Legal Maxims

A legal maxim is brief-expression seeming like a term of any

fundamental rule.
Introduction

It is often instructive and relates to some specific actions.

Legal maxims are universally accepted
principles or propositions of law, or a legal
policy generally stated in the Latin
language. The Latin maxims mostly arrived
from the Medieval era in the European
These principles enable courts to deliver justice in a more pristine
states that considered Latin as their legal manner by applying the existing laws in deciding issues fairly.
language.

Maxims don’t possess the authority of law but when they are
incorporated while deciding issues or framing laws, they mold into
laws and form a sound basis of judgments.
 Meaning

The term Maxim is the Latin derivation of ‘axiom’ which means the first principle, for instance,
geometry. Axioms being first principles self-evident in nature.
All the subsidiary prepositions could be deduced from them but they themselves were underived. They
held their own authority. so, a legal Maxim Would be a self-evident first principle without any
contradiction.
Famous Quotes

Michael Polanyi, a Hungarian-British polymath who made a profound

contribution both to the philosophy of science and social science, said,
“Maxims are rules, the correct application of which is part of the art
which they govern”.

Sir James Mackintosh, a Scottish jurist, Whig politician as well as

historian made his statement on maxims as follows, “Maxims are the
condensed Good sense of Nations”.
 Significance

Legal maxims have become a part and parcel of daily lives of legal professionals. The
influence of these maxims has not only touched lawyers and law students but also common
folks. Legal maxims are scattered in every legal document right from statute to books or
journals related to law. Legal maxims have modified the language.
 The importance of legal maxims

 It is used to avoid the usage of long definitions. We use it as a single word for return, for example, take a
maxim ‘ab initio’. Its meaning is ‘from the beginning’ or ‘from the very start of something’. So instead of
writing it so long, we use the word ab initio which is helpful enough in the practical situation.
 Legal maxims, when used in the right context, makes the language very clear. Thomas Hobbes, an English
philosopher said that legal maxims are of the same strength as that of acts and statutes. Francis Bacon,
another leading philosopher, in the preface of his book ‘Maxims of the law’ said that maxims would be used
in “deciding doubts, and helping soundness of judgment, but, further, in gracing argument, in correcting
unprofitable subtlety, and reducing the same to a more sound and substantial sense of law, in reclaiming
vulgar errors, and, generally, in the amendment in some measure of the very nature and complexion of the
whole law.”
 The repetitive nature of some of the maxims like ‘bona fide’ which means ‘in good faith’
has become a usage of the regular folks also.
 They are also used in different judicial proceedings regularly. The term ‘per se’ that means
‘by itself’ is also Latin which is used regularly in daily lives. There are hundreds of legal
maxims which are often used for elucidating a legal principle, proposition or concept.
 The essence of the maxims is a very deep and human Ethic. The maxims are generally
Incorporated in the form of human rights and environmental principles.
Drawbacks

Maxims have often been the subject of considerable discussion amongst historians of the legal
field considering the different theories of maxims which were comprehended and the
subsisting relationship between maxims and law. However, the significance of maxims in legal
theory was not found in legal practice.
Various law reports suggest that whatever their theoretical importance is maxims were not
enough to resolve the actual life problems. Diving deeper into the investigation of maxims in
legal practice races several methodological problems.
 Early modern law reports were generally not written by the lawyer whose argument was
reported rather it was written by someone else. The reports were not generally intended to
be written in a word-by-word transcript of proceedings. Hence, it cannot be presumed that
the language used in the report was also used in court.
What accounts for their significant role?
Why do we need them?
Are they significant in today’s legal activities?

 The world was barely a simple place to live before the activities of trade and commerce
widened the horizons and the need for legal maxims came into existence.
 During the 16th and 17th centuries, the requirement for some sound principles that could
solve the tedious tasks of judges to provide lengthy decisions was the utmost requirement.
Their use of legal maxims helped them formulate legal policies and eased their work of
decision-making.
 In the 21st century, where the law plays a significant role in our lives, it is more or less
necessary for us to be acquainted with a few important legal maxims.
Latin maxims and terms associated with the Indian Penal Code

1. “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”

(The act does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilt intent./Act alone does not make a
man guilty unless his intentions were so.)
2. “Actus me invito factus non est mens actus”
(An act done by me against my will is not my act.) Incorporated under Section 94 of the IPC.
3. “Crimen trahit personam”
(The crime carries the person.) Section 2 of the IPC- Intraterritorial Jurisdiction.
4. “Communis hostis omnium”
(They are common enemies of all). Section 4(2) of the IPC- Piracy
5. “De minimis non curat lex”
(Law does not notice trifles.) Incorporated under Section 95 of the IPC
Latin maxims and terms associated with the Indian Penal Code

6. Doli incapax”
(Incapable of understanding what is right and what is wrong.), Section 82 of the IPC.
7. “Doli capax”
(Capable of understanding what is right and what is wrong.) Section 83 of the IPC.
8. “Ignorantia fact excusat”/ “Ignorantia juris non excusat”
(Ignorance of fact is excusable./ Ignorance of law is not excusable.)Sections 76 and 79 of the IPC.
9. “Necessitas non habet legem”
(Necessity knows no law.) Incorporated under Section 81 of the IPC.
10. “Furiosis furore suo punier”
(A madman is best punished by his own madness.)
Latin maxims and terms associated with the Indian Penal Code

