Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Central Bureau Of Investigation VS Surendra Patwa...
2025 4 Supreme 713 : The principle of natural justice, particularly the rule of audi alteram partem (hear the other side), does not apply at the stage of registering an FIR or initiating a criminal proceeding. Providing an opportunity of being heard before the registration of an FIR would frustrate the very purpose of criminal proceedings, which is to meet the ends of justice. Therefore, no opportunity of hearing is required before an FIR is lodged or registered. This principle is explicitly affirmed in para 98.1 of Rajesh Agarwal’s case (supra), which states that no opportunity of being heard is required before an FIR is lodged or registered. Consequently, no stricture can be passed against an investigating officer for lack of opportunity of hearing at the FIR registration stage, as such a requirement is legally inapplicable.Checking relevance for STATE OF U. P. VS SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH...
2020 6 Supreme 708 : The principle of natural justice, particularly the rule of audi alteram partem (right to be heard), mandates that no adverse action, including the passing of any stricture against an investigating officer, should be taken without first providing the officer an opportunity to be heard. This is a fundamental aspect of natural justice, and its breach can render an order invalid. However, the mere breach of this rule does not automatically lead to the setting aside of an order; prejudice must be shown. Where facts are admitted or indisputable and only one conclusion is possible, the court may find that no real prejudice has been caused, and thus remanding the matter for fresh hearing would be futile. In such cases, the court may refrain from issuing a writ to compel observance of natural justice, not because the rule is unnecessary, but because the remedy would be futile. The court or tribunal must determine whether prejudice has been caused, not the authority on an ex parte appraisal of facts. Therefore, while the principle requires an opportunity to be given, the necessity of such an opportunity depends on whether its absence has actually prejudiced the party concerned.Checking relevance for Aureliano Fernandes VS State of Goa...
2023 4 Supreme 297 : The principles of natural justice, including the rule of audi alteram partem, require that no adverse decision be passed against any person without giving them a reasonable opportunity to be heard. This includes the right to know the allegations, to inspect the evidence, to cross-examine witnesses, and to present one''''s own evidence. The rule applies not only to judicial and quasi-judicial authorities but also to administrative inquiries, particularly when substantial rights are affected. In the context of disciplinary proceedings, the investigating officer cannot be subjected to adverse action without being given a fair opportunity to present their case, as failure to do so would violate the principles of natural justice and result in arbitrariness, which is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The core of natural justice cannot be abrogated, even in sensitive or urgent cases, and procedural fairness must be upheld to prevent miscarriage of justice.Checking relevance for Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital & Dental College VS Union of India...
2013 6 Supreme 174 : The principle of natural justice, particularly the maxim ''''audi alteram partem'''' (hear the other side), requires that no adverse decision be made against an individual without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. This principle applies even in administrative proceedings involving civil consequences of grave nature, and courts will be reluctant to construe any statute as excluding the duty of affording even a minimal hearing at the pre-decisional stage unless there is a compulsive necessity. In the context of the Dental Council of India Act, 1948, Section 10A(4) proviso mandates that the Central Government must provide an opportunity of being heard before refusing renewal of permission, including the right to submit representations and, if sought, a personal hearing. This reinforces the general rule that no stricture should be passed against any person, including an investigating officer, without first giving them an opportunity to be heard, as it is a fundamental aspect of fair play and the prevention of miscarriage of justice.Checking relevance for Krishnadatt Awasthy VS State of Madhya Pradesh...
2024 0 Supreme(SC) 294 : The principle of natural justice, including the rule of audi alteram partem (right to be heard), requires that no adverse action, such as a stricture against an investigating officer, be taken without affording a fair opportunity of hearing. However, the violation of this principle does not automatically invalidate the order; the court must examine whether the violation caused actual prejudice to the affected party. In cases where the facts are admitted or indisputable, and only one conclusion is possible, the court should refrain from passing futile orders of setting aside or remand if no real prejudice is established. The test is whether the person has received a fair hearing considering all circumstances, and mere non-joinder at an initial stage without showing prejudice does not violate natural justice. The ultimate test remains the presence of actual prejudice or failure of justice.
