CHAPTER -2: LEGAL MAXIMS:

A legal maxim is an established principle or proposition of law or a legal policy

usually stated in Latin form. Most of these Latin maxims originated from the
Medieval era in the European states that used Latin as their legal language. These
maxims are derived from centuries of legal tradition and are often used by judges and
lawyers to guide decision-making, interpret laws, and clarify legal issues. Some of the most
commonly referenced legal maxims include:

1.SALUS POPULIEST SUPREMA LEX

Meaning: the welfare of the people is the supreme law.
1. The principal necessity knows no law, enunciated [declared] in S.81 of the I.P.C.
states that in order to avoid prevent greater harm to a person or property, a smaller
harm can be caused. This is the necessity of the public good. An act which is
necessary, is not wrongful, even though done with full deliberate intention.
2.Except in some cases of extreme necessity, the absence of a bad motive cannot
save the offender completely but punishment will be meagre.

Case Law: Regina v/s. Dudley and Stephens

Regina v. Dudley and Stephens was an 1884 English criminal case that established
a precedent against using necessity as a defense for murder.
Dudley and Stephens (defendants) murdered a fellow young seaman (Parker) in
order to save their own lives from starvation. They were found guilty of murder.
Killing an innocent life to save one’s own does not justify murder even if it under
extreme necessity of hunger.
The case involved the crew of the yacht Mignonette, who were stranded at sea and
resorted to cannibalism [ the eating of human flesh by a human being] to survive:

• Facts
The crew of the Mignonette were cast adrift in a small lifeboat after a
shipwreck. After nearly three weeks at sea, Tom Dudley and Edwin Stephens along
with Brooks decided to kill Parker [he was the weakest and youngest ] and eat the
ship's cabin boy. Dudley and Stephens proposed one person sacrifice himself in
order to save the rest. Brooks dissented while Dudley and Stephens decided to kill
Parker. On the 25th of July, seeing no rescue in sight, the two men killed Parker and
the three men feasted on his body. Four days later a vessel rescued them and
Dudley and Stephens were charged with murder.
Stephens and Dudley were tempted to kill Parker but temptation itself is not an excuse
for murdering him. Their unfortunate circumstances also do not lend leniency [to show
kindness] to the legal definition of murder.
• Decision
Dudley and Stephens were found guilty of murder and sentenced to death, but
the sentence was commuted to six months in prison.
• Significance
The case set a precedent that necessity is not a defense to murder, even in
extreme circumstances. It also marked the end of efforts to outlaw cannibalism,
which was a custom that was sympathetic to the public.
• Influence
The case has influenced many later court decisions involving murder charges
where defendants tried to claim necessity as a defense.

2.REX NON POTESTPECCARE

The King can do no wrong.

Meaning: The maxim is not to be understood to mean that the king is above
the law, but he also bound by the law equally.

The Crown Proceeding Act,1947 came into existence to bind the Crown and to
bring him to the same level as a private individual. It has abolished the
immunity of the crown for torts committed by its’ servants.
Case Law: State of Rajasthan v/s. Vidyavati. [Jagdishlal]
In this case, the claim for damages was made by the dependants of a person who
died in an accident caused by the negligence of the driver of a jeep maintained
by the Government for official use of the Collector of Udaipur while it was
being brought back from the workshop after repairs.
1. Lokumal was a temporary employee of the State of Rajasthan, as a car driver on
probation. The car was given for necessary repairs at a workshop.
After the repairs were finished, Lokumal, while driving the car back along a public
road, knocked down one Jagdish Lal, who was walking on the footpath by the said
of the public road in Udaipur city, causing him multiple injuries resulting in his death
three days later, in the hospital.

2. The plaintiffs who are Jagdishlal’s widow, Vidyawati and a minor daughter,
aged three years, through her mother as next friend sued the said Lokumal and
the State of Rajasthan for damages for the tort aforesaid. They claimed the
compensation of Rs. 25,000/- from both the defendants.
In the Vidyawati v State of Rajasthan case, Vidyawati sued the state for
damages after her husband was killed by a government vehicle driven
negligently by a state employee. The Supreme Court ruled in her favour,
holding the state liable and rejecting the plea of sovereign immunity.

3.AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM: No man shall be condemned unheard.