11. “Furiosis nulla voluntas est”

(A madman has no will.)
“Furiosis absentis loco est”
(A madman is like one who is absent.)
The above three maxims are related to Section 84 of the IPC.
12 “Qui peccat ebrius luat sobrius”
(Let him sins when drunk be punished when sober.).Section 86 of the IPC- Voluntary drunkenness.
13. “Volenti non fit injuria”
(One who consents suffers no injury.) Sections 87-93 of the IPC.
14. “Respondeat superior”
(Let the principal answer.) Sections 154 and 155 of the IPC)
 Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

Origin and Meaning

 This maxim can find its importance under section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It states that
facts which indicate state of mind or intention are relevant facts in issue.

 Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea is a legal maxim of Latin origin. Let’s look at a breakdown of
the term in order to understand the meaning. Actus means ‘act or action’, non facit means ‘does not’,
reum means ‘guilty’, nisi mens sit rea means ‘unless there is presence of guilty mind’.

 Hence the term literally means, an act alone cannot make a person guilty unless there is presence of a
guilty mind.
Explanation

 It means that for any act to be illegal in nature, the act must be done with a guilty
mind or intention.

 It is essential to note that mere commission of the act without the criminal intent
to do so does not constitute an offence. Therefore, if the illegal act is committed
without any intention to do it, the wrongdoer cannot be convicted.

 Since there are different punishments for various crimes, the maxim plays a
major role so in determining the quantum of punishment for the offence.
Application

 The Latin maxim ‘Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’ is one of the most important
tenets of Criminal Law as it helps understand the role of mens rea in commission of a
crime or simply a criminal act.
 Therefore, in order to understand ‘Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’, it becomes
essential to understand the concept of Mens Rea and Actus Reus.
 Actus Reus is the wrongful act committed and Mens Rea is the state of mind behind such
acts.
Illustration

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 defense
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 categorized 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.
Illustration

 A, a patient of mental disorder committed a road accident which led to the death of B,
another person driving on the same road. A will not be said to have committed an offence
because he was a mental patient and hence, there is absence of guilty mind.

 If A hurts B with the intention to cause hurt, it is crime. On the other hand if A attacks B as
private defense, he will not be held to have committed an offence. In the first case, there
was presence of guilty mind/ intention but in the latter one.
Important Case Laws

 In the case of Brend v. Wood, the court held that until and unless the court explicitly states
out mens rea or guilty mind as the constituent of crime, any person should not be held
guilty of an offence until there is presence of mens rea.

 However, there are certain exceptions to the theory. In the case of Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State
of Maharashtra[2], the Supreme Court held that if the person is found to have any obscene
object, it need not be proved that the person had the knowledge of the same.
case

 In R.Balakrishna Pillai vs State Of Kerala it was observed that “Criminal guilt would
attach to a man for violations of criminal law.
 However, the rule is not absolute and is subject to limitations indicated in the Latin
maxim, actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. It signifies that there can be no crime
without a guilty mind.
 To make a person criminally accountable, it must be proved that an act, which is forbidden
by law, has been caused by his conduct, and that the conduct was accompanied by a legally
blameworthy attitude of mind. Thus, there are two components of every crime, a physical
element and a mental element, usually called actus reus and mens rea respectively.”
 Conclusion

The legal maxim, Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea is an integral part of criminal law.
It focuses on the fact that an accused may not be guilty unless the act is accompanied by criminal intent.
Although, there are certain cases and concepts like strict liability where the ‘intention’ of the wrongdoer is
not taken into consideration, this maxim helps us understand the dual role of actus reus and mens rea in
conviction of the accused.
The maxim by laying emphasis on the blameworthy condition of the mind makes us realize that in most
cases, an act alone would not convict the accused, the mental state of the accused also plays a primal role.
 Actio Personalis Moritur Cum Persona

INTRODUCTION

A personal right to action dies with the person, according to the latin maxim Actio Personalis Moritur Cum
Persona. This maxim primarily applies to personal tort and contract actions, and one can only take action
against a wrong done to him if he is alive; if he dies, no action may be brought against the wrong done.

Earlier, this maxim was thought to be a general norm in tort law, but the applicability of the maxim has been
reduced by the courts over time.
 ORIGIN
The maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona was first applied in a case from 1496, in which a lady
who had been sued for defamation died before paying the damages to the tortfeasor. Academics have
contended, and the courts have agreed, that despite the Latinate form in which the proposition is
articulated, its origins are less ancient.

The broad rule that the personal right to action expires with death was codified as action personalis
moritur cum persona in English law. As a result, the common law has enshrined this principle, or
doctrine in this case.
 MEANING
 The maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona means that when a cause of action under tort or contract
arises, and if either the injured or injuring party dies, then such action gets destroyed.

 Some legal causes of action can no longer be brought after a person dies, in some cases, defamation, and it
has also been applied to actions arising out of contracts of a purely personal nature, e.g., promise to marry.

