UNIT VI

LEGAL MAXIMS
BY: MRS. RAJAURIYA
_______________________________________________________________________

1. ACTUS NON FACIT REUM NISI MENS SIT REA:

MEANING: An act does not make anyone guilty unless there is a criminal intent or a
guilty mind.
Actus Reus is the wrongful act committed and Mens Rea is the state of mind behind
such acts. The Latin maxim Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea is derived from
Mens Rea. Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea further explains as to how Mens
Rea is applicable in criminal law.
According to this maxim, to be guilty of a crime under criminal law, two elements are
considered which include:
• a guilty act and
• a guilty state of mind.
Without a guilty mind or a criminal intent, there is no crime. In general, the act itself
does not make a man guilty, unless his intention is so. There must be a vicious will or
criminal intention as well as an unlawful act. For committing a crime, the intention and
the act both are taken to be constituents of the crime. Under Section 14 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 the facts which indicate the state of mind or intention are relevant
facts in issue. Thus to convict the defendant, it must be proved that the criminal act was
carried out with a criminal intend. Not only is the act of the accused important but the
intention of the accused to do the specific act is equally important to prove the guilt of
the accused. Thus it can be concluded that mere commission of a criminal act or breach
of law is not sufficient to constitute a crime. It should be combined with the presence of
wrongful intent. Further the mens rea is important to understand the severity of the crime
committed. The essential ingredient is the blameworthy condition of the mind. Its
absence can negate the liability. However the statement without a guilty mind there is no
crime is subjected to certain exceptions such as strict liability. Under strict liability, it is
not necessary to show that a defendant possessed the relevant mens rea for the act
committed.
Sever penal actions are required for crimes committed with specific intend and not for
unanticipated or unintentional acts. However no breach of law can be left unpunished.
Thus this maxim is established to differentiate between intentional and unintentional
criminal act so that the quantum of punishment can be decided accordingly.
Illustration
An accused who commits a motor vehicle accident leading to the death of a victim shall
be charged for murder if the accused had the intention of killing i.e. his act and mind
worked in unison to execute the crime. Otherwise, it would be considered as an accident
or negligence on part of the accused. Also, in other words, a person who is suffering
from a mental disorder cannot be said to have committed a crime as he does not know
what he is doing.
When a person is attacked by another person with an intention to cause grievous hurt or
injury then it is a crime. But when the person who was attacked causes injury to the
other person in private defence then it is an unintentional act. In the first scenario guilty
mind was present but in the second case no intention of causing harm was there. The
second act is categorised as self defence and is dealt under section 96 to 106 of the
Indian Penal Code. In the first act the person is guilty of criminal act.

2. AD VALOREM:
Ad Valorem is a legal maxim, used in India, with the following meaning: According to
value; calculated according to value.
Taxes on commodities are calculated in two ways, either according to quantity or
according to value. In the case of a specific tax, the amount of the tax to be paid depends
upon the amount of commodity bought, the petrol tax being of this type. In the case of
an ad valorem tax the amount to be paid is proportionate to the value of the commodity;
purchase taxes usually being a specified percentage of the wholesale price, many stamp
duties are ad valorem. Since it is used on the increased value, thus it avoids
discrimination against the low-priced items.
• It adjusts as per the spending power of individuals.
• Ad Valorem Property Tax depends on the value-added on the property and the
requirement of the tax budget (millage rate) of municipal for that financial year.
• It does not get calculated based on the size of the property.
• It is more progressive than a specific tax because if your house’s value is more,
that means you will have to pay more tax than that the less valued house. So wealthier
would have to pay more tax since there are chances, they would be spending more on
property.

The most common ad valorem tax examples include property taxes on real estate, sales
tax on consumer goods, and VAT on the value added to a final product or service. Ad
valorem taxes comprise one of the primary sources of revenue for state, county, and
municipal governments.

Value of House = $100,000

Property Tax = 4%
Property Tax = 100,000*4% = $4,000
Hence Property Tax on your house for this year is $4,000
These are one of the primary sources of revenue generation for state and municipal
boards. It depends on the assessed value of the property.
Some examples of Ad Valorem taxes are Property Tax, Sales Tax on consumer goods,
and Value Added Tax on the final product. It is considered more progressive, but it is a
bit complicated because sometimes assessing the value of a property can be a tough task.

3. AMICUS CURIAE:
Meaning: Friend of the Court
Amicus Curiae is a friend of the court which involves either a person or an organization
who/which is not a party to the proceedings, but is permitted by the court to set out legal
arguments or to furnish information regarding questions of law and recommendations in
a given case. In general, Amicus Curiae is someone who is not a party to the litigation,
but who believes that the court’s decision may affect its interest.
The person who is usually allowed by the India courts, to act as amicus curiae, are
people who represent the unbiased will and opinion of the society. The decision of
whether to admit the information provided by the Amicus Curiae lies with the discretion
of the court.
one (such as a professional person or organization) that is not a party to a particular
litigation but that is permitted by the court to advise it in respect to some matter of law
that directly affects the case in question. The information may be a legal opinion in the
form of a brief, testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned
treatise on a matter that bears on the case. The decision whether to admit the information
lies with the discretion of the court. In India, the courts have time and again welcomed
the idea of permitting amicus curiae to associate themselves with proceedings, generally
involving public interest. By doing so, the court is guided not only by the academic
perspective required for the particular case, but also enables the court to have an
understanding which would allow them to do justice in its entirety.
The person who is usually allowed by the courts, in India, to act as amicus curiae are
people who represent the unbiased will and opinion of the society.
In innumerable cases in India, the courts have allowed, or, on its own motion, have
asked various people to act as amicus curiae to the proceedings.
A very fine example of this is the famous, or rather the infamous BMW Case which has
yet again been in news recently due to the fact that both the defense and the prosecution
lawyers have been suspended by the Delhi High Court on charge of driving the
witnesses to turn hostile. In the said case, Advocate Arvind Nigam who was appointed
as the amicus curiae by the Delhi High Court has played a crucial part in securing
justice.
The importance of amicus curiae can be well seen considering the facts of the above-
mentioned case, in which both the prosecution and the defense have gone beyond ethical
and professional practices to murder justice.
The role played by amicus curiae, Advocate Arvind Nigam in the present case can be
well appreciated considering the fact that the Delhi High Court has recommended his
name for the post of Senior Advocate.
Even in the international sphere, the role of amicus curiae has been well under
consideration by inter-governmental bodies like the World Trade Organization (WTO).
EXAMPLE: If the law gives deference to a history of legislation of a certain topic, a
historian may choose to evaluate the claim using their expertise. An economist,
statistician, or sociologist may choose to do the same. The court has broad discretion to
grant or to deny permission to act as amicus curiae.

