Natural Justice, as a principle of common law, has existed from the ancient Greek and Roman times. It is an important aspect of administrative law. The procedures and powers of tribunals- the administrative bodies that discharge quasi-judicial duties- are guided by the principles of natural justice. It is an inherently humanitarian principle that works to instill fairness in law and ensure that justice is not miscarried.

In the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills V. Union of India[1] it was ruled that, the principle of "Natural Justice" is a form of public law and an important force that ensures justice for citizens. Audi Alteram Partem, an inherent principle of natural justice, is a Latin term which translates to "hear the other side". It means that in any dispute, both the accuser and the accused must be given a fair chance to be heard before passing the decision.  It ensures integrity, fairness, transparency, non- arbitrariness upholds justice and safeguards a citizen's right to be heard.

Objective

• To Investigate How The Audi Alteram Partem Principle Came To Be Within The Larger Framework Of Natural Justice.
• To Examine How It Is Used In The Indian Legal System, Specifically In Administrative, Judicial, And Quasi-Judicial Processes.
• To Research Significant Court Rulings That Have Influenced And Elucidated The Boundaries And Extent Of This Principle In India.
• To Investigate The Limitations And Exceptions, As Well As The Idea Of A Post-Decisional Hearing And The Court's Acceptance Of It.
• To Evaluate The Applicability And Importance Of Audi Alteram Partem In Maintaining Procedural Justice, Accountability, And Fairness In Contemporary Administrative Law.

Concept Of Audi Alterm Partem

The Latin term Audi Alterm Partem directly translated to "hear the other side". It means that whosoever's interests are being affected in any matter, has the right to be heard and has the right to present his side so that whatever decision is taken by the authorities is not biased or arbitrary. This term originated from a Latin phrase "audiatur et altera pars". This concept finds its roots in Christian Latin literature, and can also be seen in Greek and Roman antiquity.

De Smith says:
"No proposition can be more clearly established than that a man cannot incur the loss of liberty or property for an offence by a judicial proceeding until he has had a fair opportunity of answering the case against him'. A party is not to suffer in person or in purse without an opportunity of being heard".[2]

 In the renowned case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works[3], 1863, the jurist pointed out the application of Audi Alteram Partem by The Almighty God himself to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden as documented in the Holy book of Bible. When God invited Adam to defend himself, God inquired thus;
"where art thou? hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat".

Interpreting this the jurist stated:
"Even God did not pass a sentence upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his defence"

Thus this concept has been around since the time if the Gods. In Indian context the concept of Natural Justice and its principles has existed since ancient times and finds mentions in historical texts like Kautilya's Arthshastra. Constitutionally, the principle of audi alteram partem can be traced to Article 14 i.e. equality before law, and Article 21 i.e. right to life and personal liberty.

The principle of audi alteram partem finds explicit mention in the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[4] where the court held:
"no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing. The  audi alteram partem rule is a highly effective tool devised by the courts to enable a statutory authority to arrive at a just decision and it is calculated to act as a healthy check on abuse or misuse of power and hence its reach should not be narrowed and its applicability circum- scribed."

Following this judgment which expanded the scope of article 21, many other judicial pronouncements further strengthened the position of the rule of audi alteram partem as a necessary condition to ensure fairness in passing judgments.

Audi alteram partem finds explicit mention in article 311 of the Indian Constitution which talks about "Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State". 311(2) states:
"No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against hi m and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges"

The presence of audi alteram partem in this article was upheld in the case of Union Of India & anr v. Tulsiram Patel And Ors[5], wherein the judgment stated:
 "Clause (2) of Article 311 is merely an express statement of the audi alteram partem rule which is implicitly made part of the guarantee contained in Article 14"

Further, audi alteram partem was upheld in the case of Rash Lal Yadav v. State of Bihar[6]. This case concerned the termination of a government servant without providing him with a proper hearing. The Supreme Court held that the termination was void ab initio since it was against the canons of natural justice, in particular audi alteram partem. The Court laid down the principle that even in instances of gross misconduct; an employee has to be afforded an opportunity to defend himself.

