{"id":529,"date":"2021-07-08T10:19:31","date_gmt":"2021-07-08T04:49:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/?p=529"},"modified":"2026-10-25T21:19:18","modified_gmt":"2026-10-25T15:49:18","slug":"legal-maxim-of-the-day-31","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/","title":{"rendered":"Audi Alteram Partem: Meaning, Rule of Hearing, Case Law, Exceptions and Meaning in Hindi"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Audi alteram partem<\/strong> is a Latin legal maxim meaning <strong>&#8220;hear the other side&#8221;<\/strong>. Those are the Supreme Court&#8217;s own words: in <em>Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel<\/em> (1985) the Constitution Bench described the second rule of natural justice as &#8220;audi alteram partem&#8221;, that is, &#8220;hear the other side&#8221;, and in <em>Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation<\/em> (1985) it wrote &#8220;the audi alteram partem rule (&#8216;Hear the other side&#8217;)&#8221;. As a rule of law it means that no decision shall be given against a person without first giving that person a reasonable hearing, or, in the words of <em>Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India<\/em> (1978), that &#8220;no one shall be condemned unheard&#8221;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In India the rule binds courts, tribunals and the government. The Supreme Court treats it as part of Article 14 of the Constitution, applies it to administrative orders with civil consequences, and reads it into statutes that say nothing about a hearing unless they exclude it. Article 311(2) writes it out for government servants, and statutes such as the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 require notice and a hearing before particular orders. It has narrow exceptions, and an order passed with no notice or hearing at all is invalid &#8220;unless exceptional circumstances justify such deviation&#8221; (<em>Krishnadatt Awasthy<\/em>, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"clf-keyfacts\" style=\"border:1px solid #d9d2c5;background:#faf7f2;border-radius:6px;padding:14px 18px;margin:0 0 24px\">\n<p style=\"margin:0 0 8px;font-weight:700\">Audi alteram partem at a glance<\/p>\n<ul style=\"margin:0;padding-left:20px\">\n<li><strong>Meaning:<\/strong> &#8220;hear the other side&#8221; (<em>Tulsiram Patel<\/em>, 1985); no decision against a party &#8220;without affording him a reasonable hearing&#8221; (<em>A.K. Kraipak<\/em>, 1969).<\/li>\n<li><strong>Companion rule:<\/strong> <em>nemo judex in causa sua<\/em>, no one shall be a judge in his own cause; giving reasons is a further principle (<em>S.N. Mukherjee<\/em>, 1990).<\/li>\n<li><strong>Constitution:<\/strong> part of Article 14 (<em>Tulsiram Patel<\/em>); Article 311(2) is &#8220;merely an express statement of the audi alteram partem rule&#8221;.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Applies to:<\/strong> courts, tribunals and administrative action with civil consequences, even if the statute is silent (<em>Maneka Gandhi<\/em>, 1978).<\/li>\n<li><strong>Full hearing:<\/strong> notice of the charges, a chance to explain, access to the evidence relied on, cross-examination and defence evidence (<em>Tulsiram Patel<\/em>); it can be brief where the situation demands (<em>Maneka Gandhi<\/em>).<\/li>\n<li><strong>Exceptions:<\/strong> urgency (a hearing may follow the order), exclusion by statute or by the Constitution, and legislative action (<em>Cynamide<\/em>, 1987).<\/li>\n<li><strong>If breached:<\/strong> no notice or no hearing makes the order invalid unless an exception applies (<em>S.K. Sharma<\/em>, 1996; <em>Krishnadatt Awasthy<\/em>, 2025); whether a lesser defect needs proof of prejudice is decided case by case.<\/li>\n<li><strong>In Hindi:<\/strong> &#8220;\u0926\u0942\u0938\u0930\u0947 \u092a\u0915\u094d\u0937 \u0915\u094b \u0938\u0941\u0928\u094b&#8221; (the firm&#8217;s rendering); Article 311(2)&#8217;s official Hindi text says &#8220;\u0938\u0941\u0928\u0935\u093e\u0908 \u0915\u093e \u092f\u0941\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f\u092f\u0941\u0915\u094d\u0924 \u0905\u0935\u0938\u0930&#8221; for &#8220;reasonable opportunity of being heard&#8221;.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Reviewed and updated by Century Law Firm, Delhi \u2013 October 2026. Statutory references are to the Acts as in force on that date. The Constitution of India is quoted from its India Code text (as on 1 May 2026) and the Legislative Department&#8217;s Hindi\u2013English edition, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from India Code (as on 6 October 2025) and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 from India Code (as on 10 January 2026); the judgments are quoted from the Supreme Court&#8217;s official copies on api.sci.gov.in.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Audi alteram partem meaning: what the Supreme Court says<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Following the Supreme Court&#8217;s rendering &#8220;hear the other side&#8221;, <em>audi<\/em> is &#8220;hear&#8221;, <em>alteram<\/em> &#8220;the other&#8221; and <em>partem<\/em> &#8220;side&#8221;. The maxim is sometimes searched as &#8220;audi alterem partem&#8221; or &#8220;audi partem alteram&#8221;, but Indian judgments write <em>audi alteram partem<\/em>. In <em>Tulsiram Patel<\/em> the Court noted that &#8220;particularly in continental countries the form &#8220;audietur et altera pars&#8221; is used, meaning very much the same thing&#8221;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The classic Indian statement is in <em>A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India<\/em> (29 April 1969), where Justice Hegde wrote that natural justice was once thought to include &#8220;just two rules namely (1) no one shall be a judge in his own case (Nemo debet esse judex propria causa) and (2) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem)&#8221;. In <em>Maneka Gandhi<\/em> (25 January 1978) Justice Bhagwati said the principle &#8220;mandates that no one shall be condemned unheard&#8221;. <em>Tulsiram Patel<\/em> recorded the old corollary from Boswell&#8217;s case (1606): he who decides without the other side having been heard, &#8220;although he may have said what is right, will not have done what is right&#8221;, now expressed as &#8220;justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done&#8221;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What a fair hearing includes<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In <em>Tulsiram Patel<\/em> the Court said the rule &#8220;in its fullest amplitude&#8221; means that a person against whom an adverse order may be passed should be informed of the allegations and charges, be given an opportunity of submitting his explanation, know the evidence on which the matter is to be decided and &#8220;inspect the documents which are relied upon&#8221; against him, have the witnesses against him examined in his presence and cross-examine them, and lead his own evidence. But a fair hearing &#8220;need not, however, conform to the judicial process in a court of law&#8221;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">How much is needed depends on the situation. In <em>Maneka Gandhi<\/em> the rule &#8220;is not cast in a rigid mould&#8221;, but its core must remain: &#8220;the person affected must have a reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise&#8221;. The hearing &#8220;may be a sophisticated fullfledged hearing or it may be a hearing which is very brief and minimal : it may be a hearing prior to the decision or it may even be a post-decisional remedial hearing&#8221;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Two points follow from the cases. The hearing must come with the material: in <em>Maneka Gandhi<\/em> the refusal to tell the petitioner why her passport was impounded &#8220;amounted to denial of opportunity of hearing&#8221;. And an authority cannot skip notice because it thinks the person has no answer; <em>Olga Tellis<\/em> called that idea &#8220;contrary to the well-recognized understanding of the real import of the rule of hearing&#8221;, adding that &#8220;the appearance of injustice is the denial of justice&#8221;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Where Indian law builds the rule in<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Article 14 says: &#8220;The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.&#8221; <em>Tulsiram Patel<\/em> explained the link: &#8220;violation of a rule of natural justice results in arbitrariness which is the same as discrimination&#8221;, so &#8220;a violation of a principle of natural justice by a State action is a violation of Article 14&#8221;. Article 14 &#8220;is not the sole repository&#8221; of natural justice, which also binds &#8220;any tribunal, authority or body of men, not coming within the definition of &#8220;State&#8221; in Article 12&#8243;, that has to decide a matter (see <a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/article-14-of-theindian-constitution\/\">Article 14 explained<\/a>). Under Article 21, <em>Maneka Gandhi<\/em> held that the procedure for depriving a person of life or liberty &#8220;must be &#8220;right and just and fair&#8221; and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive&#8221; (see <a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/article-21-of-the-indian-constitution\/\">Article 21 explained<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Article 311(2): the rule written out for government servants<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Article 311(2) says: &#8220;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 him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges&#8221;. It protects members of the civil services of the Union and the States and of all-India services, and holders of civil posts (Article 311(1)). <em>Tulsiram Patel<\/em> called it &#8220;merely an express statement of the audi alteram partem rule which is implicitly made part of the guarantee contained in Article 14&#8221;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Under the first proviso, no further opportunity of &#8220;making representation on the penalty proposed&#8221; is needed after the inquiry. Under the second proviso the clause &#8220;shall not apply&#8221; (a) where the person is punished &#8220;on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge&#8221;; (b) where the authority &#8220;is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry&#8221;; or (c) where the President or Governor &#8220;is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry&#8221;. The clause was substituted by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 and took its present form under the Forty-second Amendment (with effect from 3 January 1977); the India Code text as on 1 May 2026 shows no later change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Statutes that require notice and a hearing<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Provision<\/th><th>What it requires<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Section 223(1), first proviso, BNSS (formerly Section 200 CrPC; the proviso is new)<\/td><td>&#8220;no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard&#8221;<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Section 258(2) BNSS (formerly Section 235(2) CrPC)<\/td><td>After conviction in a Sessions trial, the Judge shall &#8220;hear the accused on the questions of sentence&#8221;<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Section 360, second proviso, BNSS (formerly Section 321 CrPC; the proviso is new)<\/td><td>No withdrawal from prosecution &#8220;without giving an opportunity of being heard to the victim&#8221;<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Section 425 BNSS (formerly Section 384 CrPC)<\/td><td>No summary dismissal of an appeal presented under Section 423 unless the appellant or his advocate &#8220;has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard&#8221;<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Section 442(2) BNSS (formerly Section 401(2) CrPC)<\/td><td>No revisional order to the prejudice of the accused unless he &#8220;has had an opportunity of being heard&#8221;<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Sections 119 and 120 BNSS (formerly Sections 105G and 105H CrPC)<\/td><td>A notice to &#8220;show cause&#8221;, and &#8220;a reasonable opportunity