Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (1.53 seconds)Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978
Similarly, in the case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi (supra), it has been
observed that even where there is no specific provision for showing
cause, yet in a proposed action which affects the right of an individual,
it is duty of the authority to give reasonable opportunity of being heard.
This duty is said to be implied to nature of functions to be performed
by authorities having power to take punitive or damaging action.
Swadeshi Cotton Mills vs Union Of India on 13 January, 1981
8. The principles of natural justice have been designed to ensure
fairness in action by the State and public bodies and, therefore, an
important facet of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. One of the
principles of natural justice i.e. the principle of audi alteram partem
has been explained by the Supreme Court in numerous judgments
handed down by the Supreme Court from time to time. Mohinder
Singh Gill v. Election Commission of India, (1978) 1 SCC 405, Smt.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 and Swadeshi
Cotton Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 818, Union of India v.
Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398 to cite the few.
Union Of India And Another vs Tulsiram Patel And Others on 11 July, 1985
10. From the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is trite that the
principles of natural justice constitute basic element of fair hearing
having their roots in the innate sense of man for fair play and justice.
The audi alteram partem rule in its complete sense would mean that a
person against whom an order to his prejudice may be passed should be
informed of the allegation and charges against him, be given adequate
opportunity of submitting his explanation thereto both oral and
documentary, and shall have the right to know the material by which
the matter is proposed to be decided against him. Any action by the
State or a public body which visits a person with civil consequences is
to be taken in compliance with the principles of audi alteram partem. It
is true that audi alteram partem rule is not rigid and inflexible
principle to be applied in all situations. As rightly observed in
Tulsiram Patel (supra) that they are not cast in a rigid mould nor can
they be put in a legal straight jacket. They do not apply in the same
manner to two situations, which are not alike. Their applicability can be
excluded by express words of statute or by necessary intendment.
Suresh Koshy George vs The University Of Kerala & Ors on 15 July, 1968
The rule of natural justice with which we are concerned in these
Appeals and Writ Petitions, namely, the audi alteram partem rule, in
its fullest amplitude means that a person against whom an order to
his prejudice may be passed should be informed of the allegations
and charges against him, be given an opportunity of submitting his
explanation thereto, have the right to know the evidence, both oral
or documentary, by which the matter is proposed to be decided
against him, and to inspect the documents which are relied upon for
the purpose of being used against him, to have the witnesses who are
to give evidence against him examined in his presence and have the
right to cross-examine them, and to lead his own evidence, both oral
and documentary, in his defence. The process of a fair hearing need
not, however, conform to the judicial process in a court of law,
because judicial adjudication of causes involves a number of
technical rules of procedure and evidence which are unnecessary
and not required for the purpose of a fair hearing within the meaning
of audi alteram partem rule in a quasi-judicial or administrative
inquiry. If we look at clause (2) of Article 311 in the light of what is
stated above, it will be apparent that clause is merely an express
statement of the audi alteram partem rule which is implicitly made
part of the guarantee contained in Article 14 as a result of the
interpretation placed upon that Article by recent decisions of this
Court. Clauses (2) of Article 311 requires that before a government
servant is dismissed, removed or reduced in rank, an inquiry must be
held in which he is informed of the charges against him and given a
reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.
The nature of the hearing to be given to a government servant under
clauses (2) of Article 311 has been elaborately set out by this Court
in Khem chand's case in the passages from the judgment extracted
above. Though that case related to the original clause (2) of Article
311, the same applies to the present clause (2) of Article 311 except
for the fact that now a government servant has no right to make any
representation against the penalty proposed to be imposed upon him
but, as pointed out earlier, in the case of Suresh Koshy George v.
The University of Kerala and others, such an opportunity is not the
requirement of the principles of natural justice and as held
in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. T. C. Shrivastava and
others neither the ordinary law of the land nor industrial law requires
such an opportunity to be given.
A. K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1969
In paragraph 20 of
A. K. Kraipak (supra), the Supreme Court held thus:-
Delhi Transport Corporation vs D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress on 4 September, 1990
11. Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress,
1991 Supp. (1) SCC 600, is another Constitution Bench judgment,
which throws considerable light on the observance of principles of
natural justice in particular audi alteram partem rule. In the aforesaid
case, it has been held that the audi alteram partem rule, which, in
essence, enforces the equity clause of Article 14 of the Constitution, is
applicable not only to quasi judicial orders but to administrative orders
affecting prejudicially the party in question unless application of rule
has been expressly excluded by Act or regulation or rule. The rule of
principles of natural justice does not supplant but supplement the rules
and regulations and it is the demand of the rule of law, which
permeates our constitution that the rule is observed both substantially
and procedurally. It is, thus, trite that any action prejudicial to a citizen,
which is taken by the State or public authority without affording him an
opportunity of being heard would be unfair and arbitrary. An action
which is unfair and arbitrary would fall foul of rule of equality, which
is soul and spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is only in
exceptional cases like where there is no prejudice caused to a person
against whom an order is passed or the compliance of principles of
natural justice particularly the rule of audi alteram partem, even if
observed would not change the position and would be a mere useless
formality, its strict adherence is excluded.
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Sudhir Kumar Singh on 16 October, 2020
12. Recently the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v.
Sudhir Kumar Singh, 2020 SCC Online SC 847 elaborately dealt
with the scope and applicability of audi alteram partem rule. Hon'ble
the Supreme Court after surveying the entire case law, in paragraph
No.39 held thus:-