Principle Of Audi Alteram Partem Is Cornerstone Of Justice; Defect At The Initial Stage Cannot Generally Be Cured At The Appellate Stage: SC
The Apex Court answered an issue posted before the larger Bench on account of the Split Verdict rendered in April 2024 by the two-Judge Bench.
The Supreme Court held that a defect at the initial stage cannot generally be cured at the Appellate stage.
The Court held thus in a batch of Civil Appeals relating to a case posted before the larger Bench on account of the Split Verdict rendered in April 2024 by the two-Judge Bench.
The three-Judge Bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti observed, “… it must be concluded that a defect at the initial stage cannot generally be cured at the appellate stage. Even in cases where a ‘full jurisdiction’ may be available at the appellate stage, the Courts must have the discretion to relegate it to the original stage for an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the ex-parte decision to set aside the appellants selection stands vitiated.”
Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha appeared for the Appellant while AOR Mrinal Gopal Elker and Advocate Avdhesh Kumar Singh appeared for the Respondents.
Factual Background
The case was regarding the validity of appointments made for the post of school teachers (Shiksha Karmi Grade III) in Janpad Panchayat, Gaurihar in the year 1998. Four Civil Appeals were filed before the Apex Court by ten persons who were alleged to be the relatives of the members of the selection committee and were placed in the final select list of 249 Shiksha Karmis. While Justice J.K. Maheshwari upheld the finding to set aside the selection of Shiksha Karmis on account of the violation of the first limb of the principle of natural justice i.e. rule against bias, Justice K.V. Vishwanathan, however, upheld the selection, citing inter alia, a breach of the right to a fair hearing. Therefore, in this case, there was a conflict between the two foundational principles of natural justice i.e. rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua) and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem).
Initially, a person namely Kunwar Vijay Bahadur Singh Bundela challenged the preparation of the select list, which led to a fresh select list being published. An unsuccessful candidate, Archana Mishra, challenged the selection and appointment of the Appellants, alleging nepotism, corruption, and bias in the selection process. The Collector accepted the challenge and set aside the appointments. The Appellants filed a Revision Petition, which was dismissed and then they filed a Writ Petition but it was also dismissed. The Supreme Court considered the case, which led to a Split Verdict. Hence, the case was before the three-Judge Bench.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in the above regard, noted, “Indian courts have applied the Leary principle as a rule47 and the Calvin principle as an exception. This is more so due to the institutional structure as the writ court does not usually go into facts and judicial review of administrative action is limited to the decision-making process and not the decision itself. In our view, the provision for an appeal should not rest on the assumption that the appellate body is infallible.”
The Court added that, when one party is denied the opportunity to present their case, the initial decision fails to provide meaningful guidance to the appellate authority, in achieving a fair and just resolution.
“… a perusal of the order(s) of the Collector and Commissioner in Revision would also show that they are practically identical. An ineffective hearing at the initial stage therefore taints the entire decision-making process leading to a cascade of flawed orders at subsequent stages. Providing a hearing to the affected individual, minimizes the risk of administrative authorities making decisions in ignorance of facts or other relevant circumstances, as it allows all pertinent issues to be brought to light. This process not only aids the administration in arriving at a correct decisions but also enables courts to more effectively review such actions”, it further said.
Moreover, the Court enunciated that the primary purpose of natural justice is to assist the administration in reaching sound decisions at the outset, reducing the likelihood of decisions being overturned later and its significance lies in fostering fair and well-informed decision making at the very first instance.
“The principle of audi alteram partem is the cornerstone of justice, ensuring that no person is condemned unheard. This principle transforms justice from a mere technical formality into a humane pursuit. It safeguards against arbitrary decision-making, and is needed more so in cases of unequal power dynamics”, it also remarked.
The Court was of the view that an allegation of bias, can only be proved if facts are established after giving an opportunity of hearing and this process requires a fair and transparent procedure in which the concerned parties are given an adequate opportunity to present their case.
“Such an opportunity allows the accused party or the affected individuals to respond to the allegations, provide evidence, and clarify any misgivings regarding the decision-making process. Therefore, for an allegation of bias to be proved, it is imperative that the procedural safeguards of a fair hearing are observed allowing for establishment of the relevant facts”, it added.
The Court, therefore, upheld the opinion of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and disagreed with that of Justice J.K. Maheshwari.
“Since the selection pertains to the year 1998, and the appellants have continuously held office and performed their duties for over twenty-five years under interim orders, remanding the matter for a fresh inquiry would hardly be a practical exercise and will be an injustice to the appointees. The time lag can be better appreciated by bearing in mind that one of the appellants has already superannuated”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals and answered the issue.
Cause Title- Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 126)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha, AOR Neeraj Shekhar, Advocates Anand Krishna, Kshama Sharma, Rajesh Kumar Maurya, Ram Bachan Choudhary, Amrendra Singh, Priya Chakarvarty, Surbhi Singh, and Ujjwal Ashutosh.
Respondents: AORs Mrinal Gopal Elker, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Advocates Avdhesh Kumar Singh, Saurabh Singh, Shruti Verma, Chhavi Khandelwal, Chinmoy Chaitanya, Parth Sarathi, Prashant Sharma, Gyanendra Vikram Singh, and Ram Chandra.