Meaning: -hear the other party or both the sides should be heard before
passing any order.
Every person/party which is affected, should be given the opportunity to
present its’ case or present its claim
This maxim includes two elements,1. Reasonable Notice 2. Right to Hearing

1. Case Law: Maneka Gandhi v/s. Union of India - (1978)

Facts: The petitioner Maneka Gandhi’s passport was issued on 1st June 1976
as per the Passport Act of 1967. On 2nd July 1977, the Regional Passport
Office (New Delhi) ordered her to surrender her passport. The petitioner
was also not given any reason for this arbitrary and unilateral decision of
the External Affairs Ministry, citing public interest.

The petitioner approached the Supreme Court by invoking its writ

jurisdiction and contending that the State’s act of impounding her passport
was a direct assault on her Right of Personal Liberty as guaranteed by Article
21. It is pertinent to mention that the Supreme Court in Satwant Singh
Sawhney v. Ramarathnam held that right to travel abroad is well within the
ambit of Article 21, although the extent to which the Passport Act diluted this
particular right was unclear.

In the wake of the lifting of the Emergency, Maneka Gandhi moved the Supreme
Court when her passport was impounded. A bench of seven judges heard the case
and held the action bad in law

The majority of the Constitutional Bench led by Chief Justice H.J. Kania all but
killed Article 21, a fundamental right which says categorically: “No person shall
be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by the law.”

. In the leading judgment in Maneka Gandhi’s case, Justice P.N. Bhagwati ruled
that it just cannot be any procedure but one that is fair and reasonable, the “law”
in turn must be a valid law which conforms to other fundamental rights.
4. NEMO DEBET ESSE JUDEX IN-PROPRIA SUA CAUSA
No man can be judge in his own cause.
Meaning: it is a fundamental rule of administration of justice that the no
man shall be judge in his own cause or a deciding authority or judge must be
impartial and neutral while deciding any case.
Case Law: Dr. Bonham (1610) case, a doctor of Cambridge University was
fined by the College of Physicians for practising in the city of London
without the licence of college. The statute under which the College acted
provided that the fines should go half to the King and a half to the College.
The claim was disallowed by Coke, C.J. as the College had a financial
interest (pecuniary bias) in its own judgment and was a judge in its own
cause.
The judgment of Dr. Bonham's Case was that Dr. Bonham had been wrongfully
imprisoned by the College of Physicians for practicing medicine without a
license. The case was decided in 1610 by Sir Edward Coke, the Chief Justice of
England's Court of Common Pleas.
The case established that the judiciary, not Parliament, interprets and enforces
fundamental law. It also recognized the supremacy of natural law and gave courts
the power to interpret and enforce law.

5.UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM

There is no wrong without a remedy.
Meaning: Where there is a right 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.

Case Law: Ashby vs White is a landmark case in English law that recognizes the
principle of 'ubi jus ibi remedium.' The case involved Mr. Ashby, who was wrongfully
prevented from exercising his right to vote by Mr. White, a returning officer during an
election. Mr. Ashby sued Mr. White for damages, claiming that his right to vote had
been violated.

6. ACTUS DEI NEMINI FACIT INOURIAM

 The law holds no man responsible for the act of God.
Meaning: The act of God generally means i.e., natural calamity, such as flood,
lightening, storm, cyclone, earth-quake etc. which could not have been
reasonably anticipated, could not have been resisted, then no man can be held
responsible.
Case Law: Nichols v/s. Marsland.
In the case of Nicolas v. Marsland 1876, the artificial pond in the land of the
defendant overflowed due to heavy rainfall, as a result, the water escaped into
the lands of the plaintiff damaging the walls and bridges.
Was the defendant responsible for the damage caused by the flooding?
A defendant is not liable for damage caused by an ‘act of God’, because he cannot be said to
have ‘caused‘ the damage. An act of God is an act of nature which is not reasonably
foreseeable.

7.IGNORANTIA FACITI EXCUSAT-

IGNORANTA JURIS NON EXCUSAT:
Ignorance of fact excuses, Ignorance of the law does not excuse.
Meaning: ignorance or mistake of fact is excused, but ignorance or mistake
of the law is not excused.