of being heard&#8221;, before property is declared proceeds of crime<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Order XXXIX Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908<\/td><td>Notice of an injunction application to the other side, &#8220;except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay&#8221;<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The BNSS replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) from 1 July 2024; under Section 531(2)(a) BNSS, matters pending on that date continue under the old Code. The firm&#8217;s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-code-comparison-tool\/\">CrPC to BNSS comparison tool<\/a> gives the old and new numbers. Under Order XXXIX Rule 3, a court granting an injunction without notice &#8220;shall record the reasons&#8221; why delay would defeat its object, and the applicant must send the other side, &#8220;immediately after the order&#8221;, copies of the application, affidavit, plaint and documents (by speed post with registration, if not delivered) and file an affidavit of compliance the same or the next day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">When the statute is silent<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Passports Act, 1967 said nothing about hearing a passport holder, but <em>Maneka Gandhi<\/em> held that this &#8220;is not conclusive&#8221; and adopted the old principle that, though a statute has no words requiring a hearing, &#8220;the justice of the common law will supply the omission of the legislature&#8221;. In <em>Tulsiram Patel<\/em> the Constitution Bench adopted the summary given by Justice Chinnappa Reddy in his dissenting judgment in <em>Swadeshi Cotton Mills<\/em> (1981): statutory silence &#8220;is taken to imply compliance with the principles of natural justice&#8221;, which &#8220;may be excluded by express words of statute or by necessary intendment&#8221;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"clf-figure clf-ig\" style=\"margin:0 0 24px;padding:14px 12px;border:1px solid #e3e3e3;border-radius:6px;background:#fff\">\n<style>.entry-content .clf-ig,.entry-content .clf-ig *{box-sizing:border-box}.entry-content .clf-ig{max-width:100%;overflow:hidden}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-title{display:block;font-weight:700;color:#1f2d3d;font-size:1em;line-height:1.35;margin:0 0 4px;text-align:center;overflow-wrap:anywhere}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-sub{display:block;font-size:.82em;line-height:1.4;color:#555;margin:0 0 12px;text-align:center;overflow-wrap:anywhere}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-grid{display:grid;grid-template-columns:repeat(auto-fit,minmax(min(160px,100%),1fr));gap:10px;margin:0 0 10px}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-grid2{display:grid;grid-template-columns:repeat(auto-fit,minmax(min(240px,100%),1fr));gap:10px;margin:0 0 10px}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-grid3{display:grid;grid-template-columns:repeat(auto-fit,minmax(min(200px,100%),1fr));gap:10px;margin:0 0 10px}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-box{min-width:0;background:#faf7f2;border:1.5px solid #b9a98c;border-radius:8px;padding:10px 12px;font-size:.88em;line-height:1.45;color:#222;overflow-wrap:anywhere;word-break:normal;hyphens:auto;margin:0}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-h{display:block;font-weight:700;color:#1f2d3d;margin:0 0 3px;font-size:1.02em;overflow-wrap:anywhere}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-s{display:block;color:#6b5f4b;font-size:.86em;margin:4px 0 0}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-red{background:#fdeeee;border-color:#c98585}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-green{background:#eef6ee;border-color:#86a986}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-blue{background:#eef3fa;border-color:#8aa3c4}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-dark{background:#1f2d3d;border-color:#1f2d3d;color:#fff;text-align:center}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-dark .ig-h{color:#fff;font-size:1.15em}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-arrow{display:block;text-align:center;color:#8a7a5c;font-size:1.3em;line-height:1;margin:0 0 10px}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-label{display:block;text-align:center;font-weight:700;color:#1f2d3d;font-size:.9em;margin:0 0 6px;overflow-wrap:anywhere}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-step{display:inline-block;min-width:1.6em;padding:0 .35em;margin:0 .35em 0 0;border-radius:1em;background:#1f2d3d;color:#fff;font-size:.8em;text-align:center;line-height:1.6em}.entry-content .clf-ig ul.ig-list{margin:0;padding:0 0 0 1.1em;list-style:disc}.entry-content .clf-ig ul.ig-list li{margin:0 0 4px;padding:0;font-size:inherit;line-height:1.45}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-note{display:block;font-size:.8em;line-height:1.4;color:#555;margin:4px 0 0}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-cap{margin:10px 0 0;font-size:13px;color:#555;overflow-wrap:anywhere}<\/style><span class=\"ig-title\">Was the other side heard? A checklist from the Supreme Court&#8217;s cases<\/span>\n<span class=\"ig-sub\">Audi alteram partem in Indian law<\/span>\n<div class=\"ig-grid3\">\n<div class=\"ig-box\"><span class=\"ig-h\"><span class=\"ig-step\">1<\/span>Adverse decision?<\/span>An order with civil consequences, even an administrative one, attracts the rule (Maneka Gandhi).<\/div>\n<div class=\"ig-box\"><span class=\"ig-h\"><span class=\"ig-step\">2<\/span>Hearing excluded or postponed?<\/span>Only by express words or necessary intendment, the Constitution, legislative action, or real urgency (hearing after the order).<\/div>\n<div class=\"ig-box\"><span class=\"ig-h\"><span class=\"ig-step\">3<\/span>Notice of the case<\/span>The allegations or charges and the evidence relied on.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"ig-grid2\">\n<div class=\"ig-box\"><span class=\"ig-h\"><span class=\"ig-step\">4<\/span>Chance to answer<\/span>Explain, inspect documents and, in a full inquiry, cross-examine and lead evidence.<\/div>\n<div class=\"ig-box\"><span class=\"ig-h\"><span class=\"ig-step\">5<\/span>Fair decision<\/span>An unbiased decision-maker and a reasoned order.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<span class=\"ig-arrow\">\u2193<\/span>\n<div class=\"ig-grid2\">\n<div class=\"ig-box ig-red\"><span class=\"ig-h\">No notice or no hearing at all<\/span>Unless an exception applies, the order is invalid; normally the authority may start afresh after a hearing.<\/div>\n<div class=\"ig-box ig-blue\"><span class=\"ig-h\">A gap in one part of the hearing<\/span>The court asks whether, all things considered, the hearing was fair.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"ig-box ig-green\"><span class=\"ig-h\">Urgent case?<\/span>Action may come first, but a hearing &#8220;remedial in aim&#8221; should follow the order (Maneka Gandhi).<\/div>\n<p class=\"ig-cap\">Prepared by Century Law Firm from the Supreme Court&#8217;s judgments in A.K. Kraipak (1969), Maneka Gandhi (1978), Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985), Union of India v. Cynamide India (1987), S.N. Mukherjee (1990), State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) and Krishnadatt Awasthy (2025), official copies on api.sci.gov.in.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Audi alteram partem case law: key Supreme Court judgments<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Selections from Jammu and Kashmir&#8217;s forest service to the Indian Forest Service were challenged because a member of the selection board was himself a candidate and took part when his rivals were assessed. Holding that &#8220;it is against all canons of justice to make a man judge in his own cause&#8221;, the Court set the selections aside.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A passport was impounded without hearing the holder, and reasons were refused. Justice Bhagwati held that &#8220;even in an administrative proceeding, which involves civil consequences, the doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable&#8221;. Because advance notice might let the holder leave the country, the authority could act first, but &#8220;as soon as the order impounding the passport is made, and opportunity of hearing, remedial in aim, should be given to him&#8221;. The order was &#8220;clearly in violation of the rule of natural justice embodied in the maxim audi alteram partem&#8221;; the Government&#8217;s statement in court that it would hear her representation within two weeks of receiving it was treated as curing the defect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act let the Commissioner remove encroachments &#8220;without notice&#8221;. The Constitution Bench read this as a discretion to be used &#8220;sparingly and in cases of urgency which brook no delay. In all other cases, no departure from the audi alteram partem rule (&#8216;Hear the other side&#8217;) could be presumed to have been intended.&#8221; Persons likely to be affected &#8220;must be afforded an opportunity of being heard as to why that action should not be taken&#8221;, and the circumstances justifying a departure must be shown, &#8220;the burden being upon those who affirm their existence&#8221;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This Constitution Bench (majority judgment by Justice Madon; Justice Thakkar dissenting) dealt with dismissals of government servants without inquiry under the second proviso to Article 311(2). Because the proviso says clause (2) &#8220;shall not apply&#8221;, &#8220;there is no scope for reintroducing it by a side-door&#8221;. &#8220;Not reasonably practicable&#8221; in clause (b) does not mean &#8220;impracticable&#8221;; examples were a government servant who intimidates witnesses or the disciplinary authority, or &#8220;an atmosphere of violence or of general indiscipline and insubordination&#8221;. An inquiry is not to be dispensed with &#8220;lightly or arbitrarily or out of ulterior motives&#8221;, and the finality given by Article 311(3) &#8220;is not binding upon the court&#8221;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A bank officer facing a disciplinary inquiry was not given copies of two witnesses&#8217; statements, though he was allowed to read them. The Court held that, except in cases of &#8220;no notice&#8221;, &#8220;no opportunity&#8221; and &#8220;no hearing&#8221;, a breach of a procedural provision is examined &#8220;from the point of view of prejudice&#8221;, and &#8220;the test is one of prejudice, i.e., whether the person has received a fair hearing considering all things&#8221;. Where there was no hearing at all, &#8220;the order passed would undoubtedly be invalid&#8221;, and normally the authority may proceed afresh in accordance with audi alteram partem. Finding no prejudice, the Court allowed the bank&#8217;s appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P. (2025)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A Collector cancelled the 1998 appointments of teachers alleged to be relatives of selection committee members without hearing them. Deciding the case on 29 January 2025, a three-judge bench held that <em>S.K. Sharma<\/em> did not apply to &#8220;a case of no notice whatsoever&#8221;; that &#8220;in the absence of notice, the breach strikes at the fundamental core of procedural fairness, rendering the decision invalid unless exceptional circumstances justify such deviation&#8221;; that &#8220;the prejudice theory must be understood as an exception to the general rule and cannot therefore be the norm&#8221;; and that &#8220;a defect at the initial stage cannot generally be cured at the appellate stage&#8221;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Manohar Lal v. Commissioner of Police (2026)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A Delhi Police constable was dismissed in 2017 under clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2), without a departmental inquiry. On 12 March 2026 the Supreme Court held that the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry &#8220;must be reasonable, valid, justified and in writing&#8221;, based on &#8220;objective satisfaction&#8221;. Finding the power used &#8220;completely without application of mind&#8221;, it quashed the dismissal and ordered reinstatement, leaving the department free to hold an inquiry in accordance with law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Exceptions: when a hearing may be excluded or postponed<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The rule &#8220;must not be jettisoned save in very exceptional circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands&#8221; (<em>Maneka Gandhi<\/em>). The exceptions recognised in the judgments are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Urgency.