Thus the principle of audi alteram partem is undeniably of essence when it comes to upholding natural justice so as to ensure that every accused has a right to defend himself to ensure fairness and equality.

Post Decisional Hearing

The right to be heard usually means that a person is given an opportunity to present their defense and to present their side before any decision is made against them. This is called pre-decisional hearing and usually an individual is given an opportunity to present themselves before the adjudicating authority has made its decision. This is called pre-decisional hearing. The right to be heard, however, can also be enforced after the decision is made. This is called post-decisional hearing which was introduced in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.

In this case, the airport authorities had seized the passport of Maneka Gandhi without providing any grounds and she was not given an opportunity to present her case before the decision had been made. However, after the decision had been concluded, she was allowed to present her side and provide evidence in order to defend her case and this is what is called post-decision hearing. As per this rule, an individual can be heard even after the authority has made its tentative decision and this is because sometimes the deciding authority may not find it feasible to host a pre-decisional hearing. For example, when it faces emergency situations which affect public health at large or when there is a time bar.

While it may look unethical against the principle of natural justice, that is not the case. Since the rule of right to be heard is being followed, it is only that it is present at a later stage. However, the courts have always favored pre-decision hearing over post-decision hearing which was also prominent in a recent case of Mukesh Kumar Paswan v. State of Bihar[7] wherein the court explicitly stated that post-decision hearing is one of a closed mind and it is a fact that it is detrimental in nature as it would be a formality and will be done with a prejudiced mind which will be in favor of the already made decision. Therefore, post-decision hearing, although a concept of Audi Alteram Partem, has not been favored by many and is still one that is not widely practiced.

Key Elements of Audi Alteram Partem

Right to Notice

The term notice has been originated from the Latin word 'notitia' and it translates to 'being known'. Right to notice is equivalent to right to information. In the sense of law, it embraces knowledge that a person who has been accused of a crime has the right to be given the notice which includes all the allegations and the grounds of the allegations that have been made against him. A notice must precede any hearing. The notice should be clear and precise so that it provides the party with adequate information of the case that he has to meet. Further, another important aspect of right to notice is that adequate time has to be given to a person after providing a notice so that he can prepare an effective defense to uphold Audi Alteram Partem. The denial of notice and opportunity to respond makes the entire process of administration ineffective as it will be unfair to the party accused. In the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Haji Wahi Mohammad, the need for sufficient time after providing notice was emphasized and in the case of Union of India v. Narendra Singh, the Supreme Court made it amply clear that even if a mistake in decision-making process is to be corrected which has adverse consequences for a person, he must be given notice. In this case, an erroneous promotion had been cancelled without following the process of law. Opportunity of hearing may not be given if mistake or error is apparent on the face of record. The Constitution of India also emphasizes the right to notice in Article 21 that requires that a detenue must be provided the grounds of the detention and if the grounds are not clear and precise, then the detention can be quashed by the court, as held in the case of State of Bombay v. Atmaram. Therefore, notice is an inherently important part of Audi Alteram Partem and without providing the notice, which must include the proper time, the allegations and the date of hearing, the principle of natural justice will be obstructed.
 

Evidence

The element of evidence in Audi Alteram Partem includes three elements:

• The right to know evidence.
• The right to present evidence.
• The right to rebut evidence.

Right to know evidence means that any person that has been accused has the right to know all the evidence that has been collected against him to prove all the accusations. Before an administrative authority exercises their adjudicatory powers against a person, he has the right to know all the evidence that is being used against him. This principle was firmly established in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Limited v. CIT. In this case, the appellate income tax tribunal did not disclose the information supplied to it by the department. The Supreme Court held that the assessee was not given a fair hearing. A mere summary of the contents of the material of evidence is enough, provided that it is not misleading. A person may also be allowed to inspect the file and take notes for themselves to ensure a fair hearing. Right to present evidence means that a reasonable opportunity should be provided to the accused party to present his case and the evidence that would support and strengthen his defense. The evidence that an accused presents can be written or oral at the discretion of the authority. Natural justice is only upheld if both the parties to a conflict are given a fair opportunity to represent themselves. However, this right does not mean that a person is allowed to unnecessarily prolong and stretch the administrative proceedings by providing evidence that has no relevance to the case. Therefore, the question of relevance is an important aspect of the right to present evidence. The right to rebut adverse evidence presupposes that a person has already been informed of all the evidence that has been collected against him. If a person feels that the evidence that has been provided against him is tampered with or incorrect, then he has the right to rebut the same. Therefore, being informed of the adverse evidence is not enough; rebuttal of the same is inherent to uphold natural justice.
 