 In actions of tort, this was formerly a general rule, but recently its application has been so narrowed that it
probably affects only actions for libel. However, besides the statutory exceptions mentioned, an action may
be brought by the personal representatives of a deceased person for an injury done to his property in his
lifetime.
 But due to the presence or applicability of the above-mentioned maxim, it does not mean
that no action can be taken for infringement. In certain cases, the family of the victim can
rather demand compensation for negligent killing or trespass.
 The maxim can be easily understood with an example:
 if there are two people, A and B, If A commits battery on B and in the process, A dies, then
B won’t be able to take any action against the same.
 But if, for instance, A commits battery on B due to certain injuries and B dies, then if any
cause of action arises against the third person, then such right won’t be affected. However,
in due course of time, the rule was reversed by the law reformed (Misc. Provs.) Act, 1934
—"On the death of any person, all causes of actions vested in him shall survive for the
benefit of his estate."
 EXCEPTIONS
There are two exceptions to the maxim “Actio personalis moritur cum persona”:

 Action under Contract: The maxim does not apply to cases where an action is brought under the law of contract;
therefore, the legal representatives of the person can be made liable for the performance. However, if the contract
entered into is a contract of personal service, then the legal representatives would not be liable for the performance.
Thus

 for example, if there is a contract with A for singing at a particular event and, in the meantime, A dies, then the
representatives of A cannot be made liable for the performance.

 Unjust enrichment of tortfeasor’s estate: If someone, before his death, has wrongfully appropriated the property of
another person, then the person whose property has been appropriated does not lose his right to bring an action against
the representatives of the deceased and recover the property. The rationale behind it is that only the things that actually
belonged to the deceased can be passed to his representatives.
 CASE LAWS

To better understand the concept of action personalis moritur cum persona, reference must be made to case laws,
in which the maxim was interpreted by our respective judges.
 The maxim of Actio Personalis Moritur Cum Persona can be seen in the case of
 Gujarat State Road Transport vs Amishkumar Vinodbhai And Ors, (1994) 3 GLR 212 506
Facts
 Plaintiff (Amishkumar and three others) filed an application in the tribunal in their capacity as legal
heirs and representatives of Vinodbhai Mangaldas, against Defendant (Gujarat State Road Transport)
seeking compensation on behalf of Vinodbhai from the defendants. Earlier Vinodbhai filed a claim
petition against the defendant party for the injuries received by him after a bus owned by defendant
injured him, but during the pendency of the claim, he died.
 The plaintiff now seeks for compensation to be received by Vinod Bhai after two years of his death.
 Issue & Rule

Issue
 In this case, the plaintiff(legal heirs of Vinod Bhai)seek compensation under Section 306 of Indian
Succession Act,1925 and the issue is whether the heirs are eligible to receive the compensation
from the defendant after so much time of the accident without a valid proof that the death is due to
earlier injuries.
 Keeping all this in mind the court has to decide whether the revision petition is to be entertained or
not.
Rule
 Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act,1925 states that
 “All demands whatsoever and all rights to prosecute or defend any action or special proceeding
existing in favor of or against a person at the time of his decease, survive to and against his
executors or administrators; except causes of action for defamation, assault, as defined in the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) or other personal injuries not causing the death of the party…”
 Analysis
As per the certainties of the case, the Court found that the instance of the offended party is
that the expired Vinodbhai Patel died because of the wounds endured by him in the accident
a year prior. As indicated by them offended parties could have documented a claim request
of for remuneration under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 after the passing of
the harmed casualty. Be that as it may, since Vinod Bhai had just raised a claim appeal for
the remuneration of damage before his death, the offended party is required to be expedited
the record of the case as opposed to documenting separate claim request.
On the off chance that, at the preliminary, they prevail with regards to demonstrating that
the passing of the expired was because of the damage managed by him in the mischance,
they will get the remuneration likewise and If they neglect to do as such, they will get pay
for such cases as survive to the beneficiaries and legitimate agents under Section 306 of the
Indian Succession Act, 1925.
 Conclusion

 Actio personalis moritur cum persona is a common law principle that states that a personal right of action
dies with the person.
 If an injury was caused to a person for whose damages may only be collected in satisfaction under
common law, the action died with the person to whom the harm was done.
 Audi alteram partem

Introduction

 The rule of natural justice has evolved with the growth of civilization. Natural justice is the
concept of common law which implies fairness, reasonableness, equality and equity.

 In India, the principles of natural justice are the grounds of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Article 14 enshrines that every person should be treated equally. Article 21 in its judgment of
Maneka Gandhi vs. The Union of India, it has been held that the law and procedure must be of a
fair, just and reasonable kind. The principle of natural justice comes into force when no prejudice
is caused to anyone in any administrative action.
 Origin and Meaning

 Audi Alteram Partem is a legal maxim of Latin origin. Audi means

‘hear/listen’, alteram means ‘other’ and partem means ‘side/ party’ and hence,
the maxim Audi Alteram Partem means ‘Listen to the other side or Let the
other party be heard’.
 Explanation

 Audi Alteram Partem is considered to be one of the basic theories of natural

justice. In simple terms, it means that the court must not pronounce any
judgment until and unless both the parties are heard i.e., both the plaintiff
and the defendant must be given the opportunity to present their case before
the judge.
 It gives a right to the parties to a suit that no party shall be condemned
unheard, and any decision made without listening to both the parties shall be
against the principles of natural justice.
 Illustration

 If a person has been arrested and is not being able to represent

himself through a lawyer, it is the duty of the state to provide
legal aid to the person or the person should be granted free legal
aid if he is not being able to afford legal services.
 Application
Steps/Stages/ The essential elements of the maxim Audi Alteram Partem 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 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 – Punjab National Bank v. All India Bank Employees Federation

 In this case the notice, which was given to the party contain certain charges, but it was not mentioned anywhere that
penalty was imposed on the charges. Hence, the charges on which penalty was imposed was not served as a notice to the
parties concerned. The notice was not proper and thus, the penalty which was imposed was invalid.
 Application

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.

