Pre-decisional Hearing, is an important principle of Natural Justice, if the chance of being heard is not provided to the accused, it would violate the principle of natural justice. Audi Alterm Partem does not only include pre decisional hearing. Sometimes, in some actions taken the opportunity of pre decisional hearing is not given, to protect the purpose of the action and then the post decisional hearing opportunity is given. Thus, Post decisional hearing is an exception to the pre decisional hearing.

The chance of hearing is given after the order is passed in the action and then accordingly the order may be altered after hearing the person. Such an exception is created as if the pre decisional hearing will be given it would frustrate the purpose of the action. This kind of hearing is to be used only in emergent exceptional situations and where a prompt action is required to be taken or would frustrate the object of the law. Where prior hearing is not practicable, necessity of speed is found. This kind of approach is acceptable, only where the original order does not create detriment to the concerned person.

We can find such post decisional hearing in SEBI rules, the main objective of SEBI is Investor Protection and their interests in the Security Market. There, the law itself provides that the SEBI can debar someone from transacting in the stock market if it finds something suspicious that would affect the interest of investors. The debarred person is not given the chance to be heard before the order is passed, but is heard subsequently. This is allowed as it is in line to achieve the objective of the act.

The Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, held that Post Decisional Hearing is accepted and justified only when used in exceptional circumstances and emergent conditions but cannot be used only for administrative convenience.

But such cannot be used in a case where there is loss of livelihood. When there is such circumstance, that an employee is terminated that would lead to the loss of livelihood of that person, then such post decisional hearing would not do justice and hence, violate the principles of natural justice.

In a Post Decisional hearing, the order is already passed and so there is a likelihood that the authority would proceed with a closed mind and there is a lesser chance of the representation being considered.

Hence, the Post decisional hearing is a very well part of the Natural Justice Principle, but can be justified only when used I exceptional and emergent circumstances, if not exercised, would frustrate the object of the law.

Post Decisional Hearing
Audi Alterm Partem does not only include pre decisional hearing. Sometimes, in some actions taken the opportunity of pre decisional hearing is not given, to protect the purpose of the action and then the post decisional hearing opportunity is given. Thus, Post decisional hearing is an exception to the pre decisional hearing. The chance of hearing is given after the order is passed in the action and then accordingly the order may be altered after hearing the person.

Such an exception is created as if the pre decisional hearing will be given it would frustrate the purpose of the action. This kind of hearing is to be used only in emergent exceptional situations and where a prompt action is required to be taken or would frustrate the object of the law. Where prior hearing is not practicable, necessity of speed is found. This kind of approach is acceptable, only where the original order does not create detriment to the concerned person.

For Example:
The main objective of SEBI is Investor Protection and their interests in the Security Market. There, the law itself provides that the SEBI can debar someone from transacting in the stock market if it finds something suspicious that would affect the interest of investors. The debarred person is not given the chance to be heard before the order is passed, but is heard subsequently. But such cannot be used in a case where there is loss of livelihood.

When there is such circumstance, that an employee is terminated that would lead to the loss of livelihood of that person, then such post decisional hearing would not do justice and hence, violate the principles of natural justice. In a Post Decisional hearing, the order is already passed and so there is a likelihood that the authority would proceed with a closed mind and there is a lesser chance of the representation being considered. The Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, held that Post Decisional Hearing is accepted and justified only when used in exceptional circumstances and emergent conditions but cannot be used only for administrative convenience.