishna Rao v. Registrar, Andhra University, AIR 1972 AP 127 case, a candidate for a B. Com. examination was found to be carrying a piece of paper with answers written on it. When questioned he admitted that he had intended to use paper to write his answers. However, he submitted a letter containing an assurance that, in the future, he would not resort to unfair means at any examination. When he was barred from taking the examination for a period of two years, he challenged the order on the ground that he was not given oral hearing. The Court held that the confession along with the incriminating piece of paper is enough to take action against him and there was nothing that was required to be clarified through an oral hearing.

The Right To Rebut Adverse Evidence

This right presupposes that the person has been informed about the evidence against him. This can be done by cross-examination of witnesses and with legal representation (if required).

In Mumtaz Hussain Ansari V. State of U.P., (Order of SC (21 Mar, 1984) ) case, the appellant, a District Superintendent of Police at Pilibhit, had been charged on various counts including wilful absence from duty. Before the Tribunal he wanted eight witnesses to be examined in his defence. The Tribunal asked him to deposit Rs. 900 for the allowance to be paid to the witnesses. The appellant could not deposit the amount and hence witnesses could not be examined. The SC ruled that if the appellant was under suspension for a long time and hence could not deposit the amount due to financial incapacity, the failure not to summon defence witnesses at the government’s expense was a violation of the principles of natural justice unless it was decided by the authority that the evidence of such witnesses was not material.

In Aligarh Muslim University v. Manssor Ali Khan, AIR 2000 SC 2783 case, a rule provided that if an employee remained absent without permission for a particular period of time, it would result in automatic termination of his employment. As Manssor remained absent for more than five years without permission, his post was deemed to have been vacated. Manssor challenged this on the ground that the rules of natural justice were violated, as he was not given an opportunity to be heard before the post was declared to be vacant. The Supreme Court rejected the argument and held that there was no prejudice to Manssor in the facts of the case. If Manssor had been heard it would not have made any difference.

Right to Cross-examine:

Cross-Examination is the most potent means to extract and establish the truth.

In State of Kerala v. Shaduli Grocery Dealer, AIR 1977 SC 1627 case, the Supreme Court observed that the denial of dealer’s request by the Sales Tax authorities to cross-examine the third party before making best judgment assessment is a denial of fair, hearing.

In Town Area Committee V. Jagadish Prasad, A.l.R 1978 S.C. 1407 case, the Department submitted the Charge-sheet and obtained explanation and afterward passed the dismissal order. The apex court set aside the order on the ground that the rule of fair hearing comprises an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and to lead evidence.

In State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Bakshi Gulam Mohammed, AIR 1967SC 122 case, an inquiry was conducted against Bakshi Gulam Mohammed, former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir State, under J & K Commission of Inquiry Act, 1962. Bakshi Gulam Mohammed requested the cross-examination of the witnesses who had filed affidavits against him. But the request was rejected. The Commission’s decision was challenged before the Supreme Court and one of the grounds of challenge was that the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses violated the rule of the fair hearing. The apex court, however, disallowed the challenge on the grounds that the evidence of the witnesses was in the form of affidavits and the copies had been made available to the party.

In Maharashtra State Board v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Seth, AIR 1984 SC 1543 case, the Court observed that the rule of fair hearing is, however, flexible, and cannot be allowed to be stretched to unreasonable lengths. Thus it has been held that students who have appeared for an examination cannot be allowed to participate in the process of evaluation of their answer papers or verify the correctness of the evaluation by the examiners.

In Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, (1997) 2 SCC 534 case, the accused was a teacher on probation in a co-educational school alleged to have committed misconduct (of a sexual nature) on a female student. Despite several warnings, he continued to go to girl’s hostel and enter the room of that girl at late hours. Subsequently, he got terminated from his job. On appeal in the Apex court for not holding a regular inquiry and refusal of his right to cross-examine witnesses, the Supreme Court while denying him this right held that in facts of the case, not holding a regular inquiry and refusal of cross-examination by the school authorities was fully justified.

In U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee, AIR 1980 SC 840 case, where an employee of a statutory corporation was not allowed to cross-examine the witness produced by the management against him, the order of his dismissal was set aside by the Supreme Court on the ground that the right of ross-examination ought to have been extended to him in the circumstances of the case and that a denial thereof resulted in the violation of the rules of natural justice.

Also refer Hira Nath Mishra V. Principal, Rajendra Medical College, AIR 1973 SC 1260 case discussed above.