 Case – Harbans Lal v Commissioner, National Co-operative Bank v. Ajay Kumar and Fateh Singh v State
of Rajasthan

 In this case, it was held that if a person gets a reasonable opportunity of being heard or fair hearing it is an
essential ingredient of the principal of audi alteram partem. This condition is accompanied by the authority
providing written or oral hearing, which is discretion of the authority, unless the statute under which action
is taken by the authority provides otherwise. It is the duty of authority to ensure that affected parties
should get a chance of oral or personal hearing or not.
 Application

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.

 Case – Stafford v Minister of Health

 In this case, it was held that no evidence should be received in the absence of the other party and if any
such evidence is recorded then it is the duty of authority to make it available to the other party.
 Application

Cross examination

 The court should not require revealing the person concerned or material to be taken against him, but an
opportunity has provided them to deny the evidence. The question arises that will witness will be cross
examined

 Case – Kanungo & Co. v Collector of Customs

 In this case, the business property of a person was investigated, and some watches were seized by the
police who was in power under the Sea Customs Act. A person who gave the information was not allowed
for cross examination. The principle of natural justice was not violated, and the court held that principle of
natural justice does not allow the concerned person to cross examine against the witness in the matter
where goods are seized under the Sea Custom Act.
 Application

Legal Representation

 An important question is whether right to be heard includes right to legal representation? Fairly speaking,
the representation through a lawyer in the administrative adjudication is not considered as an indispensable
part of the fair hearing. But, in certain situations if the right to legal representation is denied, then it
amounts to violation of natural justice.

 Thus, where the case involves question of law as in case of J.J. Mody v. State of Bombay and in another
case of Krishna Chandra v. Union of India, the denial of legal representation will amount of violation of
natural justice because in such conditions the party may not be able to understand the question of law
effectively and, therefore, he should be given an opportunity of being heard fairly.
 Exceptions To Audi Alteram Partem

 The word exception in the context of natural justice is really a misnomer, but in the below
mentioned exclusionary cases, the rule of audi alteram partem is held inapplicable not by way of an
exception to “fair play in action”, but because nothing unfair can be inferred by not affording an
opportunity to present or meet a case. But such situations where nothing unfair can be inferred by
not affording a fair hearing must be few and exceptional in every civilized society.

 (1) Constitutional Exclusion:

 Natural justice is implied by the Courts when the parent statute under which an action is being taken
by the Administration is silent as to its application. Omission to mention the right of hearing in the
statutory provision does not ipso facto exclude a hearing to the affected Maneka Gandhi vs. Union
of India. A statute can exclude natural justice either expressly or by necessary implication. But such
a statute may be challenged under Art.14 so it should be justifiable.
 Exceptions To Audi Alteram Partem

2) Legislative Function:

 A ground on which hearing may be excluded is that the action of the Administrative in question is legislative and
not administrative in character. Usually, an order of general nature, and not applying to one or a few specified
persons, is regarded as legislative in nature. Legislative action, plenary or subordinate, is not subject to the rules of
natural justice because these rules lay down a policy without reference to a particular individual. On the same logic,
principles of natural justice can also be excluded by a provision of the Constitution also. The Indian Constitution
excludes the principles of natural justice in Art. 22, 31(A), (B), (C) and 311(2) as a matter of policy. Nevertheless, if
the legislative exclusion is arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair, courts may quash such a provision under Art.14 and
21 of the Constitution. In Charan Lal Sahu vs. UOI, the constitutional validity of the Bhopal Gas Disaster
(Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 was involved. This legislation provide for details of how to determine claims and
pay them. The affected parties approached the SC and contended that no hearing was provided to them, and it was
violative of Audi Alteram Partem. The SC held, “For legislation by Parliament no principle of natural justice is
attracted, provided such legislation is within the competence of the Legislature.
 Exceptions To Audi Alteram Partem

(3) Impractibility:

 Natural justice can be followed and applied when it is practicable to do so but in a situation when it is
impracticable to apply the principle of natural justice then it can be excluded. In Bihar School Examination Board
vs. Subhash Chandra, the Board conducted final tenth standard examination. At a particular centre, where there
were more than thousand students, it was alleged to have mass copying. Even in evaluation, it was prima-facie
found that there was mass copying as most of the answers were same and they received same marks. For this
reason, the Board cancelled the exam without giving any opportunity of hearing and ordered for fresh
examination, whereby all students were directed to appear for the same. Many of the students approached the
Patna HC challenging it on the ground that before cancellation of exam, no opportunity of hearing was been given
to the students. The HC struck down the decision of the Board in violation of Audi Alteram Partem. The Board
unsatisfied with the decision of the Court approached the SC. The SC rejected the HC judgment and held that in
this situation, conducting hearing is impossible as thousand notices have to be issued and everyone must be given
an opportunity of hearing, cross-examination, rebuttal, presenting evidences etc. which is not practicable at all.
So, the SC held that on the ground of impracticability, hearing can be excluded.
 Exceptions To Audi Alteram Partem

(4) Academic Evaluation:

 Where nature of authority is purely administrative no right of hearing can be claimed. In

Jawaharlal Nehru University v. B.S. Narwal, B.S Narwal, a student of JNU was removed from the
rolls for unsatisfactory academic performances without being given any pre decisional hearing.
The Supreme Court held that the very nature of academic adjudication appears to negative any
right of an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, if the competent academic authorities examine and
asses the work of a student over a period of time and declare his work unsatisfactory, the rules of
natural justice may be excluded.
 Exceptions To Audi Alteram Partem

5) Inter-Disciplinary Action:

 In Inter- Disciplinary action like suspension etc. there is no requirement to follow the principle of natural
justice. In S.A Khan vs. State of Haryana, Mr. Khan an IPS Officer holding the post of Deputy Inspector
General of Haryana; Haryana Govt., was suspended by the Haryana Government due to various complaints
against him. Thus, he approached the Supreme Court on the ground of violation of PNJ as he was not
given an opportunity to be heard. The SC held that the suspension being interim-disciplinary action, there
is no requirement to afford hearing. It can be ordered without affording an opportunity of hearing.
 Conclusion

 The principle of natural justice has evolved through civilization. It has not evolved from the constitution
but from mankind itself. Every person has the right to speak and be heard when allegations are being put
towards him or her. The Latin maxim, ‘Audi Alteram Partem’ is the principle of natural justice where
every person gets a chance of being heard. The meaning of the maxim itself says no person shall be
condemned unheard. Hence, no case or judgment can be decided without listening to the point of another
party. There are many cases where this principle of natural justice is excluded, and no option is given to
the party to speak. Natural justice means that justice should be given to both the parties in a just, fair and
reasonable manner. Before the court, both the parties are equal and have an equal opportunity to
represent them.
 Damnum Sine Injuria’ and ‘Injuria Sine Damnum’
 In law of torts, you might have come across the terms ‘Damnum Sine Injuria’ and ‘Injuria
Sine Damnum’. We often get confused as to the meaning of these two legal terms . Let us
clear our concept by understanding the basic concept and the difference between the two.

 The word Damnum is a Latin word which means Damage.

 The word Sine is also a Latin word meaning Without; and

 The word Injuria, which is also a Latin word, means injury of the Lawful personal privileges

 Thus, the word Damnum Sine Injuria means any damage which is caused apart from the
harm as well as prejudice or in simple terms it means Damage done without the violation of
legal rights.
Explanation

 Damnum Sine Injuria as the meaning suggests is a situation where a damage of any kind is done to another person
without violating the legal rights of the other person.

 For example, A, a shop owner sells stationery items to primary school students for three years and next to A’s shop,
B opens another stationary shop and sells his items at a lower price compared to A’s. Now, A cannot sue B as he
did not violate any of the legal rights of A because by opening a shop just next to A is no illegal act.

 Therefore, in this case, although A suffered sufficient monetary loss in his business , he cannot sue B for opening
another stationary shop. So, we can say A was a victim of Damnum Sine Injuria

 A person committing Damnum Sine Injuria cannot be sued in the court of law.
 Case Laws
 In Gloucester Grammar School’s case, the defendant was a teacher who was teaching in Gloucester Grammar school and due to
some disputes, he left the school and opened his own school and even reduced the fees from 40 pence, which was charged in
Gloucester Grammar School to 12 pence . As a result, the students started leaving the Gloucester Grammar school and joined the
defendants’ school due to the lower fees. This resulted in a loss for the Gloucester school.

 The plaintiff sued the defendant for trespassing their franchise and demanded damages caused by for the monetary loss caused by
the defendant.

 The court held that the defendant who opened the rival school would not be liable for the monetary loss that occurred to the
plaintiff. Though there has been loss suffered to the plaintiff by the act of the defendant, still he would not be getting any damages
for the monetary loss by the defendant.

 The court also held that this case covers the essentials of the maxim Damnum Sine Injuria and therefore the defendant did not
violate any legal right of the plaintiff even though the plaintiff suffered monetary loss. Therefore, the plaintiff was not given any
damages for his monetary loss as the essentials of Damnum Sine Injuria were met.
 Case Laws
Usha Ben V. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir

 In 1970s a film was released ‘Jai Santoshi Maa'. X filed case and demanded that ban should be
imposed on the film's release because the film has hurt his emotions and religion. It was said that in
the film the goddess of Hindu religion has been portrayed wrongfully due to which he has been hurt.

 Judgement: court said that X may have suffered damages due to the movie but her no legal right has
been violated and therefore no legal remedies were given.
 Injuria Sine Damnum
 The maxim Injuria Sine Damnum is just the opposite of Damnum Sine Injuria.