<\/strong> Where prior notice &#8220;would obstruct the taking of prompt action&#8221;, the right can be excluded (<em>Tulsiram Patel<\/em>). The hearing may then follow the action, as in <em>Maneka Gandhi<\/em>, or the law may require reasons and immediate service, as in Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Exclusion by statute,<\/strong> &#8220;by express words of statute or by necessary intendment&#8221;, or where the nature, object and scheme of the provisions &#8220;warrant its exclusion&#8221; (<em>Tulsiram Patel<\/em>). A power to act &#8220;without notice&#8221; is still read narrowly (<em>Olga Tellis<\/em>).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Exclusion by the Constitution:<\/strong> the second proviso to Article 311(2), including the security of the State (<em>Tulsiram Patel<\/em>).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Legislative action.<\/strong> &#8220;Legislative action, plenary or subordinate, is not subject to rules of natural justice&#8221;; but where Parliament itself provides for notice and a hearing before subordinate legislation, substantial non-observance of that procedure may invalidate it (<em>Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd.<\/em>, 1987).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Public interest.<\/strong> Where &#8220;the interests of state or public interest may call for a curtailing of the rule&#8221;, the court balances them against natural justice (<em>S.K. Sharma<\/em>).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Admitted or indisputable facts<\/strong> where only one conclusion is possible: courts do not pass futile orders of remand, but &#8220;this conclusion must be drawn by the Court &#8230; and not by the authority who denies natural justice&#8221; (<em>State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh<\/em>, 2021, as quoted in <em>Krishnadatt Awasthy<\/em>, 2025).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Whether an authority can argue that a hearing &#8220;would have made no difference&#8221; is contested. One line of cases rejects it: in <em>S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan<\/em> (1980), as quoted in <em>K. Prabhakar Hegde v. Bank of Baroda<\/em> (2025), the Court said &#8220;the principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rule dependent on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice had been observed&#8221;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Audi alteram partem and nemo judex in causa sua<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Nemo judex in causa sua<\/em> means no one shall be a judge in his own cause; it is about who decides. <em>Audi alteram partem<\/em> is about how the decision is reached. The test for bias, from <em>Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India<\/em> (1987), is &#8220;whether a reasonable person, in possession of relevant information, would have thought that bias was likely&#8221;; the judge must look not at his own mind but &#8220;at the mind of the party before him&#8221;. The two rules can pull apart: in <em>Krishnadatt Awasthy<\/em> (2025) the Court held that &#8220;an allegation of bias, can only be proved if facts are established after giving an opportunity of hearing&#8221;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"clf-figure clf-ig\" style=\"margin:0 0 24px;padding:14px 12px;border:1px solid #e3e3e3;border-radius:6px;background:#fff\">\n<style>.entry-content .clf-ig,.entry-content .clf-ig *{box-sizing:border-box}.entry-content .clf-ig{max-width:100%;overflow:hidden}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-title{display:block;font-weight:700;color:#1f2d3d;font-size:1em;line-height:1.35;margin:0 0 4px;text-align:center;overflow-wrap:anywhere}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-sub{display:block;font-size:.82em;line-height:1.4;color:#555;margin:0 0 12px;text-align:center;overflow-wrap:anywhere}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-grid{display:grid;grid-template-columns:repeat(auto-fit,minmax(min(160px,100%),1fr));gap:10px;margin:0 0 10px}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-grid2{display:grid;grid-template-columns:repeat(auto-fit,minmax(min(240px,100%),1fr));gap:10px;margin:0 0 10px}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-grid3{display:grid;grid-template-columns:repeat(auto-fit,minmax(min(200px,100%),1fr));gap:10px;margin:0 0 10px}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-box{min-width:0;background:#faf7f2;border:1.5px solid #b9a98c;border-radius:8px;padding:10px 12px;font-size:.88em;line-height:1.45;color:#222;overflow-wrap:anywhere;word-break:normal;hyphens:auto;margin:0}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-h{display:block;font-weight:700;color:#1f2d3d;margin:0 0 3px;font-size:1.02em;overflow-wrap:anywhere}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-s{display:block;color:#6b5f4b;font-size:.86em;margin:4px 0 0}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-red{background:#fdeeee;border-color:#c98585}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-green{background:#eef6ee;border-color:#86a986}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-blue{background:#eef3fa;border-color:#8aa3c4}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-dark{background:#1f2d3d;border-color:#1f2d3d;color:#fff;text-align:center}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-dark .ig-h{color:#fff;font-size:1.15em}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-arrow{display:block;text-align:center;color:#8a7a5c;font-size:1.3em;line-height:1;margin:0 0 10px}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-label{display:block;text-align:center;font-weight:700;color:#1f2d3d;font-size:.9em;margin:0 0 6px;overflow-wrap:anywhere}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-step{display:inline-block;min-width:1.6em;padding:0 .35em;margin:0 .35em 0 0;border-radius:1em;background:#1f2d3d;color:#fff;font-size:.8em;text-align:center;line-height:1.6em}.entry-content .clf-ig ul.ig-list{margin:0;padding:0 0 0 1.1em;list-style:disc}.entry-content .clf-ig ul.ig-list li{margin:0 0 4px;padding:0;font-size:inherit;line-height:1.45}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-note{display:block;font-size:.8em;line-height:1.4;color:#555;margin:4px 0 0}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-cap{margin:10px 0 0;font-size:13px;color:#555;overflow-wrap:anywhere}<\/style><span class=\"ig-title\">Natural justice in three parts<\/span>\n<span class=\"ig-sub\">How the Supreme Court describes the rules<\/span>\n<div class=\"ig-grid3\">\n<div class=\"ig-box ig-blue\"><span class=\"ig-h\">Nemo judex in causa sua<\/span>No one shall be a judge in his own cause.<span class=\"ig-s\">Test: would a reasonable person think bias likely? (Ranjit Thakur)<\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"ig-box ig-green\"><span class=\"ig-h\">Audi alteram partem<\/span>Hear the other side: no decision without a reasonable hearing.<span class=\"ig-s\">Kraipak; Tulsiram Patel<\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"ig-box\"><span class=\"ig-h\">Reasoned decision<\/span>Clear and explicit reasons for a quasi-judicial decision.<span class=\"ig-s\">S.N. Mukherjee<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p class=\"ig-cap\">Prepared by Century Law Firm from A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969), Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985), Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987) and S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (1990), official copies on api.sci.gov.in.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Reasoned orders<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In <em>S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India<\/em> (1990) a five-judge bench held that, &#8220;except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decision&#8221;. Reasons &#8220;guarantee consideration by the authority&#8221;, &#8220;introduce clarity&#8221; and &#8220;minimise chances of arbitrariness&#8221;; they need not be as elaborate as a court&#8217;s, but must be &#8220;clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy&#8221;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What happens if the other side is not heard<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>No notice or no hearing at all:<\/strong> the order &#8220;would undoubtedly be invalid [one may call it &#8220;void&#8221; or a nullity if one chooses to]&#8221;, and normally the authority may proceed afresh after a hearing (<em>S.K. Sharma<\/em>); lack of notice renders the decision invalid &#8220;unless exceptional circumstances justify such deviation&#8221; (<em>Krishnadatt Awasthy<\/em>, 2025).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>A defective hearing:<\/strong> the court asks whether, in all the circumstances, the hearing was fair (<em>S.K. Sharma<\/em>).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Breach of a mandatory fair-hearing provision \u2013 one view:<\/strong> it &#8220;is in itself prejudice&#8221; (<em>K. Prabhakar Hegde<\/em>, 2025, relying on <em>Olga Tellis<\/em>, <em>Tulsiram Patel<\/em> and <em>A.R. Antulay<\/em>).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>The other view:<\/strong> in <em>State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh<\/em> (2021), as quoted in <em>Krishnadatt Awasthy<\/em> (2025), the Court said a breach of the rule &#8220;cannot by itself, without more, lead to the conclusion that prejudice is thereby caused&#8221;, and that breach of a provision embodying natural justice needs prejudice &#8220;except in the case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in individual interest, but also in public interest&#8221;. <em>Krishnadatt Awasthy<\/em> added that this &#8220;prejudice theory&#8221; is &#8220;an exception to the general rule and cannot therefore be the norm&#8221;.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Appeal:<\/strong> a first-stage defect &#8220;cannot generally be cured at the appellate stage&#8221; (<em>Krishnadatt Awasthy<\/em>, 2025).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Examples of audi alteram partem<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Situation<\/th><th>What the law required<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>A passport is impounded<\/td><td>A hearing at least after the order, with reasons disclosed (<em>Maneka Gandhi<\/em>)<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Removal of pavement dwellings<\/td><td>Notice and a chance to show cause, unless real urgency (<em>Olga Tellis<\/em>)<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>A government servant faces dismissal<\/td><td>An inquiry with notice of the charges and a reasonable opportunity of being heard, unless the second proviso to Article 311(2) applies<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Appointments cancelled on a rival&#8217;s complaint<\/td><td>Notice to the appointees first (<em>Krishnadatt Awasthy<\/em>)<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Urgent injunction sought<\/td><td>Notice, or recorded reasons and immediate service of the papers (Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC)<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">How to use the rule in practice<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>On receiving a show-cause notice,<\/strong> check the provision under which the authority acts and whether that law sets out its own procedure, because where a statute provides for natural justice &#8220;in a particular manner, natural justice will have to be observed in that manner&#8221; (Justice Chinnappa Reddy&#8217;s summary in <em>Swadeshi Cotton Mills<\/em>, 1981, a dissent quoted with approval in <em>Tulsiram Patel<\/em>). If the notice relies on documents you have not seen, ask in writing for copies or inspection. Reply within the time given, deal with each allegation, ask for a personal hearing if facts are disputed, and keep proof