4. AUDI ALTERAM PATRUM:

Meaning: "listen to the other side", or "let the other side be heard as well".
The concept of natural justice has evolved through this maxim. Natural justice is a
concept of civil law, which means judgment which is given should be fair and
reasonable. Equity and equality should be there. In India, the principle of natural justice
can be traced from Article 14 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Article 14 says
about the equality before the law and Article 21 talks about the protection of life and
personal liberty. Article 21 was defined in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. The Union of
India.
In this case, it was held that law and procedure which is followed should be just, fair and
reasonable kind.
The rule of natural justice comes into power where no partiality is done with anybody
during any regulatory activity. Rule of Audi Alteram Partem is the primary notion of the
principle of natural justice. The principle also says that no one should be condemned
unheard. Both the parties will get an opportunity of fair hearing and justice. This maxim
also ensures that fair hearing and justice will be done towards both the parties, both the
parties have right to speak. No decision will be taken by court without hearing both the
parties. Both the parties have an opportunity to protect themselves. Introduction
This maxim means “hear the other side” or no man should be unheard, both the parties
have an opportunity of being heard. Justice will be given to both parties. Audi alteram
partem is from a latin phrase “audiatur et altera pars”. Its meaning is also the same as
hear the other side. This is a very strong rule which means no one will be judged without
fair hearing. The motive of this maxim is to provide an opportunity to other party to
respond to the evidence against him. The person should be given an opportunity so that
he can defend himself before the court of law. The person who decides anything without
hearing the other side although he says what is right but he would not have done what is
right. The principle of hearing is basically a code of procedure and thus covers every
stage through which an administrative jurisdiction passes that is from notice to final
determination.

It was said by De Smith that “No suggestion can be more obviously settled than that a
man can’t cause the loss of freedom or property for an offense by a legal continuing
until he has had a reasonable chance of noting the body of evidence against him”. A
person will not suffer unless and until he had an opportunity of being heard. This is the
primary rule of humanized statute and is acknowledged by the laws of men and god.
Before any order is passed against any individual person, sensible chance of being heard
must be given to him. In this maxim two principles are considered that is fundamental
justice and equity.

Illustration: If a person has been arrested and is not being able to represent himself
through a lawyer, it the duty of the state to provide legal aid to that person, or the person
should be granted free legal aid if he is not being able to afford legal services.
Essential elements
The essential elements of this maxim are as follow:
• Notice
Before any action is taken against the party who is affected. A notice must be provided
to them in order to present a cause against the proposed action and pursue his
application. If any order is passed without giving notice then it is against the principle
of natural justice and is void ab initio which means void from the beginning.
It is a right of person to know about the facts before any action is taken and without
knowing the proper facts, a person cannot protect himself. The right to notice means
right to be known. The facts should be known by the party before the hearing of the
case. Notice is essential to begin any hearing. Notice must contain the date, time, place
of hearing and also the jurisdiction under which a case is filed. It must also contain the
charges and proposed against the person. If any of the thing is missing in the notice then
notice will be considered invalid. Non issuance of notice does not affect the jurisdiction
but affects the rules of natural justice.
Case – Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India
The notice which is given to the parties should be clear and unambiguous. If it is
ambiguous and it is not clear then the notice will not be considered as reasonable and
proper.
• Hearing
The second most essential element of audi alteram partem is fair hearing. If the order
passed by the authority without hearing the party or without giving him an opportunity
of being heard then it will be considered as an invalid.
• Evidence
Evidence is considered as a most important part which is brought before the court when
both the parties are present there and the judicial or quasi judicial authority will act upon
the evidence which is produced before the court.
• Cross examination
The court should not require revealing the person concerned or material to be taken
against him, but an opportunity is provided them to deny the evidence. The question
arises that will witness will be cross examined
• Legal Representation
Genuinely, the representation through a legal advisor in the authoritative arbitration isn’t
considered as an imperative piece of the reasonable hearing. Be that as it may, in
specific circumstances in the event that the privilege to legal representation is not
rejected and at that point it adds up to infringement of natural justice.
5. ASSENTIO MENTIUM:
Meaning: The meeting of minds In good faith: mutual assent
It is a Latin term that implies meeting of minds or mutual assent expressed or implied by
both the parties to the contract. Consensus ad idem is a synonym word for the Latin term
assentio mentium.
FOR EX: while executing a contract deed for the sale of A’s house there was “assentio
mentium” between A (seller) and B (purchaser) as to the terms and conditions of the
contract. It means both were clear as to the object of contract (the house) and the
consideration being paid for it (certain sum of money).

6. BONA FIDE:
Meaning "good faith".
This refers to an individual's position under the law that is based in good faith without
notice of fraud with regards to a particular transaction or with regards to the authenticity
of a particular document. Bona fide refers to the quality of genuineness. For ex- “a bona
fide holder” of a bill of exchange is one who has taken a bill which appears ordinary on
its face ,before it was overdue, and in good faith and for value, and without notice of any
defect in the title of person who negotiated it to him.
The term “bona fide” is used to describe something that is presented as authentic or real.
For example, a bona fide purchaser is someone who has no reason to raise suspicions
that he should not be allowed to purchase a parcel of property. It also speaks to
innocence on the purchaser’s part that he has not done anything to cause anyone to
believe that he should be considered anything other than a legitimate purchaser. To
explore this concept, consider the following bona fide definition.
For ex- A Bona Fide Purchaser
A bona fide purchaser (BFP) is someone who innocently purchases an asset, like a piece
of property, without having any prior knowledge that someone else may be able to claim
the title to the property. A bona fide purchaser must, as the name suggests, purchase the
property. Someone who inherits a parcel of property as a gift is not a bona fide purchaser
because he did not purchase it.