 Injuria means injury of the Lawful persons

 Sine means without

 Damnum means damage

 Explanation
 Thus, the maxim Injuria Sine Damnum means the legal injury caused to the plaintiff without any damage
to the physical injury or in simple terms it means a situation where no damage has been caused by a
particular act , but that act violated a legal right of another.

 Therefore, even by an act of any person , no damage is caused to the other ,but there has been a violation
of the legal right of the other person ,then the person committing such violation will be held guilty even if
no damage has been caused.

 For example, A, a person was on his way to give his vote to favorite leader, but he was not allowed by B
to give the vote as he did not have necessary documents to show that he was an eligible voter. A, kept on
saying that he was an eligible voter and was backed by necessary documents to prove his eligibility. B
still did not allow him to vote.
 However, the candidate whom A wanted to vote won and as a result no such damage was caused to him.
But B was held guilty of Injuria Sine Damnum as not allowing a person to give vote is a violation of legal
right of A, no matter what the outcome of the result was.
 Case Laws
 In the case of Ashby vs White, the plaintiff was a qualified voter at the parliamentary elections which were held at that
point of time.

 The defendant , a returning officer wrongfully refused to take the plaintiff’s vote. The plaintiff, however suffered no
damage since the candidate whom he wished to vote had already won the election, but still the defendant was held guilty
by the court.

 The court held that damage is not merely pecuniary, but injury imports a damage, so when a man is hindered of his legal
rights, he is entitled to remedies.

 Hence , according to the meaning of the maxim Injuria Sine Damnum , the defendant was held guilty and was liable to
pay damages to the plaintiff, although no damage was caused to him but by the act of the defendant , the plaintiff suffered
a violation of his legal right to vote. Hence, the court said that the plaintiff was entitled to damages by the defendant.
 Difference between Damnum Sine Injuria & Injuria Sine Damnum
S.No Damnum Sine Injuria Injuria sine Damnum

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

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

3. No compensation in the form of damages is awarded by the court. Compensation in the form of damages is awarded by the court.

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

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

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

7. Damages without injury are not actionable This is actionable since there is a violation of a legal right.
 Conclusion
 The conclusion of the two maxims is that one is a moral wrong for which the law provides no remedy, even
if it causes great loss or detriment to the plaintiff, whereas the other is a legal wrong for which the law
provides a legal remedy, even though there may be a violation of a private right in that particular case
without actual loss or detriment.

 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.
 Delegates non potest delegare
Origin
 The maxim Delegates non potest delegare is a principle of constitutional
and administrative law with the Latin meaning a delegated authority cannot
again be delegated.
 It has its origin in the Catholic Canon law, but it was first articulated in
Canada in 1943 by John Willis in the Canadian Bar Review.
 This principle is very well acknowledged in the United States, United
Kingdom and India.
Literal Meaning
 A delegated authority cannot again be delegated.
 Explanation
 The maxim can also be stated as “Delegatus non potest delegare” which means no one to whom power is
delegated cannot himself further delegate that power.
 In other words, a person to whom some power is delegated cannot sub-delegate that power to someone
else.
 One who has the power or authority from another person to do an act must do it himself or herself as this
is a trust or confidence reposed in that person personally.
 It cannot be assigned to a stranger whose ability and integrity might not be known to the principal.
 In general, whenever it is intended that an agent shall have a power to delegate his authority, it should be
given to him by express terms of substitution.
 Thus, no sub-delegation is done in a principal-agent contract without the consent and knowledge of the
principal.
 The principle laid down in the maxim is followed in constitutional and administrative law, where a
delegated power cannot be sub-delegated unless and until it is provided for by law or the person
delegating the authority permits sub-delegation of authority.
Illustration
 An auditor who has been appointed to audit the accounts of a company
cannot delegate the task to another unless expressly allowed to do so. If
express authorization has not been granted the auditor will have acted ultra
vires.
 An attorney given legal authority in a power of attorney cannot, of their
own violation, delegate the exercise of that authority without the consent of
the person who granted the power of attorney.
Case Laws

 A.K. Roy and anr. v. State of Punjab and anr., was the first case in India which established the
principle that a delegated authority cannot again be delegated as laid down by the maxim delegatus
non potest delegare.
 In this case the validity of sub-delegation of power under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
1954 was questioned. Section 24(2)(e) of the Act enables the State Government to frame a rule for
delegation of powers and functions under the Act, but it clearly does not envisage any sub-
delegation.
 The maxim delegatus non potest delegare merely indicates that this is not normally allowable, but
legislature can always provide for sub-delegation of powers.
 Thus, in other words the principle laid down by the maxim is a general rule, but legislature can or
the authority making such law can provide for an exception by expressly allowing sub-delegation of
powers.
Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio
 Whenever a person does an unlawful act, the person who suffers loss because of such an act
has the right to claim remedy against him in the court.
 For e.g., If A assaults B, then B can claim damages from him in the court.
 But in some cases, the plaintiff is not allowed to claim damages from the defendant because
he himself has committed an illegal act and therefore he cannot get any remedy in the court.
 This is known as Ex turpi causa non oritur actio, which means that no action can arise from
an illegal act.
 It is one of the defences which exempts the defendant from his liability because the plaintiff
has also committed an illegal act.
 Therefore, this is also known as the “plaintiff a wrongdoer” defence.
Illustration
 Illustration: A and B have decided to commit theft in C’s house but during this act, A gets
injured because of B’s negligence. Here even though B is guilty of negligence A cannot
claim any damages because he suffered this injury as a result of being involved in an
unlawful act of theft and thus it falls in the category of ex turpi causa non oritur actio
 A entered into a contract with B for performing an illegal act however if B renders the
contract and A suffers a loss, A has no legal remedy to file suit or claim damages.
 A was a contractor, who contracted with B to kill C and pay him thereafter rs. 4000 for the
act. B after killing C asked for the amount which A refused. Under such circumstances, B
cannot go to court for claiming amount as the contract was immoral and hence no action
can arise against A.
 Essentials