of what you sent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>After an order passed without hearing,<\/strong> use any appeal, revision or review the law provides; <em>Tulsiram Patel<\/em> noted that a government servant dismissed without inquiry under clause (b) &#8220;can claim in a departmental appeal or revision that an inquiry be held&#8221;, unless the same or a similar situation still prevails when the appeal or revision is heard. Against the government or a public authority, the High Court can be approached under Article 226 of the Constitution, which empowers it to issue &#8220;directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari &#8230; for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose&#8221;. See the firm&#8217;s guide to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/lawyer-for-writ-petition\/\">writ petitions<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>In court,<\/strong> if an injunction was granted against you without notice, check whether Order XXXIX Rule 3 was complied with and apply under Rule 4 to have it discharged, varied or set aside. For other Latin terms used by Indian courts, see <a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxims-explained\/\">Legal Maxims Explained<\/a> and the related maxim <a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-30\/\">ultra vires<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">\u0911\u0921\u0940 \u0905\u0932\u094d\u091f\u0930\u092e \u092a\u093e\u0930\u094d\u091f\u0947\u092e \u0915\u093e \u0905\u0930\u094d\u0925 \u2013 \u0939\u093f\u0902\u0926\u0940 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0938\u093e\u0930\u093e\u0902\u0936 (Summary in Hindi)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">&#8220;\u0911\u0921\u0940 \u0905\u0932\u094d\u091f\u0930\u092e \u092a\u093e\u0930\u094d\u091f\u0947\u092e&#8221; (audi alteram partem) \u090f\u0915 \u0932\u0948\u091f\u093f\u0928 \u0935\u093f\u0927\u093f\u0915 \u0938\u0942\u0924\u094d\u0930 \u0939\u0948, \u091c\u093f\u0938\u0915\u093e \u0905\u0930\u094d\u0925 \u0939\u0948 &#8220;\u0926\u0942\u0938\u0930\u0947 \u092a\u0915\u094d\u0937 \u0915\u094b \u0938\u0941\u0928\u094b&#8221; (hear the other side)\u0964 \u0909\u091a\u094d\u091a\u0924\u092e \u0928\u094d\u092f\u093e\u092f\u093e\u0932\u092f \u0928\u0947 \u092f\u0942\u0928\u093f\u092f\u0928 \u0911\u092b \u0907\u0902\u0921\u093f\u092f\u093e \u092c\u0928\u093e\u092e \u0924\u0941\u0932\u0938\u0940\u0930\u093e\u092e \u092a\u091f\u0947\u0932 (1985) \u0914\u0930 \u0913\u0932\u094d\u0917\u093e \u091f\u0947\u0932\u093f\u0938 (1985) \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0907\u0938\u0915\u093e \u092f\u0939\u0940 \u0905\u0930\u094d\u0925 \u092c\u0924\u093e\u092f\u093e \u0939\u0948\u0964 \u0938\u0930\u0932 \u0936\u092c\u094d\u0926\u094b\u0902 \u092e\u0947\u0902, \u0915\u093f\u0938\u0940 \u0935\u094d\u092f\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f \u0915\u0947 \u0935\u093f\u0930\u0941\u0926\u094d\u0927 \u0915\u094b\u0908 \u0928\u093f\u0930\u094d\u0923\u092f \u0909\u0938\u0947 \u0938\u0941\u0928\u0935\u093e\u0908 \u0915\u093e \u0909\u091a\u093f\u0924 \u0905\u0935\u0938\u0930 \u0926\u093f\u090f \u092c\u093f\u0928\u093e \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902 \u0926\u093f\u092f\u093e \u091c\u093e\u0928\u093e \u091a\u093e\u0939\u093f\u090f; \u092e\u0947\u0928\u0915\u093e \u0917\u093e\u0902\u0927\u0940 (1978) \u0915\u0947 \u0905\u0928\u0941\u0938\u093e\u0930 \u0915\u093f\u0938\u0940 \u0915\u094b \u092c\u093f\u0928\u093e \u0938\u0941\u0928\u0947 \u0926\u094b\u0937\u0940 \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902 \u0920\u0939\u0930\u093e\u092f\u093e \u091c\u093e\u0928\u093e \u091a\u093e\u0939\u093f\u090f\u0964 \u092f\u0939 \u0938\u093e\u0930\u093e\u0902\u0936 \u092b\u0930\u094d\u092e \u0915\u093e \u0905\u092a\u0928\u093e \u0939\u0948; \u0915\u0947\u0935\u0932 \u0905\u0928\u0941\u091a\u094d\u091b\u0947\u0926 311 \u0915\u0947 \u0936\u092c\u094d\u0926 \u0938\u0902\u0935\u093f\u0927\u093e\u0928 \u0915\u0947 \u0906\u0927\u093f\u0915\u093e\u0930\u093f\u0915 \u0939\u093f\u0902\u0926\u0940 \u092a\u093e\u0920 \u0938\u0947 \u0932\u093f\u090f \u0917\u090f \u0939\u0948\u0902\u0964<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u092f\u0939 \u092a\u094d\u0930\u093e\u0915\u0943\u0924\u093f\u0915 \u0928\u094d\u092f\u093e\u092f (natural justice) \u0915\u0947 \u0926\u094b \u092e\u0941\u0916\u094d\u092f \u0928\u093f\u092f\u092e\u094b\u0902 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0938\u0947 \u090f\u0915 \u0939\u0948\u0964 \u092a\u0939\u0932\u093e \u0928\u093f\u092f\u092e &#8220;\u0928\u093f\u092e\u094b \u091c\u0941\u0921\u0947\u0915\u094d\u0938 \u0907\u0928 \u0915\u0949\u091c\u093c\u093e \u0938\u0941\u0906&#8221; \u0939\u0948 \u2013 \u0915\u094b\u0908 \u092d\u0940 \u0905\u092a\u0928\u0947 \u0939\u0940 \u092e\u093e\u092e\u0932\u0947 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0928\u094d\u092f\u093e\u092f\u093e\u0927\u0940\u0936 \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902 \u0939\u094b \u0938\u0915\u0924\u093e\u0964 \u0926\u0942\u0938\u0930\u093e \u0928\u093f\u092f\u092e \u0939\u0948 \u2013 \u0926\u0942\u0938\u0930\u0947 \u092a\u0915\u094d\u0937 \u0915\u094b \u0938\u0941\u0928\u0947 \u092c\u093f\u0928\u093e \u0928\u093f\u0930\u094d\u0923\u092f \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902\u0964 \u090f.\u0915\u0947. \u0915\u094d\u0930\u0948\u092a\u093e\u0915 (1969) \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0909\u091a\u094d\u091a\u0924\u092e \u0928\u094d\u092f\u093e\u092f\u093e\u0932\u092f \u0928\u0947 \u0915\u0939\u093e \u0915\u093f \u092f\u0947 \u0928\u093f\u092f\u092e \u092a\u094d\u0930\u0936\u093e\u0938\u0928\u093f\u0915 \u091c\u093e\u0902\u091a\u094b\u0902 \u092a\u0930 \u092d\u0940 \u0932\u093e\u0917\u0942 \u0939\u094b\u0924\u0947 \u0939\u0948\u0902\u0964 \u090f\u0938.\u090f\u0928. \u092e\u0941\u0916\u0930\u094d\u091c\u0940 (1990) \u0915\u0947 \u0905\u0928\u0941\u0938\u093e\u0930 \u0905\u0930\u094d\u0927-\u0928\u094d\u092f\u093e\u092f\u093f\u0915 \u0928\u093f\u0930\u094d\u0923\u092f \u0926\u0947\u0928\u0947 \u0935\u093e\u0932\u093e \u092a\u094d\u0930\u093e\u0927\u093f\u0915\u093e\u0930\u0940 \u0905\u092a\u0928\u0947 \u0928\u093f\u0930\u094d\u0923\u092f \u0915\u0947 \u0915\u093e\u0930\u0923 \u092d\u0940 \u0932\u093f\u0916\u0947\u0917\u093e, \u091c\u092c \u0924\u0915 \u092f\u0939 \u0905\u092a\u0947\u0915\u094d\u0937\u093e \u0938\u094d\u092a\u0937\u094d\u091f \u0930\u0942\u092a \u0938\u0947 \u092f\u093e \u0906\u0935\u0936\u094d\u092f\u0915 \u0928\u093f\u0939\u093f\u0924\u093e\u0930\u094d\u0925 \u0938\u0947 \u0939\u091f\u093e \u0928 \u0926\u0940 \u0917\u0908 \u0939\u094b\u0964<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u092a\u0942\u0930\u0940 \u0938\u0941\u0928\u0935\u093e\u0908 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0906\u0930\u094b\u092a\u094b\u0902 \u0915\u0940 \u091c\u093e\u0928\u0915\u093e\u0930\u0940, \u0938\u094d\u092a\u0937\u094d\u091f\u0940\u0915\u0930\u0923 \u0915\u093e \u0905\u0935\u0938\u0930, \u091c\u093f\u0928 \u0938\u093e\u0915\u094d\u0937\u094d\u092f\u094b\u0902 \u0914\u0930 \u0926\u0938\u094d\u0924\u093e\u0935\u0947\u091c\u093c\u094b\u0902 \u092a\u0930 \u092d\u0930\u094b\u0938\u093e \u0915\u093f\u092f\u093e \u091c\u093e \u0930\u0939\u093e \u0939\u0948 \u0909\u0928\u094d\u0939\u0947\u0902 \u091c\u093e\u0928\u0928\u0947 \u0914\u0930 \u0926\u0947\u0916\u0928\u0947 \u0915\u093e \u0905\u0927\u093f\u0915\u093e\u0930, \u0917\u0935\u093e\u0939\u094b\u0902 \u0938\u0947 \u091c\u093f\u0930\u0939 \u0914\u0930 \u0905\u092a\u0928\u093e \u0938\u093e\u0915\u094d\u0937\u094d\u092f \u0926\u0947\u0928\u0947 \u0915\u093e \u0905\u0935\u0938\u0930 \u0906\u0924\u093e \u0939\u0948 (\u0924\u0941\u0932\u0938\u0940\u0930\u093e\u092e \u092a\u091f\u0947\u0932)\u0964 \u092b\u093f\u0930 \u092d\u0940 \u092f\u0939 \u0905\u0926\u093e\u0932\u0924 \u0915\u0940 \u0924\u0915\u0928\u0940\u0915\u0940 \u092a\u094d\u0930\u0915\u094d\u0930\u093f\u092f\u093e \u091c\u0948\u0938\u0940 \u0939\u094b\u0928\u093e \u091c\u093c\u0930\u0942\u0930\u0940 \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902\u0964 \u092e\u0947\u0928\u0915\u093e \u0917\u093e\u0902\u0927\u0940 \u0915\u0947 \u0905\u0928\u0941\u0938\u093e\u0930 \u0938\u0941\u0928\u0935\u093e\u0908 \u092a\u0930\u093f\u0938\u094d\u0925\u093f\u0924\u093f \u0915\u0947 \u0905\u0928\u0941\u0938\u093e\u0930 \u092a\u0942\u0930\u0940 \u092d\u0940 \u0939\u094b \u0938\u0915\u0924\u0940 \u0939\u0948 \u0914\u0930 \u0938\u0902\u0915\u094d\u0937\u093f\u092a\u094d\u0924 \u092d\u0940; \u0906\u092a\u093e\u0924 \u0938\u094d\u0925\u093f\u0924\u093f \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0906\u0926\u0947\u0936 \u0915\u0947 \u092c\u093e\u0926 \u092d\u0940 \u0938\u0941\u0928\u0935\u093e\u0908 \u0926\u0940 \u091c\u093e \u0938\u0915\u0924\u0940 \u0939\u0948\u0964<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u0924\u0941\u0932\u0938\u0940\u0930\u093e\u092e \u092a\u091f\u0947\u0932 \u0915\u0947 \u0905\u0928\u0941\u0938\u093e\u0930 \u0930\u093e\u091c\u094d\u092f \u0926\u094d\u0935\u093e\u0930\u093e \u092a\u094d\u0930\u093e\u0915\u0943\u0924\u093f\u0915 \u0928\u094d\u092f\u093e\u092f \u0915\u093e \u0909\u0932\u094d\u0932\u0902\u0918\u0928 \u0905\u0928\u0941\u091a\u094d\u091b\u0947\u0926 14 (\u0935\u093f\u0927\u093f \u0915\u0947 \u0938\u092e\u0915\u094d\u0937 \u0938\u092e\u0924\u093e) \u0915\u093e \u0909\u0932\u094d\u0932\u0902\u0918\u0928 \u0939\u0948\u0964 \u0905\u0928\u0941\u091a\u094d\u091b\u0947\u0926 311(2) \u0938\u0930\u0915\u093e\u0930\u0940 \u0938\u0947\u0935\u0915\u094b\u0902 \u0915\u0947 \u0932\u093f\u090f \u092f\u0939 \u0928\u093f\u092f\u092e \u0938\u094d\u092a\u0937\u094d\u091f \u0936\u092c\u094d\u0926\u094b\u0902 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0932\u093f\u0916\u0924\u093e \u0939\u0948\u0964 \u0938\u0902\u0935\u093f\u0927\u093e\u0928 \u0915\u0947 \u0906\u0927\u093f\u0915\u093e\u0930\u093f\u0915 \u0939\u093f\u0902\u0926\u0940 \u092a\u093e\u0920 \u0915\u0947 \u0905\u0928\u0941\u0938\u093e\u0930: &#8220;\u092f\u0925\u093e\u092a\u0942\u0930\u094d\u0935\u094b\u0915\u094d\u0924 \u0915\u093f\u0938\u0940 \u0935\u094d\u092f\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f \u0915\u094b, \u0910\u0938\u0940 \u091c\u093e\u0902\u091a \u0915\u0947 \u092a\u0936\u094d\u091a\u093e\u0924\u094d \u0939\u0940, \u091c\u093f\u0938\u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0909\u0938\u0947 \u0905\u092a\u0928\u0947 \u0935\u093f\u0930\u0941\u0926\u094d\u0927 \u0906\u0930\u094b\u092a\u094b\u0902 \u0915\u0940 \u0938\u0942\u091a\u0928\u093e \u0926\u0947 \u0926\u0940 \u0917\u0908 \u0939\u0948 \u0914\u0930 \u0909\u0928 \u0906\u0930\u094b\u092a\u094b\u0902 \u0915\u0947 \u0938\u0902\u092c\u0902\u0927 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0938\u0941\u0928\u0935\u093e\u0908 \u0915\u093e \u092f\u0941\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f\u092f\u0941\u0915\u094d\u0924 \u0905\u0935\u0938\u0930 \u0926\u0947 \u0926\u093f\u092f\u093e \u0917\u092f\u093e \u0939\u0948, \u092a\u0926\u091a\u094d\u092f\u0941\u0924 \u0915\u093f\u092f\u093e \u091c\u093e\u090f\u0917\u093e \u092f\u093e \u092a\u0926 \u0938\u0947 \u0939\u091f\u093e\u092f\u093e \u091c\u093e\u090f\u0917\u093e \u092f\u093e \u092a\u0902\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0905\u0935\u0928\u0924 \u0915\u093f\u092f\u093e \u091c\u093e\u090f\u0917\u093e, \u0905\u0928\u094d\u092f\u0925\u093e \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902&#8221;\u0964 \u0926\u0942\u0938\u0930\u093e \u092a\u0930\u0902\u0924\u0941\u0915 \u0924\u0940\u0928 \u0938\u094d\u0925\u093f\u0924\u093f\u092f\u094b\u0902 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u092f\u0939 \u091c\u093e\u0902\u091a \u0939\u091f\u093e \u0926\u0947\u0924\u093e \u0939\u0948: \u0906\u092a\u0930\u093e\u0927\u093f\u0915 \u0906\u0930\u094b\u092a \u092a\u0930 \u0926\u094b\u0937\u0938\u093f\u0926\u094d\u0927\u093f \u0935\u093e\u0932\u093e \u0906\u091a\u0930\u0923; \u091c\u092c \u092a\u094d\u0930\u093e\u0927\u093f\u0915\u093e\u0930\u0940 \u0932\u093f\u0916\u093f\u0924 \u0915\u093e\u0930\u0923\u094b\u0902 \u0938\u0947 \u0938\u0902\u0924\u0941\u0937\u094d\u091f \u0939\u094b \u0915\u093f \u091c\u093e\u0902\u091a \u0915\u0930\u0928\u093e &#8220;\u092f\u0941\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f\u092f\u0941\u0915\u094d\u0924 \u0930\u0942\u092a \u0938\u0947 \u0938\u093e\u0927\u094d\u092f \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902&#8221; \u0939\u0948; \u0914\u0930 \u0930\u093e\u091c\u094d\u092f \u0915\u0940 \u0938\u0941\u0930\u0915\u094d\u0937\u093e \u0915\u093e \u0939\u093f\u0924\u0964<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u092d\u093e\u0930\u0924\u0940\u092f \u0928\u093e\u0917\u0930\u093f\u0915 \u0938\u0941\u0930\u0915\u094d\u0937\u093e \u0938\u0902\u0939\u093f\u0924\u093e, 2023 \u0915\u0940 \u0927\u093e\u0930\u093e 223 \u0915\u0947 \u0905\u0928\u0941\u0938\u093e\u0930 \u092a\u0930\u093f\u0935\u093e\u0926 \u092a\u0930 \u092e\u091c\u093f\u0938\u094d\u091f\u094d\u0930\u0947\u091f \u0905\u092d\u093f\u092f\u0941\u0915\u094d\u0924 \u0915\u094b \u0938\u0941\u0928\u0935\u093e\u0908 \u0915\u093e \u0905\u0935\u0938\u0930 \u0926\u093f\u090f \u092c\u093f\u0928\u093e \u0938\u0902\u091c\u094d\u091e\u093e\u0928 \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902 \u0932\u0947\u0917\u093e; \u0927\u093e\u0930\u093e 258(2) \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0926\u094b\u0937\u0938\u093f\u0926\u094d\u0927\u093f \u0915\u0947 \u092c\u093e\u0926 \u0938\u091c\u093c\u093e \u092a\u0930 \u0905\u092d\u093f\u092f\u0941\u0915\u094d\u0924 \u0915\u094b \u0938\u0941\u0928\u093e \u091c\u093e\u0924\u093e \u0939\u0948; \u0927\u093e\u0930\u093e 360 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0905\u092d\u093f\u092f\u094b\u091c\u0928 \u0935\u093e\u092a\u0938 \u0932\u0947\u0928\u0947 \u0938\u0947 \u092a\u0939\u0932\u0947 \u092a\u0940\u0921\u093c\u093f\u0924 \u0915\u094b \u0938\u0941\u0928\u093e \u091c\u093e\u0924\u093e \u0939\u0948\u0964 \u0938\u093f\u0935\u093f\u0932 \u092a\u094d\u0930\u0915\u094d\u0930\u093f\u092f\u093e \u0938\u0902\u0939\u093f\u0924\u093e \u0915\u0947 \u0906\u0926\u0947\u0936 39 \u0928\u093f\u092f\u092e 3 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0928\u093f\u0937\u0947\u0927\u093e\u091c\u094d\u091e\u093e \u0938\u0947 \u092a\u0939\u0932\u0947 \u0926\u0942\u0938\u0930\u0947 \u092a\u0915\u094d\u0937 \u0915\u094b \u0928\u094b\u091f\u093f\u0938 \u0926\u0947\u0928\u0947 \u0915\u093e \u0928\u093f\u092f\u092e \u0939\u0948\u0964<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u0905\u092a\u0935\u093e\u0926: \u0905\u0924\u094d\u092f\u093e\u0935\u0936\u094d\u092f\u0915\u0924\u093e (\u0924\u092c \u092d\u0940 \u0906\u0926\u0947\u0936 \u0915\u0947 \u092c\u093e\u0926 \u0938\u0941\u0928\u0935\u093e\u0908 \u0926\u0940 \u091c\u093e \u0938\u0915\u0924\u0940 \u0939\u0948), \u0915\u093f\u0938\u0940 \u0915\u093e\u0928\u0942\u0928 \u0926\u094d\u0935\u093e\u0930\u093e \u0938\u094d\u092a\u0937\u094d\u091f \u0936\u092c\u094d\u0926\u094b\u0902 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u092f\u093e \u0906\u0935\u0936\u094d\u092f\u0915 \u0928\u093f\u0939\u093f\u0924\u093e\u0930\u094d\u0925 \u0938\u0947 \u0905\u092a\u0935\u0930\u094d\u091c\u0928, \u0905\u0928\u0941\u091a\u094d\u091b\u0947\u0926 311(2) \u0915\u093e \u0926\u0942\u0938\u0930\u093e \u092a\u0930\u0902\u0924\u0941\u0915, \u0914\u0930 \u0935\u093f\u0927\u093e\u092f\u0940 \u0915\u093e\u0930\u094d\u092f (\u0938\u093e\u0907\u0928\u093e\u092e\u093e\u0907\u0921 \u0907\u0902\u0921\u093f\u092f\u093e, 1987)\u0964 \u0913\u0932\u094d\u0917\u093e \u091f\u0947\u0932\u093f\u0938 \u0915\u0947 \u0905\u0928\u0941\u0938\u093e\u0930 &#8220;\u092c\u093f\u0928\u093e \u0928\u094b\u091f\u093f\u0938&#8221; \u0915\u093e\u0930\u094d\u0930\u0935\u093e\u0908 \u0915\u0940 \u0936\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f \u0915\u0947\u0935\u0932 \u0905\u0924\u094d\u092f\u093e\u0935\u0936\u094d\u092f\u0915 \u092e\u093e\u092e\u0932\u094b\u0902 \u0915\u0947 \u0932\u093f\u090f \u0939\u0948\u0964 \u090f\u0938.\u0915\u0947. \u0936\u0930\u094d\u092e\u093e (1996) \u0915\u0947 \u0905\u0928\u0941\u0938\u093e\u0930 \u091c\u0939\u093e\u0902 \u0915\u094b\u0908 \u0928\u094b\u091f\u093f\u0938 \u092f\u093e \u0938\u0941\u0928\u0935\u093e\u0908 \u0939\u0940 \u0928 \u0939\u0941\u0908 \u0939\u094b, \u0906\u0926\u0947\u0936 \u0905\u0935\u0948\u0927 \u0939\u0948, \u091c\u092c \u0924\u0915 \u0915\u094b\u0908 \u092e\u093e\u0928\u094d\u092f \u0905\u092a\u0935\u093e\u0926 \u0932\u093e\u0917\u0942 \u0928 \u0939\u094b (\u0915\u0943\u0937\u094d\u0923\u0926\u0924\u094d\u0924 \u0905\u0935\u0938\u094d\u0925\u0940, 2025); \u091c\u0939\u093e\u0902 \u0938\u0941\u0928\u0935\u093e\u0908 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0915\u094b\u0908 \u0915\u092e\u0940 \u0930\u0939\u0940 \u0939\u094b, \u0935\u0939\u093e\u0902 \u0926\u0947\u0916\u093e \u091c\u093e\u0924\u093e \u0939\u0948 \u0915\u093f \u0915\u0941\u0932 \u092e\u093f\u0932\u093e\u0915\u0930 \u0938\u0941\u0928\u0935\u093e\u0908 \u0928\u093f\u0937\u094d\u092a\u0915\u094d\u0937 \u0925\u0940 \u092f\u093e \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902\u0964 \u0915\u0943\u0937\u094d\u0923\u0926\u0924\u094d\u0924 \u0905\u0935\u0938\u094d\u0925\u0940 (2025) \u0915\u0947 \u0905\u0928\u0941\u0938\u093e\u0930 \u092a\u0939\u0932\u0947 \u091a\u0930\u0923 \u0915\u093e \u092f\u0939 \u0926\u094b\u0937 \u0905\u092a\u0940\u0932 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0938\u093e\u092e\u093e\u0928\u094d\u092f\u0924\u0903 \u0920\u0940\u0915 \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902 \u0939\u094b\u0924\u093e\u0964 \u0938\u0930\u0915\u093e\u0930\u0940 \u092f\u093e \u0938\u093e\u0930\u094d\u0935\u091c\u0928\u093f\u0915 \u092a\u094d\u0930\u093e\u0927\u093f\u0915\u093e\u0930\u0940 \u0915\u0947 \u0910\u0938\u0947 \u0906\u0926\u0947\u0936 \u0915\u0947 \u0935\u093f\u0930\u0941\u0926\u094d\u0927 \u0909\u091a\u094d\u091a \u0928\u094d\u092f\u093e\u092f\u093e\u0932\u092f \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0905\u0928\u0941\u091a\u094d\u091b\u0947\u0926 226 \u0915\u0947 \u0905\u0902\u0924\u0930\u094d\u0917\u0924 \u0930\u093f\u091f \u092f\u093e\u091a\u093f\u0915\u093e \u0926\u093e\u092f\u0930 \u0915\u0940 \u091c\u093e \u0938\u0915\u0924\u0940 \u0939\u0948\u0964<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Frequently asked questions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"schema-faq wp-block-yoast-faq-block\"><div class=\"schema-faq-section\" id=\"faq-question-1\"><strong class=\"schema-faq-question\">What does audi alteram partem mean?<\/strong> <p class=\"schema-faq-answer\">It is Latin for &#8220;hear the other side&#8221;, the translation the Supreme Court used in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) and Olga Tellis (1985). As a legal rule, no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (A.K. Kraipak, 1969): no one shall be condemned unheard (Maneka Gandhi, 1978). It is one of the two main rules of natural justice.<\/p> <\/div> <div class=\"schema-faq-section\" id=\"faq-question-2\"><strong class=\"schema-faq-question\">Does audi alteram partem apply to government orders?<\/strong> <p class=\"schema-faq-answer\">Yes. In Maneka Gandhi (1978) the Supreme Court held that &#8220;even in an administrative proceeding, which involves civil consequences, the doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable&#8221;. It applies even if the statute is silent, unless a hearing is excluded by express words or necessary intendment. In urgent cases the hearing may come soon after the order.<\/p> <\/div> <div class=\"schema-faq-section\" id=\"faq-question-3\"><strong class=\"schema-faq-question\">Is an order passed without hearing automatically void?<\/strong> <p class=\"schema-faq-answer\">If there was no notice or no hearing at all and no exception applies, the order is invalid: State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) said it &#8220;would undoubtedly be invalid&#8221;, and Krishnadatt Awasthy (2025) said lack of notice renders the decision invalid &#8220;unless exceptional circumstances justify such deviation&#8221;. The authority may normally proceed afresh after a hearing. Where one part of the hearing was defective, courts ask whether the hearing was fair overall; whether prejudice must be shown is decided case by case, and courts do not remand where facts are admitted or indisputable and only one conclusion is possible.<\/p> <\/div> <div class=\"schema-faq-section\" id=\"faq-question-4\"><strong class=\"schema-faq-question\">Does the rule require an oral hearing?<\/strong> <p class=\"schema-faq-answer\">Not always. Maneka Gandhi (1978) said the hearing &#8220;may be a sophisticated fullfledged hearing or it may be a hearing which is very brief and minimal&#8221;, before or even after the decision, depending on the situation. In its fullest form it includes cross-examination and defence evidence, but it &#8220;need not &#8230; conform to the judicial process in a court of law&#8221; (Tulsiram Patel, 1985). The core is a genuine, reasonable opportunity to answer.<\/p> <\/div> <div class=\"schema-faq-section\" id=\"faq-question-5\"><strong class=\"schema-faq-question\">What is &#8220;hear the other side&#8221; in Latin?<\/strong> <p class=\"schema-faq-answer\">Audi alteram partem. The Supreme Court wrote in Tulsiram Patel (1985) that the rule is &#8220;audi alteram partem&#8221;, that is, &#8220;hear the other side&#8221;, and that in continental countries the form &#8220;audietur et altera pars&#8221; is used, &#8220;meaning very much the same thing&#8221;.<\/p> <\/div> <div class=\"schema-faq-section\" id=\"faq-question-6\"><strong class=\"schema-faq-question\">What is the meaning of audi alteram partem in Hindi?<\/strong> <p class=\"schema-faq-answer\">It can be put as &#8220;\u0926\u0942\u0938\u0930\u0947 \u092a\u0915\u094d\u0937 \u0915\u094b \u0938\u0941\u0928\u094b&#8221;: no one should be condemned without being heard (the firm&#8217;s rendering). The official Hindi text of Article 311(2) of the Constitution uses &#8220;\u0938\u0941\u0928\u0935\u093e\u0908 \u0915\u093e \u092f\u0941\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f\u092f\u0941\u0915\u094d\u0924 \u0905\u0935\u0938\u0930&#8221; for &#8220;reasonable opportunity of being heard&#8221;. A Hindi summary is given above.<\/p> <\/div> <div class=\"schema-faq-section\" id=\"faq-question-7\"><strong class=\"schema-faq-question\">What is an example of audi alteram partem?<\/strong> <p class=\"schema-faq-answer\">In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) a passport was impounded without hearing the holder or giving reasons; the Supreme Court held this violated audi alteram partem and that a hearing &#8220;remedial in aim&#8221; had to follow the order. Other examples are in the table above.<\/p> <\/div> <div class=\"schema-faq-section\" id=\"faq-question-8\"><strong class=\"schema-faq-question\">What are the landmark cases on audi alteram partem?<\/strong> <p class=\"schema-faq-answer\">A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969), Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985), S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (1990) on reasons, State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) on prejudice, and recently Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P. (2025) and Manohar Lal v. Commissioner of Police (2026).<\/p> <\/div> <div class=\"schema-faq-section\" id=\"faq-question-9\"><strong class=\"schema-faq-question\">What are the exceptions to audi alteram partem?<\/strong> <p class=\"schema-faq-answer\">Urgency, where prior notice would obstruct prompt action (a hearing may follow); exclusion by a statute&#8217;s express words or necessary intendment; the second proviso to Article 311(2) (Tulsiram Patel, 1985); and legislative action, which &#8220;is not subject to rules of natural justice&#8221; (Union of India v. Cynamide India, 1987). Exceptions are read narrowly; in Olga Tellis (1985) the burden lay on those claiming them.<\/p> <\/div> <div class=\"schema-faq-section\" id=\"faq-question-10\"><strong class=\"schema-faq-question\">How is audi alteram partem different from nemo judex in causa sua?<\/strong> <p class=\"schema-faq-answer\">Nemo judex in causa sua means no one shall be a judge in his own cause; it forbids bias and concerns who decides. Audi alteram partem means hear the other side; it concerns how the decision is reached. Together they are the &#8220;two main principles&#8221; of natural justice (Maneka Gandhi, 1978). Bias is tested by asking whether a reasonable person with the relevant information would think it likely (Ranjit Thakur, 1987).<\/p> <\/div> <div class=\"schema-faq-section\" id=\"faq-question-11\"><strong class=\"schema-faq-question\">How is audi alteram partem connected with Article 311?