7. BONA VACANTIA:
Meaning: “vacant goods” or "ownerless goods”.
Bona vacantia is used to describe a situation where a certain amount of goods are
unclaimed over a period of time. No ownership is claimed over those goods or property.
When such a situation arises then the goods or the property goes to the government and
the government serves as the custodian of those goods or property. The government has
to take such goods and act as their owners for perpetuity. The cases of such ownership
arises when the goods or the property are being abandoned when the person dies without
any living heirs. Such situation can also arise when a business or unincorporated
association is dissolved the assets thereof are not distributed appropriately. Other
process how such situation arises are when a trust in the path of failing or when the
property owner in nowhere to be found and does not any information about its
whereabouts. In other words it is a property without any claim. Bona vacantia is used for
those goods an d property which does not have any ownership. Ownership and property
are two interrelated concepts. There cannot be any ownership without any property and
also there can be any property without ownership. However Bona vacantia are those
goods and property which loses its ownership over a periood of time ad remains the
same for long time.
The concept of bona vacantia has its origins from the common law. The maxim Bona
vacantia is used for the situation in which property is left without any clear owner. The
owner of the goods is not known. The goods are being treated in different manner in
such a kind of situation. It is seen that in most cases the goods are stated to be the
property of the crown i.e the government. The rightful owner if found then the goods are
returned to them.
FOR EX- If the owner of large estate dies without living any heirs then that estate
becomes Bona vacantia.

8. CAVEAT EMPTOR:
Meaning: “let the buyer beware”.
The doctrine of Caveat Emptor is an integral part of the Sale of Goods Act. It translates to
“let the buyer beware”. This means it lays the responsibility of their choice on the buyer
themselves.
It is specifically defined in Section 16 of the act

“there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or the fitness for any particular
purpose of goods supplied under such a contract of sale.

FOR EXAMPLE: A seller makes his goods available in the open market. The buyer
previews all his options and then accordingly makes his choice. Now let’s assume that the
product turns out to be defective or of inferior quality.
This doctrine says that the seller will not be responsible for this. The buyer himself is
responsible for the choice he made.
So the doctrine attempts to make the buyer more conscious of his choices. It is the duty of
the buyer to check the quality and the usefulness of the product he is purchasing. If the
product turns out to be defective or does not live up to its potential the seller will not be
responsible for this.
Let us see an example. A bought a horse from B. A wanted to enter the horse in a race.
Later it turns out that the horse was not capable of running a race on account of being lame.
But A did not inform B of his intentions. So B will not be responsible for the defects of the
horse. The Doctrine of Caveat Emptor will apply.
However, the buyer can shift the responsibility to the seller if the three following
conditions are fulfilled.

• if the buyer shares with the seller his purpose for the purchase

• the buyer relies on the knowledge and/or technical expertise of the seller

• And the seller sells such goods.

9. CORPUS DELICTI

Meaning: body of the crime

Corpus delicti is a Latin phrase that means body of the crime. The phrase body here
does not only pertain to a possible corpse, but actually relates to any form of evidence,
so it is important to remember that there is both a literal and figurative association. In
regards to criminal investigations, this concept means that there should be enough
evidence to prove that a crime occurred in order for an individual to be charged for the
offense. Why was the rule designed? It was established to help prevent individuals from
being charged with an offense they didn't commit. In addition, the rule provides a certain
amount of protection for those individuals who suffer from mental illness or mental
instability and who may have confessed to a crime they did not even commit. False
confessions, although they don't happen all the time, do take place.

Corpus delicti applies to all crimes, but it is considered to be an especially important

concept within any murder investigation. There should be a body or at least a body of
evidence for police to work with before they charge someone with a crime. When
someone goes missing and these two things don't exist, police often have a difficult time
charging a crime; if there isn't a body or at least evidence present to prove there was a
death, then a person is most likely considered to be a missing person or a runaway rather
than a homicide victim.

However, it should be noted that the prosecution within such an investigation will aim to
charge for a conviction of guilt in a homicide case even if the body is not located, just as
long as there is substantial circumstantial evidence present that ultimately leads beyond
a reasonable doubt.

For example, if you were a suspect within a murder case, it would be really difficult for
an attorney to charge you with murder when they are unable to locate a body or
sufficient evidence proving that you committed such an act. However, if your cell phone
contained incriminating information that was associated to you being the responsible
party or co-conspirator in a crime like murder, then all cards are off the table and you
can most certainly be prosecuted. Remember, there does not have to be a body present if
enough supporting or circumstantial evidence is present.

But what exactly is circumstantial evidence? This is when there is enough association
or link between several factors and these factors infer that something took place. Such
associations may be perceived as truth, evidence, and factual in nature, without the
admission of any additional evidence.

10. DAMNUM SINE INJURIA

The law of torts is a collection of all the circumstances in which court gives a remedy by
way of damages, for legally unjustified harm or injury done by one to another person.
There are three elements which need to be proved before constituting a tort:-

1. There must be an act or omission on the part of the defendant.

2. That act or omission should be in violation of a legal right vested in the plaintiff.
3. The wrongful act or omission thus done by the defendant is of such a nature to
give rise to a legal remedy.
Both the maxims are divided into three parts as follows:-
• Damnum/Damno means substantial harm, loss or damage with respect to the
money, health, etc.
• Injuria means an infringement of a right given by the law to the plaintiff.
• Sine means without

Damnum sine Injuria is a legal maxim which refers to as damages without injury or
damages in which there is no infringement of any legal right which are vested with the
plaintiff. Since no legal right has been infringed so no action lies in the cases of damnum
sine injuria. The general principle on which this maxim is based upon is that if one
exercises his common or ordinary rights, within reasonable limits, and without
infringing other’s legal right; such an exercise does not give rise to an action in tort in
favour of that other person. Damages can be in any form either in the form of any
substantial harm or loss suffered from respect to the money, comfort, health, etc.

It is an implied principle in law that there are no remedies for any moral wrongs, unless
and until any legal right has been infringed. Even if the act or omission such done by the
defendant was intentional, the Court will not grant any damages to the plaintiff.

11. INJURIA SINE DAMNO

Injuria sine damno is a violation of a legal right without causing any harm, loss or
damage to the plaintiff and whenever any legal right is infringed, the person in whom
the right is vested is entitled to bring an action. Every person has an absolute right to his
property, to the immunity of his person, and to his liberty & infringement of this right is
actionable per se. A person against whom the legal right has been infringed has a cause
of action such that even a violation of any legal right knowingly brings the cause of
action. The law even gives the liberty that if a person merely has a threat of infringement
of a legal right even without the injury being completed, the person whose right has been
threatened can bring a suit under the provisions of Specific Relief Act under Declaration
and injunction.

For Example:-If a person is wrongfully detained against his will, he will have a claim
for substantial damages for wrongful imprisonment even if no consequential loss was
suffered pon the detention.