 There are 2 essential elements in the defence of ex turpi causa:

 1. The suit is brought by the plaintiff for the damage caused by the defendant and the defendant is fully
responsible for such damage.

 2. The actions of the plaintiff have to be in a specific course of action which is illegal.

 Thus, whenever these 2 conditions are fulfilled in a case the defendant has the right of claiming the defence of ex
turpi causa and the suit brought by the plaintiff will fail.

 Illustration: If A is a passenger in a stolen car which he knows is stolen and still freely participates in it then, if this
car crashes and he gets injured, he cannot get damages from the driver of the car because A was also involved in
the criminal act and therefore no action can arise here by the operation of ex turpi causa non oritur actio.
Tests of ex turpi causa

 The defence of ex turpi causa is very complicated so there is no clear legal principle which can be
universally applied by the courts to determine when can this defense be allowed. So, many tests have
been formulated by the Courts which are very helpful in understanding the scope of this defiance and
the cases in which it can be allowed.
Test of Reliance

 As per this act, whenever the plaintiff has to rely on his illegal act as the basis for his case then this
defence is applied. It simply means that to prove that he has suffered damage because of the
defendant, he has to show the fact that he had committed an illegal act.

 In such cases, the Court does not allow the claim of the plaintiff to succeed. Thus if the plaintiff can
prove that there is a cause of action in the case and in proving it he does not need to rely on his
illegal act then, his claim is allowed to succeed.
Case Laws
 In Tinsley v. Milligan (1993) 3 WLR 126, the claimant and the defendant were lovers and they had
purchased a property in the name of the claimant so that the defendant could get the social security
benefits and thus it was an act of fraud by which the benefit could be derived.
 Later their relationship had broken down and the claimant claimed sole ownership of the property
by claiming that it was registered in his name only while the defendant claimed that it was held on
trust for both of them.
 The House of Lords by applying the test of reliance held that the defendant only had to rely on the
fact that she had also contributed to the price of the property and there was an understanding
between them it will be owned by both of them, therefore, the reliance on the illegal act was not
necessary.
 The court also held that the test of public conscience which was applied by the Court of Appeals
was wrong and therefore the test of reliance was to be applied here.
The principle of no benefit
 As per this principle, a criminal should not be allowed to take any benefit
from his criminal act and therefore the Courts should ensure that such a suit
by a person should fail. In the law of torts, this principle is not very
significant because the aim of the law of torts is more about compensating
the loss suffered by the claimant instead of him making any profit or gain.
 Illustration: If A enters into B’s house for theft and B on finding A shoots
him with a gun causing his death. Here even though B has used more than
reasonable force, but it does not mean that A’s widow can claim any
damages from him because A was also involved in an illegal act.
Case Laws

 In the case of Murphy v. Culhane (1977) QB 94, a person named Timothy Murphy had decided to
beat a man called John Culhane with the help of some other people and during the attack, he was
struck by the defendant with a plank which killed him.
 The widow of Murphy brought an action against Culhane for the award of damages for herself and
her baby. The defendant had admitted the fact of him causing death but raised the defence of ex turpi
causa.
 The judge had allowed in favour of the claimant; therefore, the defendant made an appeal in the
Court of appeal where it was held that the claimant could not get any damages because the deceased
himself was involved in an illegal act and therefore no benefit can accrue from it.
The Proportionality Test

 According to this test if the injury caused to the plaintiff by the defendant is through an act which is
out of proportions of the illegal act of the plaintiff, then the defence of non oritur actio will not be
allowed.
Case Laws

 In Lane v. Holloway (1967) 3 WLR 1003, the claimant was an old gardener who had disputes with
the defendant who ran a cafe which was visited by youths late at night. One day the claimant shouted
abuse at the wife of the defendant and the defendant who was in his bed got up and went outside.
 The claimant thought that he was about to be hit therefore he punched the defendant as a result he
retaliated and punched the claimant in the eye which led to him requiring stitches and surgery.
 The trial judge held the defendant guilty but reduced the damages. The claimant, therefore, appealed
for greater damages and the defendant claimed that due to ex turpi causa he cannot be liable. It was
held that the punch by the defendant was a savage blow which was out of proportion of a fist fight
and the claimant was also an elderly person, therefore, there was no ex turpi causa in this case and
the appeal of the claimant was allowed.
Inextricably linked test

