LEGAL MAXIMS
1. Ubi jus ibi remedium: Where there is a right, there is a remedy.
(Common law principle.)
This maxim emphasizes that if a legal right is violated, the legal system
provides a remedy or relief.
In the case of Ashby v. White, it was held that the voter had a right to vote,
and the failure of the returning officer to allow him to vote gave rise to a
remedy.
2. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea : An act does not make a
person guilty unless there is a guilty mind. (Common law principle)
This maxim reflects the principle that both a wrongful act (actus reus) and
a guilty mind (mens rea) are essential elements for criminal liability.
R v. Cunningham (1957) 2 QB 396 : In Cunningham, the court held that
recklessness could constitute mens rea in certain criminal offenses.
3. Ignorantia juris non excusat :Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
This principle emphasizes that individuals are presumed to know the law,
and lack of awareness or understanding of a law does not provide a valid
defense or excuse for not complying with it.
R.M.T. Deshmukh v. Union of India (1964): The court affirmed that
ignorance of tax laws does not absolve an individual from their tax liability.
4. Res judicata: A matter already judged may not be tried again.
(Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908).
Res judicata prevents the re-litigation of issues that have already been
conclusively determined by a competent court.
Anil Kumar Jha v. Bimalendu Jha (2005) 7 SCC 1: In Anil Kumar Jha, the
court emphasized the finality of decisions to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings.
5. Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet: No one can give what he does not have.
This maxim implies that a person cannot transfer ownership of property
they do not legally own.
Mohanlal Jhanwar v. State of Rajasthan (1995): The court held that a
vendor with no title cannot confer a valid title on the purchaser.
6. Doli incapax
a) Munna Raja v. State of MP (1976) 2 SCC 104: Doli incapax signifies
incapacity to commit a crime due to age. In Munna Raja, the court
acknowledged the principle, stating that children below a certain age are
presumed to be incapable of forming criminal intent.
b) Khwaja Gul v. State of Bihar (1962): Supreme Court held that doli
incapax is a universally recognized principle and applied it to assess the
criminal liability of a 12-year-old.
c) Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010): Supreme Court, while
upholding doli incapax, emphasized the need for individual assessments
based on the child's mental and intellectual maturity.
7. Caveat Emptor: “Let the buyer beware.”
This maxim suggests the buyer has a responsibility to examine the goods before
purchasing and takes the risk of any defects.
National Thermal Power Corporation Limited v. M/s M. N. Dastur & Co. Pvt.
Ltd. (2010): The court emphasized the buyer's responsibility to inspect
machinery before purchase, upholding the caveat emptor principle.
8. Res Ipsa Loquitur: “The thing speaks for itself.”
This maxim allows an inference of negligence based on the nature of the
accident, even without direct evidence.
Consumer Protection Council v. Godrej Appliances Ltd. (2012): The court
applied res ipsa loquitur to hold the manufacturer liable for a gas cylinder blast
based on the inherent dangerous nature of the product.
9. Audi Alteram Partem: “Hear the other side.”
This maxim emphasizes the right to a fair hearing, requiring both parties to be
heard before a decision is made.
M.A. Chidambaram v. State of Madras (1953)_: The court held that denying a
fair hearing violates natural justice and due process principles.
10. Volenti Non Fit Injuria: “No injury is done to one who consents.”
This maxim states that if someone voluntarily consents to an act, they cannot
claim injury for the foreseeable consequences.
State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005): The court held that consent
given under duress or misrepresentation is not valid, negating the volenti
maxim.
11. Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius: The express mention of one
thing excludes others.”
This maxim suggests that when a law specifically mentions certain
things, others are impliedly excluded.
State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara (1951): The court interpreted a tax statute
based on this maxim, limiting its application to the specifically mentioned
items.
12. Nemo Debet Bis Vexari Pro Una et Eadem Causa: “No one ought to
be vexed twice for the same cause.”
This maxim protects against double jeopardy, preventing someone from being
tried or punished twice for the same offense.
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992): The court upheld the protection against
double jeopardy enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
13. Jus In Rebus Sic Stantibus: “The law applies to things as they
stand.”
This maxim acknowledges that legal consequences may change based on
evolving circumstances.
Prakash Chand v. Union of India (1998): The court applied this principle to
interpret a law based on the current factual situation.
14. Qui facit per alium facit per se : He who acts through another does
the act himself
Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875) LR 7 HL 653: In
Ashbury Railway Carriage, the court emphasized that one who acts through
an agent is legally responsible for the agent's actions.
15. Nemo dat quod non habet: “No one gives what he does not have,”
(Section 27 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.)
Clayton's Case (1816) 1 Mer 572: this maxim emphasizes the principle that
a person cannot transfer a better title than what they possess. In Clayton's
Case, the court stressed the importance of true ownership in property
transactions.
LEGAL TERMINOLOGIES
1. Jurisprudence: The philosophy or science of law.
2. Habeas Corpus: A legal order requiring a person in custody to be brought
before a court to determine if their detention is lawful.
3. Precedent: A legal decision or judgment that serves as an authoritative
example for future cases.
4. Injunction: A court order that either prohibits or compels a specific action.
5. Tort: A civil wrong causing harm and leading to legal liability.
6. Defendant: The party against whom a legal action is brought or the
accused in a criminal case.
7. Plaintiff: The party initiating a legal action or lawsuit.
8. Adjudication: The formal judgment or decision by a court after considering
evidence and arguments.
9. Alibi: A defence claim that the accused was in a different location at the
time of the alleged offense.
10. Testator: A person who makes a will, specifying the distribution of their
property after death.
11. Writ: A formal written order issued by a court directing a specific action or
remedy.
12. Lien: A legal right or interest that a lender has in a borrower's property as
security for a debt.
13. Extradition: The legal process of surrendering an individual to another
jurisdiction for criminal prosecution.
14. Appeal: To challenge a court decision in a higher court.
15. Burden of proof: The obligation to present evidence that supports one's
claim in court.
