Scribd
Upload
225 views

Analysis of Legal Maxim: 1. Audi Alteram Partem

This document summarizes two legal maxims: 1. Audi alteram partem, meaning a person must be heard before being condemned. It includes the principles of notice, where an individual must be notified, and hearing, where they have a right to present evidence. 2. Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa, meaning an authority giving a decision must be impartial. There are different types of bias including personal, pecuniary, subject matter, departmental, and policy bias. A case example discusses when an official's prior involvement in framing a policy does not necessarily constitute bias.

Uploaded by

wircexdj
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
225 views

Analysis of Legal Maxim: 1. Audi Alteram Partem

This document summarizes two legal maxims: 1. Audi alteram partem, meaning a person must be heard before being condemned. It includes the principles of notice, where an individual must be notified, and hearing, where they have a right to present evidence. 2. Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa, meaning an authority giving a decision must be impartial. There are different types of bias including personal, pecuniary, subject matter, departmental, and policy bias. A case example discusses when an official's prior involvement in framing a policy does not necessarily constitute bias.

Uploaded by

wircexdj
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
You are on page 1/ 3

Analysis of Legal Maxim

1. Audi alteram partem


Audi alteram parterm is a Latin word for the rule of fair hearing means that a person
must be condemned only after he is heard. The principle allows for the person against
whom an action is taken or whose rights are infringed to defend himself and be heard.
Before a cause is decided against a person on a subject matter, a reasonable
opportunity must be provided for the individuals or parties to be heard.

The two recognized principle of this rule are notice and hearing.
a. Notice – the individual must be served with a notice to seek his explanation and to
show a cause of the proposed action. An action taken without a serving a notice to
the party lead to violation of the principle of natural justice. In case that the order
could violate the rights of an individual, then a notification must be made. The
notice should be clear, precise and the charges spelled should be understandable to
the individual(s). For the notice to be regarded as acceptable, it must contain,
time, place, nature of hearing, jurisdiction or authority under which hearing will
take place and the matter of fact and law.

In a case J Vilangandan v. Executive Engineer1, there was a proposition by the


Executive Engineer that a conductor should be blacklisted. The contractor was
served a notice, but the supreme court discovered lack in applicability of the
notice because the notice lacked in content to inform the contractor of this
illegibility of partaking in future contracts under the department.

b. Hearing – the rule of fair hearing implies that a party must be granted the right to
be heard before a decision is reached on the matter. Oral hearing is affected
where the parties of interest are granted the legal right to present witnesses which
can be cross-examined. Fair hearing can be regarded on the condition that party
is permitted by judicial authority to present an evidences of the authorities that
would be used in determining the suit should be disclosed and an opportunity for
the individual to contest any material or fact against him.
In the case between Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India,2 the passport belonging
to the petitioner was confiscated by the government in the interest of the public.

1
Joseph Vilangandan vs. The Executive Engineer, (PWD), Ernakulam and others, (1978) 3 SCC 36
2
 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 : AIR 1978 SC 597 : (1978) 2 SCR 621
There was no opportunity for the petitioner to be heard before the action was
taken. The supreme court rules that the petitioner’s right was violated.

2. Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa


This principle of rule against implies that the authority giving decision in cases
must be composed of impartial persons and should act fairly without prejudice and
bias. It is a basic concept in the administration of law to exercise justice and fair
hearing. The objective of this rule is to ensure public confidence in the impartiality
of the administrative adjudicatory process. In general, the maxim refers that justice
should not only be done but also manifestly and undoubtedly seen to be done.

Types of bias:

a. Personal bias – Bias may arise our of relationship, friendship, professional


grievance, or enmity. (Mineral Development Ltd v State of Bihar)3

b. Pecuniary bias – Any direct financial interest, or cases in which he is


financially interested may operate as a bar to adjudicating and its disqualifies
the person from adjudicating. (Jeejeebhoy v. Asst. Collector, Thana)4

c. Subject matter bias – Possession of general interest in the subject matter of


dispute with direct connection with the dispute. (Gullapalli Nageshwar Rao v.
A.P.S.R.T.C. )5

d. Department bias – This is mostly found in the administrative process.


(Kondala Rao v. A.P. Transport Corporation)6

e. Policy bias – official concerned makes a pronouncement on a certain general


policy which must be followed. There could arise a contention if the
pronouncement could disqualify him from acting in the capacity to decides on
the parties in the dispute. (T.Govindaraja Mudaliar v. the State of T.N)

In T.Govindaraja Mudaliar v. the State of T.N,7 the government decided to


nationalize road transport and formalize a committee in which Home Secretary was
appointed as a member to frame the scheme. Later on, the scheme of nationalization

3
Mineral Development Ltd. V. State of Bihar,(AIR 1960 SC 468)
4
N. B. Jeejeebhoy Vs. Assistant Collector, Thana Prant, Thana [1964] INSC 213 (5 October 1964)
5
Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. Andra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1959 SC 308
6
Kondala Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, A.I.R. 1961 S.C.
7
T. Govindaraja Mudaliar etc. v. The State of TamilNadu & Ors., [1973] INSC 1; [1973] 3 SCR 222
was published and objections were heard by the Home Secretary. It was contended
that the hearing was vitiated by the rule against bias because the Secretary had already
made up his mind on the question of nationalization as he was a member of the
committee which took this policy decision. The Supreme court rejected the challenge
on the ground that the Secretary as a member of committee did not finally determine
any issue as to foreclose his mind. He simple helped the government in framing the
scheme.

You might also like