Legal Maxim

Presented by-Akshaya Kishor

Asst. Professor
Legal Maxim
• Legal maxim, a broad proposition (usually stated in a fixed Latin form), a
number of which have been used by lawyers since the 17 th century or earlier.
Some of them can be traced to early Roman law. Much more general in scope
than ordinary rules of law, legal maxims commonly formulate a legal policy or
ideal that judges are supposed to consider in deciding cases.
• In the public sphere, where maxims are the sources of laws and regulations,
they are impartial statements of rules that establish the baselines for legal
justification, government structure, and individual rights.
• At the foundation of legal authority, that is, in the constitutional context, a
universal rule must be proscriptive on government as a whole, setting a
baseline for legitimate restraints and powers.
1. Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit
Rea
• Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea is a Latin maxim which
means that an act to be illegal, the person should do it with a guilty
mind. Conviction of a crime requires proof of a criminal act and intent.
A crime generally consists of two elements, a physical, wrongful deed
(the “actus reus”), and a guilty mind that produces the act (the “mens
rea”)
• A crime ordinarily is not committed if the mind of the person doing the
act is innocent This Latin phrase is often given as a pinnacle of the
common law criminal justice system and was valued by jurists. It was
an essential component to all criminal cases. However, the maxim is
subject to many criticisms.
2.Bona fides non patitur, ut bis idem exigatur
• Bona fides non patitur ut bis idem exigatur.
• Good faith (honesty or fair dealing) does not allow the same thing to be
exacted twice.
• An obligation once fulfilled, or a debt once paid, cannot be again enforced,
provided the debt or obligation was paid or performed to the person having
the title to demand performance or payment.
• Accordingly it is a good defense to an action for payment of money, that the
pursuer is not the creditor in the obligation, and cannot validly discharge it;
for if payment was made to him, the real creditor might afterwards enforce
payment, and thus the debtor might have to pay the same debt twice, which
is contrary to fair and honest.
Cont…
• On the same principle, no one can be punished twice for the same delict or
crime. But it will be borne in mindthat a crime may give rise to two distinct
obligations, the fulfilment of one of which will not discharge the other.
• For example, if A. commits an assault on B., he may be fined or
imprisoned on account of it, and still be liable to B. in damages. The fine or
imprisonment is paid or undergone ad vindictam publicam, while the
damages are due to B. in his individual capacity for the injury or wrong
done to him. In this case A. does not pay the same thing twice, but rather
he once discharges the several obligations imposed upon him by his
own act.
 3. Ab initio 
• From the very beginning of the law. Such a term is used in reference to
law, agreements, a deed executed between parties, marriage etc. If
something is said to be void ab initio, the thing was never created or
void to begin with.

• SC used the Latin term "ab initio" to arrive at a conclusion that the

proceedings were ab initio defective as they could not have been
instituted since the firm in whose name the proceedings were
instituted was not registered at the date of the institution of the
proceedings – Delhi Development Authority Vs Kochhar
Construction Work & Ors., MANU/SC/1279/1998: 1998 (8) SCC 559.
Cont…
• Void marriages are void ab initio which means that in the eye of law that
marriage has never come into being – Manjeet Singh Vs Parson Kaur,
MANU/PH/0220/1990.
• Transactions of the sale made during the pendency of the proceedings
were held to be wholly illegal and void ab initio in law and therefore the
same were held to be not sustainable in law – R. Rajashekar & Ors. Vs
Trinity House Building Co-operative Society & Ors.,
MANU/SC/1005/2016: AIR 2016 SC 4329: 2016 (16) SCC 46.
• A purchaser after notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 does not acquire any right in the land as the sale is ab initio void and
has no right to claim land under the Policy – Shiv Kumar & Ors. Vs Union
of India (UOI) & Ors., MANU/SC/1407/2019: AIR 2019 SC 5374: 2019 (10)
SCC 229.
4. Ubi jus ibi remedium
• The word jus means, legal body or authority, and remedium means
that the person has the right of action in the court.
• The law of torts is said to be the development of the maxim. The
meaning of this maxim is ‘where there is a wrong there is a remedy’,
this is also one of the essentials of a tort law, According to this maxim
if any wrong has been committed or the right of a person has been
violated then the court will provide a remedy. Therefore no wrong
should be allowed to go without compensation.
• These maxim is only applicable when there is a right which is recognized
by law and there must be a wrongful act in all circumstance causing injury
to a person, as if there is no injury caused to a person then this could not
be applicable.
•   Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
• Fact: Bhim Singh the MLA of Jammu and Kashmir parliamentary
assembly, when he was on his way to attend the parliamentary session, he
was wrongfully arrested by a police officer and he was restrained to attend
the session. Also he was not presented before a magistrate on time, there
was a voting session and his vote is crucial and he was not able to vote but
the person whom he wished to vote won
• He brought a suit for restraining him to enjoy his rights. When he was
not satisfied with the judgment of the apex court he brought the filed a
case to the supreme court under Article 32.
• The issue raised: is whether the compensation in the form of money
is suitable or not? and the detention of Bhim Singh is valid or not?
• The court held: that Bhim Singh was detained unlawfully and he was
deprived of enjoying Article 21, which allows citizens to go wherever
they want without any unlawful retrain. As a remedy, the court
awarded him 50000/- compensation.
5. Res ipsa loquitor
• This is one of the most essential maxims to decide the judgment of any
case, the meaning of this maxim is that the ‘things speak for itself’.
• The Res ipsa loquitor is used in the cases of negligence, where the
pieces of evidence of a case are not properly stated but the facts are
enough to prove the negligence of defendant party.
• This is one type of evidence that allows a reasonable fact finder to
determine that the other person caused an unusual event to occur
which causes injury to the plaintiff and also the defendant is negligent
in his part.
Elements:
a.The presence of negligence: like accidents occur when someone has
acted negligently. But there are still some instance where the plaintiff
has to prove negligent
b.The defendant is only responsible: like if a surgeon during surgery
leaves a sponge inside the body of the patient, in such cases the
plaintiff does not have to prove the surgeons negligent.
c.The defendant has a duty of care towards the plaintiff.
Thank you