LEGAL MAXIMS AND ITS APPLICATION ON LANDMARK

JUDGEMENTS

THIS FINAL DRAFT IS SUBMITTED IN THE FULFILLMENT OF PROJECT IN

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW , B.A. LLB (HONS.) FOR SIXTH SEMSESTER.

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, PATNA

Submitted by: Submitted to:

Nilay Rai Dr. Fr. Peter Ladis F

(2544) Faculty of Administrative Law
6th semester, B.A LLB

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE .......................................................................................... 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................................................... 4

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 5

IGNORANTIA FACTI EXCUSAT; IGNORANTIA JURIS NON-EXCUSAT ............................... 6

DAMNUM SINE INJURIA .................................................................................................................. 8

VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA ......................................................................................................... 10

CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................... 12

2
 DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

I, hereby, declare that work reported in the L.L.B. Hons. Project Report entitled “LEGAL
MAXIMS AND ITS APPLICATION ON LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS” submitted at
CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, PATNA is an authentic record of my work
carried out under the supervision of Dr. Fr. Peter Ladis F, Faculty of Administrative Law.
I have not submitted this work elsewhere for any other degree or diploma. I am fully
responsible for the contents of my Project Report.

Nilay Rai (2544)

BA LLB
th
6 Semester CNLU, PATNA

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank my guide Dr. Fr. Peter Ladis F, Faculty of Administrative Law, for his
help which made me complete my research work in a well-structured manner.
I would also like to thank all the various internet sources which facilitated access to data.
Lastly, I would like to thank my friends and family who guided and motivated me to complete
this project. I thank everyone without whom the project would not have been completed.

Thanking You,

Nilay Rai (2544)

BA LLB
th
6 Semester CNLU, PATNA

4
 INTRODUCTION

Legal maxims, also known as concise expressions of fundamental truths or principles of law,
play an important role in legal systems around the world. These Latin phrases serve as guiding
lights for judges, lawyers, and legal scholars, encapsulating centuries of legal knowledge while
also providing a framework for interpreting and applying the law. Over time, legal maxims
have played an important role in shaping landmark decisions, with courts relying on these
principles to deliver decisions that have far-reaching consequences.

This project examines the use of legal maxims in landmark decisions, attempting to understand
how these fundamental principles have been incorporated into key judicial rulings. By
examining the application of legal maxims in notable cases, I hope to shed light on their long-
term relevance and influence in the development of legal doctrine.

The importance of legal maxims and their application in landmark judgments cannot be
overstated. Legal maxims, often expressed in Latin, serve as foundational principles within the
legal system. They provide essential guidance for judges, lawyers, and legal scholars, helping
to interpret and apply the law effectively. By relying on well-established maxims, courts can
maintain uniformity in their rulings, treating similar cases similarly.
This consistency fosters public trust in the legal system and provides individuals with a sense
of certainty about the outcomes of their legal disputes. Legal maxims aid in the precision and
clarity of legal reasoning. These dicta help judges explain their rulings and empower attorneys
to create strong cases based on accepted norms by condensing intricate legal ideas into brief
sentences.

By examining how legal maxims have been applied in landmark judgments, we gain insights
into the dynamic interplay between tradition and innovation in the evolution of legal thought.
As courts grapple with contemporary legal challenges, they draw upon the wisdom
encapsulated in these ancient aphorisms to navigate the complexities of modern legal issues.

5
 IGNORANTIA FACTI EXCUSAT; IGNORANTIA JURIS NON-
EXCUSAT

The Latin maxim ignorantia facti excusat means ignorance of fact is an excuse whereas The
Latin maxim “ignorantia juris non excusat” translates to “ignorance of the law is no excuse”

"Ignorantia juris non excusat," translating to "ignorance of the law is no excuse," serves
as a cornerstone of legal systems worldwide. It establishes a fundamental presumption that
individuals are expected to be aware of the laws that govern them. This maxim embodies the
principle that everyone is deemed to know the laws applicable to their actions, irrespective of
the laws' complexity or the individual's particular circumstances.
It ensures legal uniformity and prevents individuals from evading liability by claiming
ignorance of the law.
In the Indian context, this maxim finds reflection in Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC)1, which states that "nothing is an offense which is done by any person who is justified
by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good
faith believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it." Here, the law emphasizes that
ignorance of the law is generally not a valid defence against criminal liability. The law
expects individuals to educate themselves about legal requirements and holds them
accountable for violations, even if they were unaware of the specific legal provisions.
Conversely, "Ignorantia facti excusat," meaning "ignorance of fact is an excuse," recognizes
the potential for genuine misunderstandings or lack of awareness regarding factual
circumstances. This principle acknowledges that individuals may not always possess
complete knowledge of the circumstances surrounding their actions. It allows for the
possibility that individuals may act based on mistaken beliefs about the facts, leading to
unintended consequences. In such cases, the principle of "Ignorantia facti excusat" provides a
degree of leniency, recognizing that individuals cannot be fully accountable for actions taken
under genuine misunderstandings of factual circumstances.