Right to Have Legal Representation:

Normally representation through a lawyer in any administrative proceeding is not considered an indispensable part of natural justice as oral hearing is not included in the minima of fair hearing. The denial of legal representation would be substantiated on the ground that lawyers have a tendency to complicate matters, to prolong the proceedings and destroy the essential informality of the proceedings, particularly in administrative matters. But the courts in India have, however, observed that in situation where the person is illiterate (James Bushi v. Collector of Ganjam, AIR 1959 Cri. 152) or the matter is complicated and technical (Natya Ranjan v. State, AIR 1962 Orissa 78) or a question of law is involved( J. J. Mody v. State of Bombay AIR 1962 Guj. 197 and Krishna Chandra v. Union of India, (1974) 4 SCC 374) or the person is facing a trained prosecutor (C. L. Subramaniam V. Collector of Customs, AIR 1972 SC 2178 ) professional aid in. some form should be given to the party to render his right to defend himself a substantial one.

In Khatri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 928 case, the Court insisted upon providing legal aid to the poor or indigent accused not only at the stage of trial but at the time of remand also.

In Nandini Satpathy V. P. L. Dani, AIR 1978, SC 1025 case, the apex court observation insisted that the accused must be allowed legal assistance in custodial interrogation and the police must wait till the lawyer arrives.

In M. H. Hoskot V. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 1548 case, while importing the concept of ‘fair procedure’ in Article 21 of the Constitution the Court held that the right to personal liberty implies provision by the State of free legal service to a prisoner who is indigent or otherwise disabled from securing legal assistance where the ends of justice call for such service.

No Evidence Should be Taken at The Back of the Other Party:

The ex parte evidence taken in the absence of the other party violates the principle of fair hearing.

In Errington v. Minister of Health, (1935) 1 KB 249 case, in 1933 Jarrow Corporation passed a clearance order for the demolition of certain buildings found unfit for human habitation and submitted the same for the confirmation of the minister of health. An enquiry was held and the owners of the building were given a hearing. Thereafter some officials of the ministry again visited the place and collected evidence but the owners were not informed about the visit. The clearance order was confirmed by the minister after taking into account the facts thus collected. On challenge, the clearance order was quashed by the court and one of the grounds for so deciding was that the ex parte statements taken in the absence of the other party.

Also refer Hira Nath Mishra V. Principal, Rajendra Medical College, AIR 1973 SC 1260 case discussed above.

Also refer Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, (1997) 2 SCC 534 case.

Rule Against Dictation (Who Decides Must Hear):

Any administrative authority with the power of decision making must exercise this power to exercise its own judgment. The decision must be actually his, who decides. Therefore, if a decision is taken at the direction of any outside agency, there is a violation of fair hearing.

In Mahadayal v. C.T.O., AIR 1958 SC 667 case, the Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Commercial Tax Department, imposing a tax upon the petitioner. Because the Commercial Tax Officer himself considered that the petitioner was not liable to pay tax, and yet, he referred the matter to his superior officer and on instructions imposed a tax upon the petitioner.

In Gullapalli Nageshwara Rao Vs. A.P.S.R.T. Corporation, AIR 1959 SC 308 case, the petitioners were engaged in the motor transport business. The Andhra State Transport Undertaking published a scheme for the nationalization of motor transport in the State and invited objections. The petitioners accordingly submitted objections which were heard by the Secretary and thereafter the scheme was given approval by the Chief Minister. The Hon’ble Supreme court held that this divided responsibility was against the concept of fair hearing because if one who decides does not hear the party, he gets no opportunity of clearing doubts in his mind by reasoned arguments.

Speaking Order:

Maxims “Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa” and “Audi alterem partem” are considered the two limbs of natural justice. Speaking order or reasoned order is considered as the third limb of natural justice.

A reasoned decision is a decision which contains reason in its support. When the adjudicating bodies give reasons in support of their decisions, the decisions are treated as a reasoned decision. It is also called speaking order. In such a condition, the order speaks for itself or it tells its own story. Speaking orders are necessary if the judicial review is to be effective. The party affected must know why and on what grounds an order has been passed against him.

In Siemens Engg. & Mfg. Co. of India v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785 case, the Court held that the rules giving reasons in support of an order is the third principle of natural justice.

In Raipur Development Authority v. Chokhamal Contractors, AIR 1990 SC 1426 case, the Court held that the rule of speaking order should be confined to the realm of the public law or administrative law only.

To Obtain a Copy of Inquiry Report:

In Union of lndia v. E. Bashya it was observed by the Supreme Court that the failure to supply the inquiry report to the delinquent before the disciplinary authority takes a final decision would constitute a violation of Articles 311 (2) of the Constitution and also the violation of the principles of natural justice.

Related Topics:

• Introduction to Principles of Natural Justice
• First Principle of Natural Justice: Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa
• Personal Bias
• Pecuniary Bias and Subject Matter Bias
• Third Principle of Natural Justice: Speaking Order
• Exceptions to the Principle of Natural Justice

For More Articles on Administrative Law Click Here

For More Articles on Different Acts, Click Here