<\/strong> <p class=\"schema-faq-answer\">Article 311(2) says a civil servant shall not be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank &#8220;except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges&#8221;. The Supreme Court called it &#8220;merely an express statement of the audi alteram partem rule&#8221; (Tulsiram Patel, 1985). The second proviso excludes the inquiry after a criminal conviction, where it is &#8220;not reasonably practicable&#8221; (reasons recorded in writing), or for the security of the State.<\/p> <\/div> <div class=\"schema-faq-section\" id=\"faq-question-12\"><strong class=\"schema-faq-question\">Does the rule apply to private bodies and tribunals?<\/strong> <p class=\"schema-faq-answer\">Yes, where they are charged with the duty of deciding a matter. Tulsiram Patel (1985) said natural justice applies &#8220;not only to legislation and State action but also where any tribunal, authority or body of men, not coming within the definition of &#8220;State&#8221; in Article 12, is charged with the duty of deciding a matter&#8221;, which &#8220;must decide such matter fairly and impartially&#8221;.<\/p> <\/div> <div class=\"schema-faq-section\" id=\"faq-question-13\"><strong class=\"schema-faq-question\">What can I do if an order was passed against me without hearing me?<\/strong> <p class=\"schema-faq-answer\">Use any appeal, revision or review the law provides, within its time limit. Against the government or a public authority, a writ petition can be filed in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. An injunction granted without notice can be challenged under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC. A first-stage defect is generally not cured by a hearing in appeal (Krishnadatt Awasthy, 2025).<\/p> <\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Audi alteram partem, &#8220;hear the other side&#8221;, means that no one should be condemned unheard. In India it is part of Article 14, is written into Article 311(2), the BNSS and the Code of Civil Procedure, and is read into silent statutes. Its exceptions \u2013 urgency, clear statutory or constitutional exclusion and legislative action \u2013 are read narrowly. An order passed with no notice or hearing at all is invalid unless exceptional circumstances justify the deviation, while a lesser defect is tested by asking whether the hearing was fair overall, and the courts are not agreed on when prejudice must be shown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Sources used for this post: the Constitution of India, Articles 14, 226 and 311, India Code text &#8220;The Constitution of India in English 2026&#8221; (as on 1 May 2026), and the official Hindi text of Article 311 in the Legislative Department&#8217;s &#8220;The Constitution of India (Diglot-Hindi and English)&#8221;, as on 1 May 2024, https:\/\/www.legislative.gov.in\/static\/uploads\/2025\/08\/575648bd8ecb7654db902b93115d35e4.pdf (page 174; Article 311 unchanged since 3 January 1977); the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 119, 120, 223, 258, 360, 425, 442 and 531, India Code (as on 6 October 2025), with CrPC equivalents from the firm&#8217;s Gazette-checked section data; the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXXIX Rules 3 and 4, India Code (as on 10 January 2026); and Supreme Court judgments in their official copies: A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, 29 April 1969, https:\/\/api.sci.gov.in\/jonew\/judis\/1734.pdf; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 25 January 1978, https:\/\/api.sci.gov.in\/jonew\/judis\/5154.pdf; Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 10 July 1985, https:\/\/api.sci.gov.in\/jonew\/judis\/9246.pdf; Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, 11 July 1985, https:\/\/api.sci.gov.in\/jonew\/judis\/9242.pdf; Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd., 10 April 1987, https:\/\/api.sci.gov.in\/jonew\/judis\/8752.pdf; Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, 15 October 1987, https:\/\/api.sci.gov.in\/jonew\/judis\/8566.pdf; S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, 28 August 1990, https:\/\/api.sci.gov.in\/jonew\/judis\/7439.pdf; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, 27 March 1996, https:\/\/api.sci.gov.in\/jonew\/judis\/15782.pdf; Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P., 29 January 2025, https:\/\/api.sci.gov.in\/supremecourt\/2009\/636\/636_2009_4_1501_59041_Judgement_29-Jan-2025.pdf; K. Prabhakar Hegde v. Bank of Baroda, 19 August 2025, https:\/\/api.sci.gov.in\/supremecourt\/2022\/6827\/6827_2022_7_1503_63379_Judgement_19-Aug-2025.pdf; Manohar Lal v. Commissioner of Police, 12 March 2026, https:\/\/api.sci.gov.in\/supremecourt\/2023\/28177\/28177_2023_3_1501_69234_Judgement_12-Mar-2026.pdf. Swadeshi Cotton Mills (Chinnappa Reddy J.&#8217;s dissent), S.L. Kapoor, A.R. Antulay and Sudhir Kumar Singh are cited only as quoted in these judgments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"clf-related\" style=\"margin:28px 0 8px;padding:16px 20px;border:1px solid #e3e3e3;border-radius:6px;background:#fafafa\">\n<p style=\"margin:0 0 8px;font-weight:700\">Related reading and free tools<\/p>\n<ul style=\"margin:0;padding-left:20px\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxims-explained\/\">Legal Maxims Explained: Meanings, Origins and Use in Indian Courts<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/lawyer-for-writ-petition\/\">Writ Petition: Meaning, Types of Writs, How to File in India<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/article-14-of-theindian-constitution\/\">Article 14 of the Indian Constitution<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/article-21-of-the-indian-constitution\/\">Article 21 of the Indian Constitution<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-30\/\">Ultra Vires \u2013 Legal Maxim of the Day<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-2\/\">Obiter Dictum \u2013 Legal Maxim of the Day<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/public-interest-litigation-pil\/\">Public Interest Litigation (PIL)<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/special-leave-petition-slp-meaning-features-process-and-who-can-file-it\/\">Special Leave Petition (SLP): Meaning, Process and Who Can File It<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/review-revision-appeal-cpc-crpc\/\">Review, Revision and Appeal in CPC and CrPC<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-code-comparison-tool\/\">IPC to BNS, CrPC to BNSS Comparison Tool<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Audi alteram partem is a Latin legal maxim meaning &#8220;hear the other side&#8221;. Those are the Supreme Court&#8217;s own words: in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) the Constitution Bench described the second rule of natural justice as &#8220;audi alteram partem&#8221;, that is, &#8220;hear the other side&#8221;, and in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":530,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_uag_custom_page_level_css":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"default","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"default","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[386],"tags":[387,388],"class_list":["post-529","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-maxims","tag-legal-maxim","tag-legal-terminology"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v28.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Audi Alteram Partem Meaning: Rule, Cases, Exceptions, Hindi<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Audi alteram partem means &quot;hear the other side&quot;: no one should be condemned unheard. Meaning in Hindi, Article 311, key Supreme Court cases and exceptions.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Audi Alteram Partem Meaning: Rule, Cases, Exceptions, Hindi\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Audi alteram partem means &quot;hear the other side&quot;: no one should be condemned unheard. Meaning in Hindi, Article 311, key Supreme Court cases and exceptions.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Century Law Firm Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Century-Law-Firm-103762818279916\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-07-08T04:49:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-10-25T15:49:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-08-at-10.17.33-AM.jpeg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1080\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1080\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@centurylawind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@centurylawind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/15c0285d46c9a3250f689fe9da251747\"},\"headline\":\"Audi Alteram Partem: Meaning, Rule of Hearing, Case Law, Exceptions and Meaning in Hindi\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-07-08T04:49:31+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-10-25T15:49:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":5337,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/07\\\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-08-at-10.17.33-AM.jpeg\",\"keywords\":[\"legal maxim\",\"legal terminology\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Most Used Legal Maxims, Translation and Meanings\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":[\"WebPage\",\"FAQPage\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/\",\"name\":\"Audi Alteram Partem Meaning: Rule, Cases, Exceptions, Hindi\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/07\\\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-08-at-10.17.33-AM.jpeg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-07-08T04:49:31+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-10-25T15:49:18+00:00\",\"description\":\"Audi alteram partem means \\\"hear the other side\\\": no one should be condemned unheard. Meaning in Hindi, Article 311, key Supreme Court cases and exceptions.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"mainEntity\":[{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-1\"},{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-2\"},{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-3\"},{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-4\"},{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-5\"},{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-6\"},{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-7\"},{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-8\"},{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-9\"},{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-10\"},{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-11\"},{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-12\"},{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-13\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/07\\\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-08-at-10.17.33-AM.jpeg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/07\\\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-08-at-10.17.33-AM.jpeg\",\"width\":1080,\"height\":1080,\"caption\":\"century law firm legal maxim Audi alteram partem\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Audi Alteram Partem: Meaning, Rule of Hearing, Case Law, Exceptions and Meaning in Hindi\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"Century Law Firm Blog\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Century Law Firm\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/05\\\/Century-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/05\\\/Century-1.png\",\"width\":1801,\"height\":538,\"caption\":\"Century Law Firm\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/Century-Law-Firm-103762818279916\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/centurylawind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.instagram.com\\\/centurylawind\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/channel\\\/UCC1y40wQB720qJ-eGQLJR3w\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/15c0285d46c9a3250f689fe9da251747\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/e9067e9a8d23d7f8eaaa89c9f746f4e14d55fa71a602bcc4b141c8acf46a3291?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/e9067e9a8d23d7f8eaaa89c9f746f4e14d55fa71a602bcc4b141c8acf46a3291?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/e9067e9a8d23d7f8eaaa89c9f746f4e14d55fa71a602bcc4b141c8acf46a3291?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\"]},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-1\",\"position\":1,\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-1\",\"name\":\"What does audi alteram partem mean?