Difference between Damnum Sine Injuria & Injuria Sine Damnum

S.No Damnum Sine Injuria Injuria sine Damnum

Damnum sine Injuria refers to the damages

Injuria Sine damnum is the legal injury
suffered by the plaintiff but no damage is
1. caused to the plaintiff without any
being caused to the legal rights as there is
damage to the physical injury.
no violation of it

It is an infringement of a legal right where

It is the losses suffered without the
even if no loss has been suffered by the
2. infringement of any legal right hence
plaintiff still creates an actionable cause
creating no cause of action.
of action.

No compensation in the form of damages Compensation in the form of damages is

3.
is awarded by the court. awarded by the court.
 This maxim is for the legal wrongs which
This maxim is for the moral wrongs which
4. are actionable if the person’s legal right
have no action in the eyes of the law.
has been violated.

The principle of this maxim is that a The principle of this maxim is that
person exercises in such a manner within whenever there is an invasion of a legal
5. reasonable limits which does not ground right there creates a cause of action and
action in tort merely because it causes the person whose right is vested is entitled
damages to other people to bring an action.

In this, the plaintiff suffers legal injury

In this, the plaintiff suffers a loss but has
6. doesn’t matter they have suffered any loss
suffered no legal injury.
on that account.

This is actionable since there is a violation

7. Damages without injury are not actionable
of a legal right

Conclusion

The conclusion of the two maxims are such that one is a moral wrong for which the law
gives no remedy even though they cause great loss or detriment to the plaintiff’s but on
the other hand other one is a legal wrong for which the law does give a legal remedy
though there be violation of a private right, without actual loss or detriment in that
particular case.

The main aim of the maxim Damnum Sine Injuria is that no ground of action or no cause
of action lies for a person who is acting within reasonable limits even though the other
person is suffering losses on that account while the main aim of the maxim Injuria Sine
damnum is that if the legal right of a person is violated then a cause of action arises and
the person whose legal right has been infringed is entitled to bring a suit against the
person who has done it. In these cases, a qualified right has been violated which is
different from absolute rights.
12. DE DIE IN DIEM

MEANING: from day to day.

The above term is a Latin term it means from day to day. In earlier times, the term was
used to refer to an action occurring from day to day. It denotes a continuous right of
action.

If a person wrongly places something on another person’s land and leaves it there, then
that act is not a single act of trespass. Instead, is a continuing action giving rise to fresh
cause of action from day to day.
EX: The workers are paid de die in diem.
She received her salary de die in diem

13. DE MINIMIS LEX NON CURAT:

Meaning: “law is not concerned with small things.”

An abbreviated form of the Latin Maxim de minimis non curat lex, “law is not
concerned with small things.” A legal doctrine by which a court refuses to consider
trifling things. The de minimis legal history dates back to the fifteenth century.
In a lawsuit, the de minimis doctrine is applied by a court to avoid resolving trivial
matters that are not worthy of judicial scrutiny. Its application sometimes leads to an
action being dismissed, especially when the only redress being sought is for a nominal
sum, such as a dollar. When appropriate, the appellate courts also use the de minimis
doctrine.
It is a principle of common law that stipulates that judges will not sit in judgment or take
notice of extremely minor violations of the law. In accordance with this Maxim,
rationale citizens would consider an appeal for trivial matters to be a complete waste of
time and resources. It will bring disrepute to the judicial system.
A legal term which means too small to be meaningful or taken into account; immaterial.
As a matter of policy, the law does not encourage parties to bring legal action where the
impact of the breach is negligible for technical breaches of rules or agreements. De
minimis exceptions are commonly included in contracts to limit the use of covenants or
other restrictions so that they do not apply in circumstances where the failure to comply
with the restriction has negligible impact.
This maxim is also recognized by Section 95 of IPC.
Illustration

• A promised B they’ll go watch a movie together on Sunday. A did not appear at

the theaters, however, B suffered mental trauma and agony. B sued A for damages. The
court will dismiss B’s appeal here because the law does not take into account trivial
issues.
• X drives at a high speed along a dusty road and his motor wheels throw a little
dust on Y, a pedestrian’s clothes. Here X, on the basis of the maxim de minimis non
curat lex, is not liable for the tort as the matter is trivial in nature.
• X walks through the Y’s land for the first time, without Y’s consent, without
causing any damage to Y’s land. If for once, it is a trivial matter, and the maxim would
protect him, but if X repeats, over and over again, to establish his rights on the Y’s land,
it will not remain a trivial matter, and it will become a tort, and the maxim will not
protect X.
14. DOLI IN CAPAX:
Meaning: Incapable of doing any harm
The maxim refers to a presumption in law that a child is incapable of forming the
criminal intent to commit an offense. It is a principle of jurisprudence which describes
the criminal liability of children. In India, doli incapax finds its importance in Section 82
and 83 of the Indian Penal Code and in the Juvenile Justice Act. As per the maxim, in
India, no child below the age of seven years can be prosecuted for commission of any
crime, while for children between the age of eight to fourteen years, the prosecution has
the burden of proof to prove the offense of the minor. In general, the doctrine reflects the
concern that ‘using criminal penalties to punish a child who does not appreciate the
wrongfulness of his or her actions lacks moral justification’. The objective behind the
maxim involves:

FOR EXAMPLE: A child who is below the age of seven years does not have sufficient
mental capacity to understand the consequences of his action and hence if he commits a
criminal act, he may lack the required intention to be prosecuted.
Also, to protect the children from the harshness of punishment that may be inflicted
upon them at a very tender age by implementing strict criminal law.
Section 82 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is premised on this and provides absolute
immunity from criminal legal responsibility to a child below seven years. The said
section states that nothing is an offense which is done by a child aged below seven years.
Thus, if a child of below seven years is being prosecuted, the same can be stopped by an
application under Section 82 of the Indian Penal Code. It is based on the understanding
that a child under the age of 7 does not have the intellectual capacity to consider the
meaning and implications of his acts and thus lacks the potential to shape the mens rea
or the purpose needed. Notably, such an era was not built on the theory of child
development, but rather “simply an instrument of public policy,” “a functional rule of
practice,” and is not focused on “the empirical reality.”
A child over the age of 10 but under the age of 14 is presumed to lack the capacity to be
criminally responsible for his or her acts. The child is described as ‘doli incapax’
(incapable of crime) when their age falls short of ‘the age of discretion’. However, the
presumption is rebuttable, meaning that, depending on the individual’s maturity and
level of understanding of the ramifications of what they have done, a court may
nonetheless determine them to be criminally responsible for their behavior.
Illustration
‘Ramesh’ a 25-year-old, instigates ‘Rahul’ a 6-year-old child, in order to kill ‘Raj’
which causes Raj’s death. Here, the child will not be liable for any crime as he is a doli
incapax. However, Ramesh will be held liable for the murder of Raj.