Section 76 of the IPC2 complements this principle by stating that "nothing is an offense
which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of
a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it." This provision
acknowledges that individuals may act in accordance with what they genuinely believe to be

6
lawful, even if their understanding is mistaken. It emphasizes the importance of good faith
and genuine beliefs about factual circumstances in determining criminal liability.
The interplay between "Ignorantia juris non excusat" and "Ignorantia facti excusat" highlights
the complexities of legal accountability and fairness. While the former establishes a general
rule of legal accountability and the expectation of knowledge of the law, the latter provides a
safeguard against undue punishment for actions taken under genuine misunderstandings of
factual circumstances.
In essence, these maxims underscore the importance of good faith, reasonableness, and
awareness in legal proceedings. They provide a structured framework for considering
defenses based on mistakes of law and fact, ensuring that genuine misunderstandings are
considered in the determination of criminal liability.

CASES:

• R v. Tolson (1889)
- The appellant was accused of bigamy after remarrying when her
first husband went missing. The court ruled in her favour, recognizing her mistaken
belief in her first husband's death as a valid defense under "Ignorantia facti excusat."

• Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (2013)

- The Supreme Court of India considered whether ignorance of the procedure outlined in the
NDPS Act could be claimed as a defense. The court emphasized that while ignorance of the
law generally does not excuse criminal conduct, exceptions may apply based on circumstances
and good faith beliefs.

• R v. Bailey
- The accused was away from the African coast when an act was passed
by the British Parliament. The court held that he could not have been held guilty for
the act under the law he was charged with, exemplifying the principle of "Ignorantia
juris non excusat."

• State of Maharashtra v Mayer Hans George

- The court held that a mistake of law is not a crime, highlighting the principle of "Ignorantia
juris non excusat."

7
 DAMNUM SINE INJURIA

“Damnum sine Injuria” is a legal maxim which refers to “damages without injury or damages
in which there is no infringement of any legal right which are vested with the plaintiff”. Here,
no legal right has been infringed therefore there’s no action that lies in the case of damnum sine
injuria. The general principle on backs this legal maxim 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 also an implied principle in law that there are no remedies for any moral wrongs, unless
and until a 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.

CASES:

Gloucester Grammer School Case

Facts: In this case, the defendant was a school teacher who used to work in plaintiff school.
Due to some conflicts which arose between the defendant and plaintiff, defendant had left the
school. Later, he set up a rival school next to that of plaintiff. Defendant school teacher was
very popular for his teaching. Boys from the plaintiff school left it and started to join in
defendant s school, because of this competition the plaintiff had to reduce them from 40
peneace to 12 penance. The plaintiff sued defendant for monetary loss occurred.

Judgement: It was held by court that; no suit could lie. It was held by a court of law that the
defendant couldn’t be held liable. The court stated that: compensation is no ground of action
even though the monetary loss is caused, but if no legal
right is violated. It also further stated that the defendant had lawfully set up his school and he
nowhere violated any legal right of the plaintiff.
It was believed by the court that, students liked the teaching style of the defendant, hence it
was at the discretion of the students to study in whichever school they want to.
Appellant has no right to stop the defendant to run a business as a competition to his school.

8
And the same are kept in mind while giving the judgment of the case at the top of the decision
of the law of court.

Usha ben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir

Facts: In this case, the plaintiffs had asked the high court of Gujrat to issue a permanent
injunction on the film. Film in the matter was called Jai Santoshi Maa. The petitioner has said
that the film is depicted in a way that it hurts the religious sentiments of the plaintiffs. It shall
be observed that here only the plaintiff was saying that her religious sentiments have been hurt
but no one else.

Judgment: the court rejected the petition by the plaintiff. Since there was no legal damage
done. The court said, “No person has a legal right to enforce his religious views on another or
to restrain another from doing a lawful act.”18 “The plaintiffs may propagate against the picture
urging the How religionists not to see more be that the religious feeling of the plaintiffs is hurt,
but considering all the material circumstances of the case as stated hereinabove, I am of the
view that balance of convenience is in favour of the defendants. The expression of opinion
hereinbefore is for the purpose' of temporary injunction only.”