Case law: Regina v/s. Prince,1875. L.R. [Prince’s Case]

1. No one is allowed to plead ignorance of fact.
E.g. If a woman hears a rumour that her husband is dead, she makes no inquiries and
marries again. It is afterward found that the rumour was false she cannot be pleaded and
she is charged of the offence of bigamy.
2.Mistake of fact is not accepted at all.
Henry Prince (defendant) took away Annie Phillips, who was fourteen years old at the
time, against the wishes of her father. Prince was charged under an English statute that
made it a misdemeanor to take an unmarried girl under sixteen years old from the
possession of her guardian without the guardian’s consent.
At Prince’s trial, the jury concluded that Phillips looked much older than sixteen, she told
Prince she was eighteen, and Prince genuinely and reasonably believed her.
Nevertheless, the jury convicted Prince. Prince appealed to the Court for Crown Cases
Reserved, seeking to have the conviction quashed on the basis of his reasonable
mistake as to Philips’s age.
8.VOLENTI NON-FIT INJURIA
Damage suffered by consent is not a cause of action.
Meaning: a person who voluntarily undertakes a risk of actual harm,
cannot complaint against himself.
Case law: Baker v/s. Hopkins & Sons Ltd. [1959]
The defendants were a company contracted to clean a well. As part of this, they
installed an engine within the well which began to emit dangerous fumes. The
onsite manager told the employees to stop work inside the well until he arrived
to check the well. Two employees ignored this and continued work inside the
well. They were killed by exposure to the fumes. A doctor attempting to save
them was also killed after his rope became stuck and he could not be pulled out
of the well in time.

9. RES IPSA LOQUITUR:

The thing speaks for itself.
Meaning: The things speak for itself or the thing tells its own story.
Case Law: 1. Municipal corporation of Delhi v/s. Subhagawanti
Facts - The clock tower in Chandni Chowk, Delhi collapsed, killing several people. The
tower was 80 years old, but its normal life expectancy was 40–45 years. The Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (MCD) was responsible for the tower and was sued by the heirs of the
deceased.

• The case applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which means "things
speak for themselves". The MCD was held liable for negligence because it
owned and controlled the tower and had a duty of care to the public. The
MCD was also held liable for both patent and latent defects.
• Outcome
The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the lower courts, emphasizing the
owner's duty to ensure the safety of structures near highways
10.ACTS NON FACIT REUM NISI MENS SIT REA:
The intent and the act must both occur to constitute a crime.
Meaning: mere act does not make a man guilty unless there is a
guilty intention.
An example of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea is when someone
accidentally bumps into another person on the street without the intent to
harm. In this case, the physical act of bumping into someone (actus reus)
occurred, but there was no guilty mind or intention (mens rea)

Case law: State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (1964),

In the case of the State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (1964),

the Indian Government had issued an order on November 24th, banning gold
transportation outside of India in order to save foreign exchange and combat
smuggling.

The appellant, M.H George, a German national, boarded an aircraft in Zurich

on November 27th to travel to Manila. On the 28th of November, the plane
made a stopover in Bombay, where he was apprehended by a customs
official with 34 kg of gold. He was held liable under Sections 8 and 23 of
the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. Later, the matter went to
the Bombay High Court, where he was acquitted since he had been exposed
to the law recently and, as a German national, he was unaware of the Indian
legislation and had no intention of smuggling the gold. However, when the
matter went to the Supreme Court, he was found guilty since ignorance of
the law could not be used as an excuse, even though he had no intention of
smuggling the gold

11.CAVEAT EMPTOR:
Let purchaser beware
Meaning: a person who buys goods must keep his eyes open.
Case Law: Goddard v/s. Hobbes.
[certain pigs were sold by auction “with all faults”. The pigs were suffering from
typhoid fever and all of them ].
In Ward v. Hobbes (1878) 4 AC 13, the House of Lords held that if a
seller uses artifice or disguise to conceal the defects in the product which is
to be sold, it would amount to fraud on the buyer; still no duty to disclose
the defects in the product is imposed on the seller by the doctrine of caveat
emptor. An obligation to use care and skill while purchasing goods is imposed
on the buyer by the doctrine of Caveat emptor

12.RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR:
Let the Principal be held responsible.
Meaning: let the master be held responsible.
Case Law: Ricketts v/s. Thomas tilling Ltd. 1915
The driver of a bus asked the conductor to drive the bus. The conductor drove
the bus negligently and knocked down a pedestrian. Here, the master was
liable for the negligent delegation of work by the driver.