Right to Cross-Examination

Cross-examination means that the person against whom allegations are made is allowed to cross-question the documents or the people that have provided evidence against him. However, courts do not insist on cross-examination unless the absence of cross-examination would be fatal in providing a strong defense. In the case of State of J&K v. Bakshi Ghulam Muhammad, a former CM of J&K was subjected to an inquiry under the J&K Commission of Inquiry Act, 1962. The defendant requested to cross-examine the witness who had filed affidavits against him. However, he was denied the same. The Supreme Court disallowed this challenge on the ground that the evidence of the witness was in the form of affidavits and the copies had been made available to the party. Therefore, cross-examination was not necessary. Although cross-examinations are not strongly insisted upon by the courts, they are in some cases inherently important to provide a proper opportunity to put up a strong defense to uphold natural justice.
 

Right to Legal Representation

Legal representation in an administrative proceeding is normally not considered an indispensable part of natural justice because oral hearing is not considered to be an important element of fair hearing. This denial of legal representation is justified by the fact that involvement of lawyers may complicate and prolong the proceeding unnecessarily. The extent to which legal representation would be allowed also depends on the provisions of the particular statute in question. Some statutes explicitly deny legal representation and some allow it. However, courts in India have upheld situations where legal representation is necessary—such as when a person is illiterate, the matter is complicated and technical, expert advice is necessary, a question of law is involved, or when the person is facing a trained prosecutor. In such cases, professional assistance is to be provided to ensure a fair defense. For example, in State of Khatri v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that the state is constitutionally bound to provide legal aid to the poor and illiterate not only at the stage of trial but also at the time of remand, and such right cannot be denied on the basis of financial constraints or inability of the administrative authority or that the accused had not asked for it. Therefore, although not always required, legal representation forms an important part of Audi Alteram Partem as a principle of natural justice.
 

One Who Hears Must Decide

This element means that the person or authority in front of whom the defense and the prosecution are heard should be the authority that decides the matter. Unlike courts of law, decisions in many administrative proceedings are made not by the person who listens. Often one person hears and another decides. This divided responsibility can conflict with the principle of fair hearing. To uphold Audi Alteram Partem and ensure fairness, the person who hears both sides should be the one to decide, ensuring that natural justice is not infringed.

Reasoned Decision

A reasoned decision means that the decisions passed by the adjudicating authority must be rational and must be in accordance with all the evidence, circumstances, facts that have been provided so as to ensure that no violation of any right of any of the parties is committed. It is inherently important that whatever decision is being made, the deciding authority must give reasons which should not merely be a rubber stamp reason but brief clear statement providing the link between the material on the basis of which the decision is formed and the decision i.e. the actual conclusion. Reasons are the link between the order and the mind of the maker. Thus, reasoned decisions ensure procedural fairness and are inherently important to uphold constitutional Articles 14 and 21 as well as natural justice.

Exceptions to Audi Alteram Partem

1.  Statutory Exceptions
   Statutory exceptions are those circumstances where the statute under which a certain conflict is being dealt with itself allows overriding the principles of natural justice. For example, in the cases of ensuring national security or public safety at large, the government may be authorized lawfully to take decisions that would in any other scenario be an infringement of natural justice. For example, the concept of preventive detention or withholding evidence from a trial for security reasons. Such statutory exceptions are established to strike a balance between fairness and the efficiency in administrative process while ensuring all the constitutional guarantees to the citizens.
   
   In the famous case of Charanlal Sahu v. Union of India[14], this concept of statutory exceptions was upheld and expanded upon. In this case, the Central Government had authorized itself under the Bhopal Gas Disaster Act 1985 to represent all the victims of the infamous Bhopal gas tragedy that led to many casualties. This act was challenged on the grounds that the government held a 22% share in the Union Carbide Company and it was contended that by such margin of share, the interest of the said company and of the union government overlapped each other and the victims therefore protested against it stating that the maintenance granted to them was not decided by them rather they were not even heard before a decision was made that affected the victims.
   
