The maxim audi alteram partem, which emerged over centuries of Western historical experience, is now included into all civilized legal systems. However, there have been a lot of intriguing detours and turns in various legal systems throughout its operationalization. Much has hinged on courts’ capacity to distinguish between purely administrative and quasi-judicial activities.
Meaning of Audi alteram partem
One of the tenets of the English legal philosophy of natural justice is audi alteram partem, which is Latin for “hear the other side.” In common-law English jurisdictions, this idea is more narrowly defined and specialized than in political theory at large. The rule of natural justice has developed along with civilization. The common law idea of natural justice presupposes equity, equality, rationality, and fairness. Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution are based on the ideas of natural justice. Article 14 guarantees equitable treatment for all individuals. According to Article 21 of the judgement in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, laws and procedures must be fair, reasonable, and just. This maxim has been implemented to guarantee fair play and justice for the individual who is affected. It mostly applies to administrative proceedings. So, the procedure which is adopted should be just and fair.
Audi alteram partem in administrative law
The concept of natural justice is in effect when no one is harmed as a result of any administrative action. The fundamental idea behind the natural justice principle is known as Audi Alteram Partem. Courts have developed a rather sophisticated set of rules based on the principle of audi alteram partem. It demands that the judge listen not only to the complainant but also to the defendant’s arguments, and the judicial evolution has centred upon the specific method of providing a complete hearing to a case. The precise degree of protection will vary depending on the situation, but it is generally the same that each party has to have access to assistance in building their case. While professional legal representation may not be authorized, a defendant must at the very least be given assistance in presenting his case. For instance, a police officer may not be able to retain legal counsel during the first phases of internal disciplinary procedures. Additionally, some rights to see material may be allowed, and a complete and unambiguous summary of the charges against him must always be supplied, since a complete defence necessitates information. The doctrine of audi alteram partem will be applied favorably to any person facing criminal charges in a suitable judicial court. The full privileges may be lowered in other circumstances that are merely quasi-judicial, such as a university disciplinary hearing or a hearing to consider suspension from a trade union or professional organization. State regulation of these organizations has resulted in a progressive shift towards the criteria necessary for actual courts and tribunals. These less stringent requirements for ensuring that the defendant’s case is thoroughly and properly heard have increasingly come to resemble the requirements of a state criminal trial as the concept of natural justice has evolved, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. Even the most basic version, which requires that the person who stands to lose from the official’s or tribunal’s decision be given the opportunity to present their own defence, at least eliminates the possibility of completely unintentional injustice, though it might not be sufficient on its own to guard against arbitrary, malicious, or biassed decision-making. As a result, we can see these regulations are currently mostly controlled by the Human Rights Act (1998) in the United Kingdom, particularly with regard to quasi-judicial proceedings.
References
Rovertson, Devid. (2004). A Dictionary of Human Rights. London and New York : Europa Publications.
Baxi, Upendra. (1971). Developments in Indian administrative Law: A Study. Reedsy.com
Basu, Durga Das. (2002). Introduction to the Constitution of India. Wadhwa Nagpur
est suscipit numquam laboriosam quo et veniam et est enim fugit porro quo fugiat et reprehenderit qui et distinctio. cupiditate necessitatibus eveniet tempore dicta ut aut. quos rerum exercitationem d
facere aliquam doloremque sed magnam et eos recusandae tempore et aut ad quis labore voluptatem vel laboriosam iste iusto. ut consequatur pariatur dolor possimus veritatis ea omnis. aut doloribus repu
voluptatem aperiam vel aliquid doloribus recusandae. voluptatibus quisquam accusantium non. autem dolore voluptates quia. a totam tempora perspiciatis totam aspernatur sit praesentium enim ad.
dolore rerum quasi eaque expedita neque assumenda. ab sunt impedit minus itaque incidunt cupiditate tenetur placeat sint rerum velit provident. veritatis molestiae suscipit laborum eveniet iusto tempo
voluptas itaque facilis pariatur repellendus enim quia et nesciunt consectetur. occaecati voluptatem voluptatem ea molestias expedita nihil molestiae numquam nemo dignissimos asperiores id aspernatur