\",\"answerCount\":1,\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"It is Latin for \\\"hear the other side\\\", the translation the Supreme Court used in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) and Olga Tellis (1985). As a legal rule, no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (A.K. Kraipak, 1969): no one shall be condemned unheard (Maneka Gandhi, 1978). It is one of the two main rules of natural justice.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-2\",\"position\":2,\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-2\",\"name\":\"Does audi alteram partem apply to government orders?\",\"answerCount\":1,\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"Yes. In Maneka Gandhi (1978) the Supreme Court held that \\\"even in an administrative proceeding, which involves civil consequences, the doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable\\\". It applies even if the statute is silent, unless a hearing is excluded by express words or necessary intendment. In urgent cases the hearing may come soon after the order.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-3\",\"position\":3,\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-3\",\"name\":\"Is an order passed without hearing automatically void?\",\"answerCount\":1,\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"If there was no notice or no hearing at all and no exception applies, the order is invalid: State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) said it \\\"would undoubtedly be invalid\\\", and Krishnadatt Awasthy (2025) said lack of notice renders the decision invalid \\\"unless exceptional circumstances justify such deviation\\\". The authority may normally proceed afresh after a hearing. Where one part of the hearing was defective, courts ask whether the hearing was fair overall; whether prejudice must be shown is decided case by case, and courts do not remand where facts are admitted or indisputable and only one conclusion is possible.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-4\",\"position\":4,\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-4\",\"name\":\"Does the rule require an oral hearing?\",\"answerCount\":1,\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"Not always. Maneka Gandhi (1978) said the hearing \\\"may be a sophisticated fullfledged hearing or it may be a hearing which is very brief and minimal\\\", before or even after the decision, depending on the situation. In its fullest form it includes cross-examination and defence evidence, but it \\\"need not ... conform to the judicial process in a court of law\\\" (Tulsiram Patel, 1985). The core is a genuine, reasonable opportunity to answer.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-5\",\"position\":5,\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-5\",\"name\":\"What is \\\"hear the other side\\\" in Latin?\",\"answerCount\":1,\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"Audi alteram partem. The Supreme Court wrote in Tulsiram Patel (1985) that the rule is \\\"audi alteram partem\\\", that is, \\\"hear the other side\\\", and that in continental countries the form \\\"audietur et altera pars\\\" is used, \\\"meaning very much the same thing\\\".\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-6\",\"position\":6,\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-6\",\"name\":\"What is the meaning of audi alteram partem in Hindi?\",\"answerCount\":1,\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"It can be put as \\\"\u0926\u0942\u0938\u0930\u0947 \u092a\u0915\u094d\u0937 \u0915\u094b \u0938\u0941\u0928\u094b\\\": no one should be condemned without being heard (the firm's rendering). The official Hindi text of Article 311(2) of the Constitution uses \\\"\u0938\u0941\u0928\u0935\u093e\u0908 \u0915\u093e \u092f\u0941\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f\u092f\u0941\u0915\u094d\u0924 \u0905\u0935\u0938\u0930\\\" for \\\"reasonable opportunity of being heard\\\". A Hindi summary is given above.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-7\",\"position\":7,\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-7\",\"name\":\"What is an example of audi alteram partem?\",\"answerCount\":1,\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) a passport was impounded without hearing the holder or giving reasons; the Supreme Court held this violated audi alteram partem and that a hearing \\\"remedial in aim\\\" had to follow the order. Other examples are in the table above.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-8\",\"position\":8,\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-8\",\"name\":\"What are the landmark cases on audi alteram partem?\",\"answerCount\":1,\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969), Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985), S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (1990) on reasons, State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) on prejudice, and recently Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P. (2025) and Manohar Lal v. Commissioner of Police (2026).\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-9\",\"position\":9,\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-9\",\"name\":\"What are the exceptions to audi alteram partem?\",\"answerCount\":1,\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"Urgency, where prior notice would obstruct prompt action (a hearing may follow); exclusion by a statute's express words or necessary intendment; the second proviso to Article 311(2) (Tulsiram Patel, 1985); and legislative action, which \\\"is not subject to rules of natural justice\\\" (Union of India v. Cynamide India, 1987). Exceptions are read narrowly; in Olga Tellis (1985) the burden lay on those claiming them.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-10\",\"position\":10,\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-10\",\"name\":\"How is audi alteram partem different from nemo judex in causa sua?\",\"answerCount\":1,\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"Nemo judex in causa sua means no one shall be a judge in his own cause; it forbids bias and concerns who decides. Audi alteram partem means hear the other side; it concerns how the decision is reached. Together they are the \\\"two main principles\\\" of natural justice (Maneka Gandhi, 1978). Bias is tested by asking whether a reasonable person with the relevant information would think it likely (Ranjit Thakur, 1987).\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-11\",\"position\":11,\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-11\",\"name\":\"How is audi alteram partem connected with Article 311?\",\"answerCount\":1,\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"Article 311(2) says a civil servant shall not be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank \\\"except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges\\\". The Supreme Court called it \\\"merely an express statement of the audi alteram partem rule\\\" (Tulsiram Patel, 1985). The second proviso excludes the inquiry after a criminal conviction, where it is \\\"not reasonably practicable\\\" (reasons recorded in writing), or for the security of the State.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-12\",\"position\":12,\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-12\",\"name\":\"Does the rule apply to private bodies and tribunals?\",\"answerCount\":1,\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"Yes, where they are charged with the duty of deciding a matter. Tulsiram Patel (1985) said natural justice applies \\\"not only to legislation and State action but also where any tribunal, authority or body of men, not coming within the definition of \\\"State\\\" in Article 12, is charged with the duty of deciding a matter\\\", which \\\"must decide such matter fairly and impartially\\\".\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-13\",\"position\":13,\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\\\/#faq-question-13\",\"name\":\"What can I do if an order was passed against me without hearing me?\",\"answerCount\":1,\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"Use any appeal, revision or review the law provides, within its time limit. Against the government or a public authority, a writ petition can be filed in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. An injunction granted without notice can be challenged under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC. A first-stage defect is generally not cured by a hearing in appeal (Krishnadatt Awasthy, 2025).\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Audi Alteram Partem Meaning: Rule, Cases, Exceptions, Hindi","description":"Audi alteram partem means \"hear the other side\": no one should be condemned unheard. Meaning in Hindi, Article 311, key Supreme Court cases and exceptions.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Audi Alteram Partem Meaning: Rule, Cases, Exceptions, Hindi","og_description":"Audi alteram partem means \"hear the other side\": no one should be condemned unheard. Meaning in Hindi, Article 311, key Supreme Court cases and exceptions.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/","og_site_name":"Century Law Firm Blog","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Century-Law-Firm-103762818279916","article_published_time":"2021-07-08T04:49:31+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-10-25T15:49:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1080,"height":1080,"url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-08-at-10.17.33-AM.jpeg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@centurylawind","twitter_site":"@centurylawind","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/15c0285d46c9a3250f689fe9da251747"},"headline":"Audi Alteram Partem: Meaning, Rule of Hearing, Case Law, Exceptions and Meaning in Hindi","datePublished":"2021-07-08T04:49:31+00:00","dateModified":"2026-10-25T15:49:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/"},"wordCount":5337,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-08-at-10.17.33-AM.jpeg","keywords":["legal maxim","legal terminology"],"articleSection":["Most Used Legal Maxims, Translation and Meanings"],"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":["WebPage","FAQPage"],"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/","url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/","name":"Audi Alteram Partem Meaning: Rule, Cases, Exceptions, Hindi","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-08-at-10.17.33-AM.jpeg","datePublished":"2021-07-08T04:49:31+00:00","dateModified":"2026-10-25T15:49:18+00:00","description":"Audi alteram partem means \"hear the other side\": no one should be condemned unheard. Meaning in Hindi, Article 311, key Supreme Court cases and exceptions.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#breadcrumb"},"mainEntity":[{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-1"},{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-2"},{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-3"},{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-4"},{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-5"},{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-6"},{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-7"},{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-8"},{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-9"},{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-10"},{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-11"},{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-12"},{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-13"}],"inLanguage":"en","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-08-at-10.17.33-AM.jpeg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-08-at-10.17.33-AM.jpeg","width":1080,"height":1080,"caption":"century law firm legal maxim Audi alteram partem"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Audi Alteram Partem: Meaning, Rule of Hearing, Case Law, Exceptions and Meaning in Hindi"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/","name":"Century Law Firm Blog","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/#organization","name":"Century Law Firm","url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/Century-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/Century-1.png","width":1801,"height":538,"caption":"Century Law Firm"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Century-Law-Firm-103762818279916","https:\/\/x.com\/centurylawind","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/centurylawind\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCC1y40wQB720qJ-eGQLJR3w"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/15c0285d46c9a3250f689fe9da251747","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e9067e9a8d23d7f8eaaa89c9f746f4e14d55fa71a602bcc4b141c8acf46a3291?