15. EJUSDEM GENERIS

Meaning: Of the same kind
The maxim refers to where a law lists specific classes of persons or things and then
refers them in general, the general statements only apply to the same kind of persons or
things specifically listed. Normally, general words should be given their natural meaning
like all the other words, unless the context requires otherwise. However, when general
words follow specific words of distinct categories, the general word may be given a
restricted meaning of the same category.
It generally means, when general words in a statutory text are flanked by restricted
words, the meaning of the general words are taken to be restricted by implication with
the meaning of restricted words. It may be regarded as an instance of ellipsis, or reliance
on implication.
Illustration
If a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles, and other motor-powered
vehicles, a court might use ejusdem generis to hold that such vehicles would not include
airplanes, because the list included only land-based transportation.
16. EX POST FACTO LAW:

Ex post facto is one of the most widely used and referred maxim in the legal arena. It
usually refers to the laws passed by the legislature which has a retrospective
effect. Such laws are said to be Ex Post Facto as they affect the act which has already
been committed before passing of the law or it can be said that the law was brought into
action after the commission of the act.

Ex post facto law is a law which has a retrospective effect and changes the legal
consequences of the actions which were committed in the past. It may criminalize
actions that were legal when committed. Ex post fact laws can also bring changes in the
punishment that is prescribed for committing a particular crime.

In India, conviction and sentence under ex post facto laws is prohibited under the Article
20(1) of the Constitution of India. However, it should be noted that the term ‘ex post
facto’ is nowhere provided under the Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution. The
Article 20(1) provides the following:

“No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the
time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty
greater than that which have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of
commission of the offence.”

Another point which should be taken into consideration is that, under the Article 20(1)
only convicting and sentencing under a law which is having retrospective effect is
prohibited, the enactment of the law itself is not prohibited. In American Legal System
the enactment of such law itself is prohibited. The passing of Ex Post Facto laws is
prohibited under clause 1 of Article 1, Section 10 of the constitution of the United States
EXAMPLE: Legislative Assembly of ‘XYZ’ country passed an amendment in existing
law which increased the penalty for committing the offence of ‘Drink & Drive’ to 10
years imprisonment from 5 years imprisonment. In this case, all those who were found
to be guilty of committing the offence of ‘Drink & Drive’ before the passing of the
amendment will be punished as per the earlier law and have to go through imprisonment
for 5 years. Applying the amended law on them would be having ex post facto effect
which will violate Article 20(1) of the Constitution of the ‘XYZ’ country

17. IGNORANTIA FACTI EXCUSAT – IGNORANTIA

JURIS NON EXCUSAT
Meaning: Ignorance of law cannot be an excuse.
The Latin maxim means, that the lack of knowledge about a legal requirement or
prohibition is never an excuse to a criminal charge.[i] The idea is commonly
rendered as ignorance of the law is no excuse, in English. And frequently reduced
as ignorantia juris.

It is quite often said ‘ignorance of law is not an excuse’. As already stated above, it is
based on the Latin Maxim “ignorantia legis neminem excusat” or “ignorantia juris, quod
quisque, saire tenetur neminem excusat”.

It may be noted that ignorance of fact can be an excuse but not that of law. It is generally
accepted that the maxim had its origin in Roman law and there is a direct mention about
the same in “The digest of Justicia” or Justinian’s Code. It is stated therein that
ignorance of fact may be excused but not ignorance of law. It is a matter of common
knowledge that English law is largely based on Roman law and thus naturally, the
maxim crept into English Common law also.
The law in the country is all pervading. All our actions are dependent on the law. We
have all sorts of law including Criminal law, Constitutional law, Family law, Intellectual
property law etc. Ignorance of any of these laws can never be an excuse.

Illustration: In India hunting of a Wild Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) is an offence as per

section 9 of the Wild life Protection Act 1972. If a person, who is ignorant of section 9
of the Wild life protection Act, shoots a wild Buffalo thinking that it is a domestic
buffalo he is said to be acting in ignorance of law as well as of a fact.

18. LOCUS STANDI:

Meaning: The right to appear and be heard before a court.

The maxim refers to the right of a party to appear and be heard before a court of law or
to institute a suit or an action before the court. For instance, an individual cannot bring a
complaint challenging the constitutionality of a law, unless he/she can show that they
have been harmed or affected by the law. Contrarily, the court would conclude that the
complainant ‘lacks standi’ to file the complaint, and will reject the lawsuit without even
taking into consideration, the validity of the unconstitutionality provision raised by
him/her.

In legal terms, Locus Standi essentially applies to a plaintiff’s attempt to show to the
court that there is ample relation or correlation or cause of action to the plaintiff from the
suit. In other terms, it applies to a person’s capacity to put a case before the court of law
or to testify before the court of law.

Illustration

A foreign government which has not been recognized by the Indian government has no
locus standi in the Indian courts.
Before an application for judicial review can be made, the applicant must prove that they
have a locus standi.

19. NEMO DEBET ESSE JUDEX IN PROPRIA SUA CAUSA

Meaning: No one ought to be a judge in his or her own cause.

It is the principle of Natural Justice. According to this maxim, the authority giving
decision must be composed of impartial persons and should act fairly, without prejudice
and bias. It is a fundamental concept in the administration of law to exercise justice and
fair hearing. The term natural justice can also be titled as ‘fundamental justice’ or
‘substantial justice.’ In simple words, fair hearing implies that no man shall be
condemned by the authorities without being heard on the case. The principle refers to the
fact that no one will act as a judge in his case. The objective of this rule is to ensure
public confidence in the impartiality of the administrative adjudicatory process. In
general, the maxim refers that justice should not only be done but also manifestly and
undoubtedly seen to be done.

EXAMPLE- A files a suit against B which has been scheduled to hearing before judge
C. After all the arguments and hearing the judge C passed an order in favor of B.
However, it was found later that C was an acquaintance of B. Thus, it can be held that
the decision of C must have composed of partial persons and should act fairly.

20. NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET

Meaning: No one gives what he doesn’t have.
The legal rule ‘Nemo dat quod non habet’ literally means ‘no one gives what he doesn’t
have’. It is equivalent to the civil rule Nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest quam
ipse habet which translates to ‘one cannot transfer to another more rights than he has’.
The rule is associated with the transfer of possession of a property in law. The Sale of
Goods Act, 1930 (hereinafter SOGA) and the Indian Contract Act, 1872 are associated
with underlying provisions of this rule.
The maxim is a legal rule and a ground principle regarding the transfer of title. It refers
to the question of whether someone purporting to give or sell a property has legal title or
right to do so. The sale of goods usually takes place between the buyer and seller.
However, there are some exceptions in which the seller sells the goods which are not
authorized to him or without the permission of the owner. Thus, in such cases Nemo dat
quod non-habet the rule comes into existence to help decide which of the innocent
parties to be favored buyer or owner.
Section 27 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 states that when any goods are sold by a
person who is not the real owner of the goods and sells them without proper authority
and consent from the real owner, the buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the
seller had. Further, Section 27 also provides an exception to the rule, which protects the
interest of the real owner.
FOR EX-A transfers his property to B. Further, A transfers the same property to C.
Following the rule of Nemo dat quod non-habet, B will get the right from A. Thus,
currently, B has the rights and A has none. So, A cannot transfer the property to C. The
current owner should be able to trace his rights back in time to prove his legitimate
acquisition
It also has a jurisprudential aspect to it with regard to ownership and possession. For
instance, if A owns a car and he has a driver, the driver would only have the possession
of the car during the course of business, but he would not have the authority to transfer
the title of the car because he only has the title to possess the car during work hours. The
title to transfer the ownership is a greater title than he has and could only be performed
by the owner because his title is authoritative

21. NOSCITUR A SOCIIS:

Meaning: ‘the meaning of a word may be known from accompanying words’
The terms ‘Noscitur a Sociis’ is related to legal doctrine and statutory interpretation of
laws. It is used in the construction of contractual documents of the law. In Latin the term
‘Noscitur a Sociis’ means ‘the meaning of a word may be known from accompanying
words’. It is also used for interpreting questionable words in statutes. When a word is
ambiguous, its meaning may be determined by reference to the rest of the statute. It is
one of the rules of the language used by the courts that helps to interpret legislation. For
the case with “noscitur a sociis” the questionable meaning of a word or doubtful words
can be derived from its association with other words within the context of the phrase.
This indicates that words in a list which is within a statute have meanings that are related
to each other.
The principle of Noscitur a Sociis is a rule of construction. It is used by the court to
interpret legislation. This means that the meaning of an unclear word or phrase must be
determined by the words that surround it. In other terms, the meaning of a word must be
judged by the company that it keeps. The questionable meaning of a doubtful word will
be derived from its association with other words. It is used wherever a statutory
provision constitutes a word or phrase that is capable of bearing more than one meaning.

22. OBITER DICTA / RATIO DECIDENDI

Meaning: ‘By the way’/ ‘the reason for the decision’.
The maxim refers to a passage in a judicial opinion which is not necessary for the
decision of a case before the court. Such statements lack the force of precedent but may
nevertheless be significant. In general terms, Obiter Dictum is an incidental and
collateral opinion that is uttered by a judge but is not binding while deciding a case. It
can be passing comments, opinions or examples provided by a judge. In a legal ruling,
made by a higher court, the actual decision becomes a binding precedent. Remarks about
such things as to how the court came to its decision are not binding, and it is to these that
the term refers. The sole reason for such statements is that they are only to clarify the
legal principle which the judge proposes to apply in his or her judgment. Such remarks
are only ought to offer guidance in similar matters in the future but are not binding.
A written judicial opinion consists of two elements:
1. Ratio Decidendi
2. Obiter Dicta

The Latin maxim Ratio Decidendi means ‘the reason for the decision,’ it refers to
statements of the critical/vital facts and law of the case. On the other hand, Obiter
Dicta are additional observations, remarks, and opinions on other issues made by the
judge while deciding the case. Such additional information is given to provide context
for the judicial opinion.

A purchased a washing machine from B’s company. However, A was disappointed,

when the washing machine stopped working, even before completing a month of
purchasing. Having been told that the appliance had a one-year warranty against
manufacturer defects, A attempted to make a claim to have her washing machine
repaired or replaced. However, B’s company denied the claim, saying that A had not
responded with a message saying she had accepted the company’s terms and conditions
for warranty service, and therefore held that she was not eligible for the warranty
services. Subsequently, A filed a civil lawsuit in an attempt to hold B’s company
responsible to fulfill the warranty.

The court passed the decision in favor of A and while pronouncing the judgment, the
court gave an example that “If I lost my dog, and advertised that I would pay Rs 10,000
to anyone who brought the dog to my home, could I deny the reward to the neighbor
who found and returned him, on the basis that he hadn’t written to me formally
accepting my offer? Of course not.”

The above example that the court has given is referred to as obiter dicta, since it is not
crucial to the court’s ruling but was given only by way of explanation.
23. PARI MATERIA:
Meaning:Of the same matter; on the same subject
The doctrine of Pari Materia is a useful tool for the interpretation of statutes that work
towards the same objective. It is an ordinary rule of interpretation of statutes that the
words of a statute when there is uncertainty about their meaning are to be perceived in
the sense in which they best harmonize with the subject of the enactment and the object
which the legislature has in see. The doctrine helps in harmonizing the aim and subject
of the legislation. It is a doctrine in statutory construction that statutes that are in pari
materia must be construed together.
To summarize, statutes are considered to be in pari materia to pertain to the same
subject-matter when they relate to the same individual or things, or to the same class of
people or thing, or have the same reason or object. The doctrine of ‘pari materia’
provides that reference to different statutes dealing with the same subject or shaping part
of the same system is a permissible aid to the construction of provisions in a statute.
Where there are various statutes in pari materia, however, made at various occasions, or
even lapsed and not alluding to each other, they shall be taken and construed together, as
one system and as explanatory to each other. It is to be gathered, that a code of statutes
relating to one subject was administered by one spirit and policy and, planned to be
consistent and harmonious in its several parts and provisions. It is along these lines an
established rule of law, that all Acts in pari materia are to be taken together as in the
event that they were one Law, and they are directed to be compared in the construction
of statutes because they are considered as framed upon one system, and having one
object in seeing. The rationale behind this rule is based on the interpretative assumption
that words utilized in legislations are utilized in an identical sense. Nonetheless, this
assumption is rebuttable by the context of the statutes.
Pari materia means when two provisions of two different statutes deal with the
same subject matter and form part of the same subject matter.
24. PER INCURIAM:
Meaning: Through lack of care
Per incuriam is a decision of the court which is mistaken. The one which ignores a
contradictory statute or binding authority, and is therefore wrongly decided and of no
force. A judgment that is found to have been decided per incuriam does not then have to
be followed as precedent by a lower court. In criminal cases, a decision made per
incuriam will usually result in the conviction being overturned. The doctrine is an
exception to Article 141 of Constitution of India which embodies the precedents as a
matter of law.
The present doctrine is strictly and rightly applicable to the maxim ratio decidendi,
which is the point that determines the judgement and is binding in nature and not to the
obiter dicta i.e. a remark made during the course of the discussion having persuasive
value.
In famous case of Buta Singh v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that, when a
two-judge bench renders a decision without noticing or in a manner that it ignores the
binding decision of a larger bench (in this case a three-judge bench), then such a
decision can be said to be per incuriam.