9
 VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA

“Volenti non fit injuria" is a Latin legal phrase that translates to "to a willing person, no injury
is done" in English. It is a legal doctrine that essentially means if someone willingly exposes
themselves to a known danger or consents to a particular action, they cannot later claim that
they were wronged or injured by that action. This principle is often invoked as a defense in tort
law cases, particularly in situations where someone voluntarily assumes a risk. It is based on
the idea that individuals should take responsibility for the consequences of their voluntary
actions.
In addition to the basic concept of assuming risk voluntarily, there are several essential
elements associated with the doctrine of "volenti non fit injuria":

• Knowledge and Understanding: The individual must have knowledge and

understanding of the risks involved in the activity or situation. They cannot claim
ignorance of the risks if they willingly participate.

• Consent: The individual must give informed consent to participate in the activity or
expose themselves to the risk. This consent can be express or implied, but it must be
freely given without any coercion or duress.

• No Duress or Coercion: The individual must not be under any form of duress or
coercion when giving consent. If consent is obtained through force, fraud, or deception,
the defense of volenti non fit injuria may not apply.

• No Violation of Public Policy: The activity in question cannot violate public policy or
be inherently illegal. The defense typically applies to voluntary participation in lawful
activities, not activities that are prohibited by law.

• Causal Connection: There must be a direct causal connection between the individual's
voluntary assumption of risk and the alleged injury. The injury must result directly from
the known risks that the individual willingly accepted.

10
 • Reasonable Foreseeability: The risk must be one that a reasonable person would
foresee and appreciate under the circumstances. In other words, it must be a risk that is
inherent or obvious given the nature of the activity or situation.

Overall, the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria is grounded in the principle of personal
responsibility and accountability. It recognizes that individuals have the freedom to make
choices and accept the consequences of those choices, even if they result in harm or injury.

Haynes v. Harwood (1935), 1 KB 146

This case involved a servant of the defendant who brought two horses into town near a police
station, leaving them unattended to perform other work. When the horses became agitated by
children, they broke free. The plaintiff, a police officer, attempted to stop the horses and was
injured in the process. He subsequently brought a case against the owner for damages. The
court found the defendant liable, as the defence of volenti non fit injuria did not apply in this
rescue scenario.

Ravindra Padmanabhan (Dr.) v. Lakshmi Rajan and Anr.

In this case plaintiff underwent surgery to remove a tumour on her breast. However, the doctor
also removed her uterus during the procedure, despite it being unrelated to the tumour. The
court held the defendant is liable, and as such, rejected the defence of volenti non fit injuria.

Padmavati v. Dugganaika
In this case the plaintiffs had requested a ride in the defendants’ jeep. While travelling in the
vehicle, one of the wheel screws came loose, causing the jeep to crash and resulting in the death
of one of the plaintiffs. The court held that the defence of volenti non fit injuria would apply,
and thus, the defendants were not liable, as the plaintiffs had assumed the risk of potential
injury by riding in the jeep.

11
 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, legal maxims play a crucial role in the realm of law, serving as fundamental
principles that guide the interpretation and application of legal principles in various legal
systems worldwide. These concise and time-honoured expressions of legal wisdom
encapsulate centuries of legal reasoning and tradition, providing a framework for
understanding and resolving complex legal issues.

Landmark judgments often hinge on the skilful application of these maxims by judges and
legal practitioners. Whether it is the principle of "actus reus" in criminal law or "caveat
emptor" in contract law, these maxims are not just words but principles that shape legal
outcomes. By applying these maxims, courts ensure consistency, predictability, and fairness
in the administration of justice. Legal maxims are not static; they adapt to the evolving needs
of society and legal contexts. They stand as enduring pillars of jurisprudence, providing a
compass for navigating the complexities of the law. Judges and lawyers refer to these maxims
not only for their inherent wisdom but also for their role in establishing legal precedent and
guiding future decisions.

Furthermore, legal scholars and practitioners alike study these maxims to deepen their
understanding of legal principles and the historical context in which they emerged. Through
this study, they gain insights into the underlying principles of justice, fairness, and equity that
form the bedrock of legal systems.

In essence, legal maxims are not just phrases; they are the distilled wisdom of legal history.
They contribute to the development of jurisprudence and ensure that the rule of law is upheld.
In a world where laws can be complex and nuanced, these maxims provide a touchstone—a
reminder of the timeless principles upon which our legal systems are built. Thus, they
continue to hold relevance and significance, guiding legal professionals in their pursuit of
justice and the maintenance of a fair and equitable society.

12