Audi Alteram Partem | Quasi-Judicial Authority | Constitution Of India | Princple Of Equality
- by Aditi-Harshraj
- May 13, 2020 17:47
The literal meaning of this legal phrase is 'listen to the other side'. It means everyone will be heard and justice will be given to both the parties. The concept of natural justice has evolved this maxim which means judgment should be fair and reasonable. Article 14 of the Constitution of India deals with the Principle of equality and Article 21 of the Constitution explains the protection of life and Personal Liberty of person.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): In this case, The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that law and procedure should be just, fair and reasonable. Essential of Audi alteram partem Notice Every person has the right to get information about the action which is taken against him. So the notice must be provided before passing any order and if it isn't done then it is void ab initio. Keshav mills co ltd v. Union of India, In this case, it was held that notice should be clear and unambiguous and if these things are not followed then it will not be considered as reasonable and proper. Hearing Every part should be given the opportunity of being heard and if it doesn't happen then it will be considered invalid. Harbans Lal v. Commissioner (1994) In this case, it was held that every person should get the opportunity of being heard as it is the essential ingredient of the principle of Audi alteram partem.
Evidence: It means that Judicial or quasi-judicial authority must act upon the evidence and should give the order as per the evidence produced before the court. Stafford v. ministry of health It was held that no evidence should be recorded if the other party is absent in the court and if any evidence has been recorded in absence of the party then the authority is liable to make it available to that party. Cross-examination It means the attorney can ask questions or interrogate the witness and opportunity is also given to him to deny the evidence. It is the discretion of the court to allow the attorney to cross-examine the witness.
Kanungo & Co. v. Collector of Customs (1992): In this case, cross-examination of the witness wasn't allowed in the matter where goods are seized under the sea custom act. Therefore it wasn't violating the principle of natural justice. Legal representation Everyone has the right to be legally represented by the legal advisor. As a result of which the authority provides legal advisors to those who aren't capable as such. J.J Mody v. the State of Bombay It was held that if the person isn't provided the facility of legal representation then it is violative of natural justice as a prudent person isn't able to understand the rule of law and legal terms effectively.
Read More Latest Bollywood Movie Reviews & News
Read More Sports News, Cricket News
Read More Latest Mobile, Laptop News & Review