25. QUI FACIT PER ALIUM, FACIT PER SE:

Meaning: He who acts through another does the act himself.
The above maxim is similar in the sense of the Latin maxim – Respondeat Superior,
which is a traditional basis of vicarious liability. It means that an employer is liable for
the consequences of any act done by employees in the ordinary course of their duties and
responsibilities. When an employee is entrusted by his employer to do some kind of
works, on behalf of or in absence of the employer or the master, the employee or the
servant is left to determine everything in accordance with the circumstances. It is the
fundamental premise of agency law. However, this concept does not apply to Criminal
Jurisprudence.
Illustration: A, the owner of a car, asked her friend B to take her car and drive the same
to her office. As the car was near her office, it hit a pedestrian C on account of B’s
negligent driving and injured him seriously. Now, C files a suit for damages against A.
In this case, A authorized B to driver her car and for her purpose, she is responsible for
the accident. However, this case is playable in the court of law as A had not asked B to
hit anyone further, neither did she authorize B to drive in a way to hit someone. Thus, B
was negligent on his part in driving the car, so he should also be personally held liable.

26. QUID PRO QUO

Meaning : Something for something
In general sense, the meaning of Quid Pro Quo is a consideration, i.e. something in
return for something or something in exchange for something. Such consideration makes
both the parties to the contract or agreement to oblige in doing something or abstains
from doing something as per the wish or desire of the other. Therefore, it signifies the
consideration part of the contract which passes from one party to the other, thereby
rendering the agreement valid and binding. It refers to some valuable consideration in
contract law and forms an essential elements of a valid contract.
However, if the agreement appears one-sided, the courts may deem the contract as void.
Without consideration or quid pro quo, a contract may be determined to be nonbinding
and invalid.
Under the Indian Contract Act 1872, Section 2 (d) defines consideration as “When at
the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from
doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or abstain from doing
something, such act or abstinence is called a consideration for the promisee.”

In simple terms, the above definition includes:

1. An act of doing something.

Example – A promises B of payment for goods which B intends to sell on credit to C.
Thus, in this case, selling of goods by B to C in consideration of A’s promise.

2. An act of abstaining or refraining from doing something.

Example – A promises B of not complaining about him bunking his college to his
parents on payment of Rs. 500. Thus, in this case, A is the consideration of B’s payment.

3. A return promise.

Example – A agrees to sell his dog to B for Rs. 8000. Thus, in this case, B’s promise to
pay the sum of Rs. 8000 is the consideration for A’s promise to sell the dog, similarly,
A’s promise to sell the dog is the consideration for B’s promise to pay the sum of Rs.
8000.

Case Laws
In Sreenivasa General Traders & Ors. Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., the
Supreme Court held that there should be an element of quid pro quo present for each
service rendered in the sphere of a contractual relationship.
Further the Supreme Court in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti vs Orient Paper & Industries
Ltd., held that “There is no quid pro quo between the taxpayer and the public authority.
There must be an element of quid pro quo between the person who pays it and the
public.”

27. RES IPSA LOQUITOR :

Meaning: ‘the thing speaks for itself’
Res Ipsa Loquitor is a legal term which means ‘the thing speaks for itself.’ It is a very
popular doctrine in the law of torts; it is circumstantial or indirect evidence which infers
negligence from the very nature of the accident that has taken place and there is the
absence of direct evidence against the defendant. Res Ipsa Loquitor is applied when it
can be said that without the defendant being negligent, the accident would not have
happened.
Accidents happen all the time and many a time, it is because of someone’s negligence.
And in the law of torts, to prove somebody’s negligence, the burden of proof is on the
plaintiff, that is, someone who is the victim of the tort. It becomes really difficult to
prove that the defendant was at fault and also to gather evidence against his act or
omission. Therefore, keeping this in mind, the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitor came into
force under which a plaintiff can use circumstantial evidence to establish negligence.
Essentials of Res Ipsa Loquitor
• Inference of negligence
For the element of Res Ipsa Loquitor to be made applicable in any case, the accident
should be such as which could not have happened if ordinary course of things had
happened without negligence. For instance, a barrel of flour cannot randomly fall on
someone’s head if the party is reasonably careful. And also, a Clock tower in the heart of
the city will need extra care and if it falls and causes injury to several people, the
defendants will but obviously be held liable for the same under this principle. In such
cases, direct evidence of proving negligence is not important, but the plaintiff has to
establish a prima facie case, either by direct or circumstantial evidence of defendant’s
negligence.
• Exclusive control by defendant
The thing that has caused the damage must be under the direct control of the defendant
or his representative. It is not always necessary that all the circumstances are under the
defendant’s control, but if the events leading upto the accidents were under the control
of others besides the defendant, then the mere happening of the accident is insufficient
evidence against the defendant.
For instance, if a surgeon at the time of the operation leaves a mop inside the patient’s
abdomen, here the doctor had exclusive control over the patient’s health and so,
therefore, he would be liable under the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitor.
• Freedom from Contributory Negligence
The third essential for the principle is that the plaintiff or any third party did not cause or
contribute to the injuries suffered by him. If it is found that the plaintiff or third party
contributed to the act that caused damage to the plaintiff, then the principle shall not
apply
28. RES JUDICATA ACCIPITUR PRO VERITATE:
Meaning: A point judicially decided is taken to be correct
According to this maxim, a suit/dispute in which the matter directly or substantially in
the issue has been directly/ substantially in issue in a former suit between the same
parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim has been decided by a
competent court shall not be tried again in the same matter in any other courts. In simple
words, a decision once rendered by a competent court on a matter in issue between the
parties after a full inquiry should not be permitted to be agitated over again by the same
court or some other court between the same parties in the same matter. The rule of
estoppel by res judicata is a rule of evidence, which prevents any party to a suit which
has been adjudicated upon by the competent court from disputing or questioning the
decision on merit in subsequent litigation.
It is based on the concept of public policy and private justice which apply to all the
judicial proceedings. According to this, public policy involves that the general interest of
the litigation must come to an end or that the litigation must have its finality. Similarly,
private justice requires that an individual should be protected from vexatious
multiplication of suits and prosecutions at the instance of an opponent whose superior
power and resources may enable him to abuse the process of court.
A decision by a competent court, which is final, should be binding and the same
questions are sought to be controverted in the subsequent litigation for which this maxim
applies.
Illustration: A has filed a suit against B in a trial court which issued a decree in favor of
A. However, A filed the same suit with the same matter against B, in a different court
which has competent authority. In such case the maxim Res Judicata Pro Veritate
Accipitur applies since, the same matter in the same suit between the same parties was
already decided by a competent court earlier.