   The court however held that although the agreement might be true, there is no other body that can represent the victims other than the Central Government. It was therefore stated that a statutory exception might not always be explicitly stated but it can be implied in the application of the act. In addition, wherever there is a statutory exception, it is still important that the decision makers act in a judicious and a fair manner to ensure reasonable decisions.
    
2. Emergency Situations
   Emergency situations refer to those scenarios that affect the national security or public safety. In situations of emergency, so as to protect the national security, the fundaments of national justice, specifically referring to Audi Alteram Partem, may be suspended or even modified to allow sufficient necessary action. The right to be heard in cases of emergency situations is excluded by law to allow the smooth functioning of the government.
   
   In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. CEC[15], this exception to the right to be heard was upheld. In this case, elections were being conducted in an area which was disrupted by mob violence as a result of which the ballot boxes were destroyed. Due to such circumstances, the Election Commission ignored the right to be heard and reordered elections without notice. The people challenged this decision however the court held that the Election Commission had the right to dismiss the election and call for fresh elections since it was a case of emergency and thus the rule of right to be heard could be ignored.
    
3. Impractical Situations
   Impractical situations mean such circumstances where it is unfeasible, impractical, and impossible for everybody to receive an equal right to be heard. Therefore, when it comes to making decision in such situations, the principle of Audi Alteram Partem may be ignored.
   
   In the case of Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhash Chandra Sinha[16] and others, board examinations of class 10th were conducted, but it was found that there was mass cheating in the exam which was affirmed during the checking of the papers. The board therefore called the students to reappear for a fresh exam. The students challenged this decision on the grounds that they had not been given any opportunity to be heard. The High Court ruled in favor of the students and quashed the decision saying that it was an infringement of the right to be heard. However, the appeal against the High Court decision in the Supreme Court reinstated the order of the Patna Board and observed that it is impractical in the present scenario to hear the side of all the students since it would take an immense amount of time and it would be impractical, therefore, in this case, the principle of natural justice may be ignored.
    
4. Public Interest
   Sometimes, public interest may be considered an exception to the rule of right to be heard. This is because when the interests of the public at large are at risk, then it becomes necessary for the decision makers to override the individual rights of all the citizens and in such case, not everyone can be allowed a right to be heard. For example, there are certain laws that restrict certain freedoms to protect public health and safety like it was evident during COVID-19 where people's right to move freely and go out in public were restricted to ensure public health. In such cases, public interest is given precedence over national justice. In the landmark case of BALCO Employees Union vs. Union of India and others[17], the Supreme Court held in its judgment that the principles of national justice are allowed to be set aside in matters that affect public interest and pose harm to the collective well-being of the public

Recent Judicial Pronouncements

1. Krishnadatt Awasthy V, State Of Mp (2025)[18]
   This case dated back to an appointment made in 1998 of some Shiksha Karmis who were teachers. An unsuccessful candidate had challenged the selection of the current appellant stating that such appointment had been made through nepotism, corruption, and bias in the selection process.
   
   It was also contended that 10 of the people appointed were relatives of the members of the selection committee. At that time, the collector who had heard the case accepted the allegations and set aside the appointments that had been made. The dismissed people had filed a revision petition which was dismissed. They also subsequently filed a writ petition which was also dismissed. Therefore, the matter came before the Supreme Court.
   
   The appellant who were the then selected teachers stated that they had been given no opportunity at all of being heard by the collector and that the collector's decision was an infringement of their right to natural justice as they were not made parties to the decision at all and there was no clear solid evidence of any unfair advantage that they had. The Supreme Court held that the setting aside of the selection of the appellant was a gross violation of the principle of Audi Alteram Partem. Although the selection process was found faulty, still the collector's decision was considered to be a violation of natural justice.
   
   The court upheld that the principle of Audi Alteram Partem is a cornerstone of fairness and justice ensuring that no person is condemned unheard. Highlighting landmark cases such as Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation[19], Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, the court stated that the right to be heard had been infringed and upheld the appeal filed by the appellants.
    
