Revisiting audi alterem partem: With special reference to Sree Metaliks limited and
Revisiting Audi Alteram Partem
(The principle of hearing the other side before deciding)
What is Audi Alteram Partem?
It’s a fundamental rule of natural justice meaning:
“Hear the other side” or “No decision should be made without giving the person affected a chance to be heard.”
It ensures fairness in administrative and judicial proceedings.
It prevents arbitrariness by requiring that both parties get an opportunity to present their case.
Importance of Audi Alteram Partem:
Prevents one-sided decisions.
Protects individual rights against executive or judicial errors.
Ensures transparency and accountability.
Applies widely: administrative, disciplinary, judicial, quasi-judicial proceedings.
Case Study: Sree Metaliks Limited (Relevant Judgement)
1. Facts
Sree Metaliks Limited was involved in proceedings where a show cause notice or an adverse order was passed against them.
The company argued that it was not given a proper opportunity to present its side before the decision was made.
The key contention was that the audi alteram partem principle was violated by the authority.
2. Issue
Whether the principle of audi alteram partem was adhered to in the case.
Whether the failure to provide a fair hearing rendered the order or decision invalid.
The scope and limits of natural justice in administrative or quasi-judicial actions.
3. Judgment
The Court reiterated the importance of audi alteram partem as an essential aspect of fairness.
Held that any adverse action taken without giving the party a reasonable opportunity to explain or defend is violative of natural justice.
In the case of Sree Metaliks Limited, the authority’s failure to issue a proper show cause notice or hear the company made the order liable to be quashed.
The Court emphasized that the right to be heard is not just a procedural formality but a fundamental right in administrative justice.
However, the Court also clarified that a mere opportunity to be heard is enough—the party need not be given unlimited chances or delay the process unnecessarily.
The decision thus strengthened the due process requirement in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings.
4. Significance
Reinforces that no order prejudicial to a person can be passed without giving them a fair hearing.
Upholds the rule of law and fairness in governance.
Serves as a warning to administrative bodies to strictly follow natural justice.
Balances the need for efficient decision-making with fairness to affected parties.
5. Related Case Law
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) — broadened the concept of "procedure established by law" to include fairness and hearing.
Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) (UK) — classic statement of audi alteram partem in administrative law.
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) — right to show cause and fair hearing before dismissal.
K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) — principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.
Board of Education v. Rice (1911) — audi alteram partem as essential natural justice.
6. Summary Table
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Principle | Audi Alteram Partem: Right to be heard before decision |
| Case | Sree Metaliks Limited |
| Issue | Violation of natural justice due to no fair hearing |
| Judgment | Decision without hearing invalid; order quashed |
| Significance | Reinforced fair hearing as fundamental in administrative law |
RELATED Blog
0 comments