29. SALUS POPULI EST SUPREMA LEX:

This maxim means that the welfare of the people is the supreme law, enunciates the idea
of law. This can be achieved only when justice is administered lawfully, judicially,
without fear or favour and without being hampered .
It gives the state or an individual a privilege to take care or use the property of another.
It is of two types private necessity and public necessity.
It is the use of private property for private reasons
Public necessity is the use of private property by a public official for public purpose.

30. STARE DECISIS:

Meaning: To stand by things decided/ doctrine of precedent.
It is a doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial
decisions unless they contravene the ordinary principles of justice. In general, it is the
doctrine under which courts adhere to precedent on questions of law in order to ensure
certainty, consistency, and stability in the administration of justice and to prevent the
perpetuation of injustice. It is simply a principle or an instruction, but it’s not necessarily
a rule that cannot ever be broken.
The past decisions are known as a precedent which is a legal principle or rule that is
created by a court decision. The precedent becomes an example, or authority, for judges
while deciding similar issues later. Thus, Stare decisis is the doctrine that obligates
courts to look to precedent when making their decisions. To serve as a precedent for a
pending case, a prior decision must have almost the same question of law and almost the
same facts. It reduces the need to relitigate on the cases on which the judgment has
already been passed by a higher authority/ higher court of law i.e. High Court or
Supreme Court.
Article 141 of the Indian Constitution makes the ‘law declared’ by the Supreme Court
binding on all courts within the territory in India. However, although the courts follow
the principle of precedent in the normal course, the higher forums may overrule the
decisions that may be erroneous or which do not hold good in view of the new
circumstance. A decision can also be overruled where such a decision is unclear, vague,
cause inconvenience and hardship or the error in the prior decision cannot be easily
rectified by the legislative process. Once overruled, an earlier decision is no longer a
binding precedent.
In the State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab, the Supreme Court
observed that while stare decisis is ordinarily to be adhered to, precedents can be
reconsidered in view of changed circumstances where there are compelling reasons to do
so. Thus, while the doctrine of stare decisis should generally be adhered to, the same
should not be interpreted in a manner as to hinder the development of law and the
correction of erroneous decisions. At the same time, the power to reconsider decisions
cannot be given forum and thus, it is appropriate that the power remains with higher
forums to the court that rendered the decision.

31. UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM:

Meaning: where there is a wrong there is a remedy
It is a Latin maxim which means that where there is a wrong, there is a remedy. If any
wrong is committed then the law provides a remedy for that. The maxim can be phrased
as that any person will not suffer a wrong without a remedy, it means that once it is
proved that the right was breached then equity will provide a suitable remedy. This
principle also underlines the fact that no wrong should be allowed to go without any
compensation if it can be redressed by a court of law. The law presumes that there is no
right without a remedy; and if all remedies are gone to enforce a right, the right in point
of law ceases to exist.

The law of tort is said to be the development of the maxim Ubi jus ibi remedium. The
word “jus” means legal authority to do something or to demand something. The
word “remedium” means that the person has the right of action in the court of law. The
literal meaning of the maxim is where there is a wrong there is a remedy.
This maxim also says that there is no remedy without any wrong and the persons whose
right is being violated has a right to stand before the court of law. This principle also
states that if the rights are available to a person then it is required to be maintained by
that person only and remedy is available only when he is injured in the exercise of duty
or enjoyment of it; It is useless to imagine and think a right without a remedy. It is
necessary to keep in mind that both rights violated and the remedy sought or to be
obtained should be legal. There are many moral and political wrong but are not
actionable or it does not give many sufficient reasons to take legal action as they are not
recognized by law. The maxim does not mean that there is a legal remedy for each and
every wrong committed.
For example, a contract which was required to be made on stamped paper may be made
orally; in such circumstances, irrecoverable harm may be caused to other person and yet
no legal remedy is available.
Essentials of Ubi jus ibi remedium

• The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium can be applied only where the right exists and
that right should be recognized by the court of law;
• A wrongful act must have been done which violates the legal rights of a person
clearly.
• This maxim can be used only when sufficient relief has not been provided by the
court to the person who sustained the injury.
• This maxim is applicable if any legal injury had been caused to any person, if no
legal injury has been caused then the maxim damnum sine injuria will be used which
means damage without any legal injury.
Limitations of ubi jus ibi remedium
• The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium does not apply to moral and political wrong
which are not actionable.
• This maxim is not applied to those cases in which proper remedy is given in case
of breach of right under common law.
• If there is no legal damage which has been caused to any person then this maxim
will not be applicable.
• No remedies are available in case of breach of marriage vows or personal
commitment as these all are the promises made without consideration and is based on
trust.
• This maxim is also not applicable in case of public nuisance unless and until a
plaintiff shows that he suffered more injury than other members or peoples of the
society.
• This maxim is not applicable where the plaintiff is negligent or there is negligence
on the part of the plaintiff.

Equity courts are the court of justice. The person whose rights are violated has a right to
stand before the court of law. This maxim does not say that there is a remedy for every
wrong. There are many political and moral rights which are recognized by law and the
law does not provide a remedy for that. The basic idea behind ubi jus ibi remedium is
that no wrong will be unredressed if it can be remedied by the court. The maxim is
generally true as no right exists without a remedy. The maxim is accepted by the law of
torts and provides a remedy in each and every case as this doctrine of common law in
England provides a remedy for each and every wrong.

***********************************************************************