2. SBI V. Rajesh Agarwal (2023)[20]
   In this case of State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal, the RBI had established their master direction in frauds, which allowed classification and reporting of fraudulent accounts by commercial banks and select financial institutions. It allowed banks to classify accounts as fraudulent without mandating a prior hearing for borrower.
   
   These guidelines were challenged by a borrower whose accounts had been rendered as fraudulent by a State Bank of India, stating that they had not been given an opportunity to be heard, which was a violation of their right to natural justice and their right to be heard. The court in this case ruled in favor of the borrower stating that, whosoever's accounts are being rendered as fraudulent must be given an opportunity to be heard and the banks should record the reasons for such classification as fraudulent so as to not infringe their right to be heard.
    

Conclusion
One of the most important tenets of procedural fairness and natural justice is the audi alteram partem principle. It serves as an essential check on the capricious use of power, guaranteeing that all those impacted by a decision are given an equal chance to voice their opinions before any unfavorable action is taken.

The courts have made it clear that deviations must be minimal, justified and closely examined to avoid abuse, even though some exceptions like post-decisional hearings are acknowledged in emergency situations. They are narrowly interpreted so that the equilibrium between administrative effectiveness and personal rights is preserved.

Fundamentally, the principle embodies a dedication to fairness, openness, and rational decision-making and it will continue to be a pillar in guaranteeing that justice is not only carried out, but also perceived as having been carried out in both form and content. In the Indian administrative system, the principle has been firmly established by the courts, developing through path-breaking judgments in accordance with the challenging requirements of society. In the end, audi alteram partem upholds the principle of Natural Justice by ensuring fairness, transparency, and accountability in decision-making.

References

• I.P. Massey, Administrative Law 217-259 (7th edn., 2008).
• M.P. Jain and S.N. Jain, Principles of Administrative Law (9th edn., 2021).
• John M. Kelly, "Audi Alteram Partem; Note" Natural Law Forum (1964).
  http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/nd_naturallaw_forum
• Uzma Sultan, "Explained: In-Depth Analysis of the Legal Principle 'audi Alteram Partem'" 6 International Journal of Legal Developments and Allied Issues (2020).
  https://thelawbrigade.com/
• A. Subasri M.L, "Evolution and Significance of Natural Justice – an Analysis" 11 International Journal of Creative Research Thought (2023).
  https://www.ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2304121.pdf
• Onuorah, O. R., Nwodo, A. J., Onah, H. C. & Odoh S. C. (2024). Understanding Natural Law Principles of Audi Altarem Partem Doctrine from the Administrative Law Perspectives. International Journal of Law and Global Policy, 5(1), 1-19. DOI:
  https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11343478

End Notes:

• Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, 1981 AIR 818
• Onuorah, O. R., Nwodo, A. J., Onah, H. C. & Odoh S. C. (2024). Understanding Natural Law Principles of Audi Altarem Partem Doctrine from the Administrative Law Perspectives. International Journal of Law and Global Policy, 5(1), 1-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11343478
• Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works, [1863] 14 CB (NS) 180 (CP); [1863] 143 ER 414
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597
• Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, 1985 AIR 1416
• Rash v. State of Bihar, (1994) 5 SCC 267
• Mukesh Kumar Paswan v. State of Bihar, CWJC No. 8071 of 2023
• State of Jammu v. Haji Wahi Mohammad, 1972 AIR 2538
• Union of India v. Narendra Singh, 2005 (6) SCC 106
• State of Bombay v. Atmaram, 1951 AIR 157
• Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Limited v. CIT, 1955 AIR 65
• State of Jammu v. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, 1967 AIR 122
• Khatri v. State of Bihar, 1981 SCR (2) 408
• Charanlal Sahu v. Union of India, 1990 AIR 1480
• Mohinder Singh Gill v. CEC, 1978 AIR 851
• Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhash Chandra Sinha, 1970 AIR 1269
• BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 350
• Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 INSC 126
• Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1986 AIR 180
• SBI v. Rajesh Agarwal, Civil Appeal No. 7300 of 2022