In the present case, it has been held that if a person has a reasonable opportunity to be heard or heard fairly, this constitutes an essential element of the audi alteram partem principle. This condition shall be accompanied by the authority conducting a written or oral hearing at the discretion of the authority, unless the law under which the authority is acting provides otherwise. It is the duty of the power to ensure that the parties concerned have or do not have the opportunity to be heard orally or personally. “Audi alteram partem” is considered in most legal systems as a principle of fundamental justice or equality or as a principle of natural justice. This principle includes the right of a party or its lawyers to confront witnesses against them, to have a fair opportunity to challenge the evidence presented by the other party, to subpoena and present the evidence of their own witnesses, and to have a lawyer, if necessary at the expense of the State, to present their arguments correctly.  In Shamnsaheb M. Multani v. In the state of Karnataka, it has been decided that the term “failure of justice” is too flexible or superficial a term that could be applied in any situation. The criminal court, especially the High Court, should carefully consider whether there really was a failure of the judicial system or whether it was just a cover-up. One of the basic principles of natural justice is that no human being should be condemned without being heard (audi alteram partem). But legislative reports are full of court cases that are reluctant to support the claim that the failure of justice was caused only because a person was not heard on a certain aspect. However, if the aspect is of such a nature that its non-explanation contributed to the punishment of an individual, the court should say that, since it did not have the opportunity to explain this aspect, there was a breach by the judiciary for non-compliance with the principle of natural justice. Charan Lal Sahu v.
Union of India: In this case, the Bhopal Gas Disaster (Claims Processing) Act 1985 was at issue. The details of the compensation are contained in this bill. The victims appealed to the honourable Supreme Court and said that no hearing had taken place and that it was therefore a violation of Audi alteram partem. However, the Court noted that “no principle of natural justice is invoked for the legislation of Parliament, provided that such legislation falls within the competence of the legislature”. Audi alteram partem a principle of natural justice is not developed from a law or a constitution, but from humanity. It is adopted in administrative law for fair justice. In Union of India v. W.N. Chadha, the Supreme Court stated: The audi alteram partem rule is a rule of justice and its application is excluded if the rule itself leads to injustice.
Thus, the application of the rule of daily procedure to cases in which nothing harm can be concluded because no opportunity is given to present and negotiate a case is excluded. This rule cannot be applied to thwart the goals of justice or to render the law “lifeless, absurd, paralyzing and self-destructive or simply against the common sense of the situation,” and this rule can be thrown overboard in very exceptional circumstances when compulsive necessity requires it. Audi alteram partem is a principle of natural justice. Audi alteram partem comes from a Latin expression “audiatur et altera pars”. Its meaning is also the same as that of the other side to hear. . This means that no one should be condemned without being heard. Both parties had to be here before transmitting the order. This rule emphasizes that before an order is made against a person, the person must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Audi Alteram Partem declares that no one can be convicted and punished by a court without being heard. In other words, a party cannot be subjected to a certain level of punishment without the opportunity to be heard. This is considered the principle of fundamental justice or equality.
For a judgment to be legally valid, it must be rendered after both parties have been granted the right to defend themselves and present their side of the story. The maxim audi alteram partem is divided into two facets according to the principle of natural justice. The first is a notification, followed by a hearing. All parties concerned must be informed before the procedure. The notification ID given to inform the parties of the facts and issues in the case to be decided. This is done to give the parties sufficient time to prepare their defense. This is a sine qua non of the right to a fair trial. The second facet of audi alteram partam is the hearing rule.
The parties should be allowed to represent themselves and present the facts in accordance with their understanding. They should be heard by the courts. As the expression “Rome was not built in a day” goes, democracy was not established overnight. It was formed as a result of a lot of blood and sweat. Every individual in a democratic society has the right to speak and be heard. And it is thanks to the development of natural justice, the idea of the Latin expression: Audi alteram partem was born. The true essence of the maxim is that every individual is equal in the eyes of the law and that everyone has the right to speak and be heard before giving him orders. We can therefore conclude that the true heart of the sentence is justice, fairness and relevance. The expression is also at the origin of the name of the German car manufacturer Audi. Founder August Horch had left his former company, Motorwagenwerke, after a shareholders` dispute and founded a new company on 16 July 1909, originally called August Horch Automobilwerke GmbH. His former associates sued him for trademark infringement, and the German Imperial Court ruled that the Horch trademark belonged to his former company.
 Horch therefore called a meeting with close business friends Paul and Franz Fikentscher to find a new name for the company. During this meeting, Franz`s son quietly learned Latin in a corner of the room. Several times he seemed about to say something, but he simply swallowed his words and continued to work until he finally burst out: “Father – audiatur and altera pars. Wouldn`t it be a good idea to call it Audi instead of Horch?  “Horch! ” in German means “Hark! ” or “hören”, which is “Audi” in the singular imperative form of “audire” – “to listen” – in Latin. The idea was enthusiastically accepted by everyone present and the company was registered as Audi Automobilwerke GmbH Zwickau in 1910.  Hearing 2: It is the fundamental aspect of Audi alteram partum to hear both parties before making judgments. The authorities have an obligation to ensure that the parties have a fair chance to defend themselves. And it was during evolution that the term Audi alteram partem was accepted by English jurists and is one of the two guiding principles of natural justice. This maxim means “to hear the other side” or no one should go unnoticed, both parties have the opportunity to be heard. .