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e9067e9a8d23d7f8eaaa89c9f746f4e14d55fa71a602bcc4b141c8acf46a3291?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e9067e9a8d23d7f8eaaa89c9f746f4e14d55fa71a602bcc4b141c8acf46a3291?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog"]},{"@type":"Question","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-1","position":1,"url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-1","name":"What does audi alteram partem mean?","answerCount":1,"acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"It is Latin for \"hear the other side\", the translation the Supreme Court used in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) and Olga Tellis (1985). As a legal rule, no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (A.K. Kraipak, 1969): no one shall be condemned unheard (Maneka Gandhi, 1978). It is one of the two main rules of natural justice.","inLanguage":"en"},"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Question","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-2","position":2,"url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-2","name":"Does audi alteram partem apply to government orders?","answerCount":1,"acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Yes. In Maneka Gandhi (1978) the Supreme Court held that \"even in an administrative proceeding, which involves civil consequences, the doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable\". It applies even if the statute is silent, unless a hearing is excluded by express words or necessary intendment. In urgent cases the hearing may come soon after the order.","inLanguage":"en"},"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Question","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-3","position":3,"url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-3","name":"Is an order passed without hearing automatically void?","answerCount":1,"acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"If there was no notice or no hearing at all and no exception applies, the order is invalid: State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) said it \"would undoubtedly be invalid\", and Krishnadatt Awasthy (2025) said lack of notice renders the decision invalid \"unless exceptional circumstances justify such deviation\". The authority may normally proceed afresh after a hearing. Where one part of the hearing was defective, courts ask whether the hearing was fair overall; whether prejudice must be shown is decided case by case, and courts do not remand where facts are admitted or indisputable and only one conclusion is possible.","inLanguage":"en"},"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Question","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-4","position":4,"url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-4","name":"Does the rule require an oral hearing?","answerCount":1,"acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Not always. Maneka Gandhi (1978) said the hearing \"may be a sophisticated fullfledged hearing or it may be a hearing which is very brief and minimal\", before or even after the decision, depending on the situation. In its fullest form it includes cross-examination and defence evidence, but it \"need not ... conform to the judicial process in a court of law\" (Tulsiram Patel, 1985). The core is a genuine, reasonable opportunity to answer.","inLanguage":"en"},"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Question","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-5","position":5,"url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-5","name":"What is \"hear the other side\" in Latin?","answerCount":1,"acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Audi alteram partem. The Supreme Court wrote in Tulsiram Patel (1985) that the rule is \"audi alteram partem\", that is, \"hear the other side\", and that in continental countries the form \"audietur et altera pars\" is used, \"meaning very much the same thing\".","inLanguage":"en"},"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Question","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-6","position":6,"url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-6","name":"What is the meaning of audi alteram partem in Hindi?","answerCount":1,"acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"It can be put as \"\u0926\u0942\u0938\u0930\u0947 \u092a\u0915\u094d\u0937 \u0915\u094b \u0938\u0941\u0928\u094b\": no one should be condemned without being heard (the firm's rendering). The official Hindi text of Article 311(2) of the Constitution uses \"\u0938\u0941\u0928\u0935\u093e\u0908 \u0915\u093e \u092f\u0941\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f\u092f\u0941\u0915\u094d\u0924 \u0905\u0935\u0938\u0930\" for \"reasonable opportunity of being heard\". A Hindi summary is given above.","inLanguage":"en"},"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Question","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-7","position":7,"url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-7","name":"What is an example of audi alteram partem?","answerCount":1,"acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) a passport was impounded without hearing the holder or giving reasons; the Supreme Court held this violated audi alteram partem and that a hearing \"remedial in aim\" had to follow the order. Other examples are in the table above.","inLanguage":"en"},"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Question","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-8","position":8,"url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-8","name":"What are the landmark cases on audi alteram partem?","answerCount":1,"acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969), Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985), S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (1990) on reasons, State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) on prejudice, and recently Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P. (2025) and Manohar Lal v. Commissioner of Police (2026).","inLanguage":"en"},"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Question","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-9","position":9,"url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-9","name":"What are the exceptions to audi alteram partem?","answerCount":1,"acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Urgency, where prior notice would obstruct prompt action (a hearing may follow); exclusion by a statute's express words or necessary intendment; the second proviso to Article 311(2) (Tulsiram Patel, 1985); and legislative action, which \"is not subject to rules of natural justice\" (Union of India v. Cynamide India, 1987). Exceptions are read narrowly; in Olga Tellis (1985) the burden lay on those claiming them.","inLanguage":"en"},"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Question","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-10","position":10,"url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-10","name":"How is audi alteram partem different from nemo judex in causa sua?","answerCount":1,"acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Nemo judex in causa sua means no one shall be a judge in his own cause; it forbids bias and concerns who decides. Audi alteram partem means hear the other side; it concerns how the decision is reached. Together they are the \"two main principles\" of natural justice (Maneka Gandhi, 1978). Bias is tested by asking whether a reasonable person with the relevant information would think it likely (Ranjit Thakur, 1987).","inLanguage":"en"},"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Question","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-11","position":11,"url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-11","name":"How is audi alteram partem connected with Article 311?","answerCount":1,"acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Article 311(2) says a civil servant shall not be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank \"except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges\". The Supreme Court called it \"merely an express statement of the audi alteram partem rule\" (Tulsiram Patel, 1985). The second proviso excludes the inquiry after a criminal conviction, where it is \"not reasonably practicable\" (reasons recorded in writing), or for the security of the State.","inLanguage":"en"},"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Question","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-12","position":12,"url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-12","name":"Does the rule apply to private bodies and tribunals?","answerCount":1,"acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Yes, where they are charged with the duty of deciding a matter. Tulsiram Patel (1985) said natural justice applies \"not only to legislation and State action but also where any tribunal, authority or body of men, not coming within the definition of \"State\" in Article 12, is charged with the duty of deciding a matter\", which \"must decide such matter fairly and impartially\".","inLanguage":"en"},"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Question","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-13","position":13,"url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-31\/#faq-question-13","name":"What can I do if an order was passed against me without hearing me?","answerCount":1,"acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Use any appeal, revision or review the law provides, within its time limit. Against the government or a public authority, a writ petition can be filed in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. An injunction granted without notice can be challenged under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC. A first-stage defect is generally not cured by a hearing in appeal (Krishnadatt Awasthy, 2025).","inLanguage":"en"},"inLanguage":"en"}]}},"uagb_featured_image_src":{"full":["https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-08-at-10.17.33-AM.jpeg",1080,1080,false],"thumbnail":["https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-08-at-10.17.33-AM-150x150.jpeg",150,150,true],"medium":["https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-08-at-10.17.33-AM-300x300.jpeg",300,300,true],"medium_large":["https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-08-at-10.17.33-AM-768x768.jpeg",768,768,true],"large":["https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-08-at-10.17.33-AM-1024x1024.jpeg",1024,1024,true],"1536x1536":["https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-08-at-10.17.33-AM.jpeg",1080,1080,false],"2048x2048":["https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-08-at-10.17.33-AM.jpeg",1080,1080,false]},"uagb_author_info":{"display_name":"admin","author_link":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/author\/admin\/"},"uagb_comment_info":0,"uagb_excerpt":"Audi alteram partem is a Latin legal maxim meaning &#8220;hear the other side&#8221;. Those are the Supreme Court&#8217;s own words: in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) the Constitution Bench described the second rule of natural justice as &#8220;audi alteram partem&#8221;, that is, &#8220;hear the other side&#8221;, and in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal&hellip;","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/529","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=529"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/529\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5846,"href":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/529\/revisions\/5846"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/530"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=529"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=529"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=529"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}