 In cases where the plaintiff does not rely on the illegal act for his claim, but the act is inextricably
linked (very closely connected) with the claim then also the defence of ex turpi causa arises. This test
is related to the reliability test.
Case Laws

 For e.g., in the case of Cross v. Kirkby (2000) EWCA Civ 426, the defendant used his land for the
hunt and the claimant was a hunt saboteur whose girlfriend was removed by the defendant from his
land forcibly. As a result,, the claimant got into an altercation with the defendant, and it led to him
suffering injuries and he also began to suffer epileptic attacks. So, the claimant brought the suit for
damages. The trial judge had rejected the defendant’s plea of ex turpi causa and held him liable
therefore he appealed to the Court of Appeal. The appeal of the defendant was allowed by applying
the test of inextricable link and it was held that where the claim of the plaintiff is so closely
connected with his criminal act that they cannot be separated then the court cannot allow the plaintiff
to recover any damages.
Conclusion

 Ex turpi causa non oritur actio is one of the defences available to the defendant. This
defence is very complicated as a result of which the Courts had to come up with many
different tests in determining the applicability of this defence. In this defence due to the
illegal act of the plaintiff, he is not allowed to claim any compensation from the defendant.
This defence is provided in pursuance of the principle of public policy, that no person
should be allowed to benefit from his illegal act.
GENERALIA SPECIALIBUS NON DEROGANT
 These laws are in place today because a need was realised to form laws, especially for a field. But
even these bring problems of their own.

 In some cases, a party may benefit from a general law provision but suffer from a special law
provision and vice-versa. That is where this maxim comes in.

 Generalia specialibus non derogant is a Latin maxim. It is a maxim used for statutory
interpretation.

 Generalia stands from general and Specialibus stands for special.

 Thus, when interpreted, it means that general laws do not prevail over special laws or, the general
does not detract from specifics.
Case Laws

 Justice Griffith said in R v Greenwood, [1992] 7 O.R. (3d) 1, “The maxim generalia specialibus non
derogant means that, for the purposes of interpretation of two statutes in apparent conflict, the
provisions of a general statute must yield to those of a special one.”

 When a law is questioned before the courts, the courts assume that the legislature enacted the law
(under discussion) keeping in mind the welfare of society at heart.

 Thus, repealing a law is not favoured and is done only under exceptional circumstances. In case of
conflict of interpretation of statutes, this maxim is applied.
Case Laws

 The provisions of the special rule are preferred over general rule as they are meant to address that
subject in greater detail. This may manifest as exceptions to the general rule as seen in:

 Lalonde v Sun Life, [1992] 3 SCR 261, Justice Gonthier had used these words in his opinion: “The
principle is, therefore, that where there are provisions in a special Act and in a general Act on the
same subject which are inconsistent, if the special Act gives a complete rule on the subject, the
expression of the rule acts as an exception to the subject-matter of the rule from the general Act.”
Situations when Generalis Specialibus Non Derogant
is used:
 This maxim is used in the interpretation of statutes. To decide which statute is valid in which case,
there should be a conflict between an earlier and a later statute.

 There could be a question on the scope of the law in question. What is the scope of a special law and
what is the scope of general law with respect to the problem?
 In Suresh Nanda V. C.B.I, [2008] SCC 3 674:-

 There are 2 acts that provide for impounding of passports:

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the Passports Act, 1967

 In this case, the petitioner lost access to his license as the result of the procedures of a case in which he was
the accused. His passport was seized by C.B.I., thus, he couldn’t travel. In this case, there was a conflict
between section 104 of CrPC and section 10(3) of the Passport Act.
The court decided that:

 Since impounding of passports are governed by special legislation namely the passports act, normal
CrPC provisions concerning impounding shall not be attracted, the courts or the police can at best
seize a passport, but for impounding (which is far more enduring and continuous possession)
passport authority would have to be approached– and the authority can take a decision on whether it
would be impounded or not.

 In this case, the scope of the law under CrPC was defined by saying that the courts or the police
cannot impound but can only seize a passport. As impounding a passport has far-reaching and
permanent consequences, special law provisions will prevail to provide a better remedy to the
petitioner.

 In the case of the non-obstante clause (clauses in which notwithstanding is used), it is important to
note the intention of the legislative body. The intention of the legislative body defines the aim with
which that particular act was enacted.
 In the case, KSL and Industries Limited (“KSL”) v. M/s Arihant Threads Limited (“Arihant”) and
Others, [2014] 123 CLA 198 (SC), The property of Arihant was to be auctioned as a result of an
inability to pay the debt to IDBI bank. IDBI bank had an ex-parte order in this regard. But Arihant
was unable to pay and the highest bidder for their property was KSL. Arihant opposed the selling of
their property to KSL by filing this suit. There was a conflict between Sick Industrial Companies
(Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (“SICA”).
 The Sick Industrial Companies Act of 1985 (SICA) was an Indian law enacted to detect unviable
("sick") companies that could pose systematic financial risk.
 SICA was repealed and replaced in 2003 by the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions)
Repeal Act of 2003, which watered down some aspects of the original Act and fixed some
problematic factors.
 SICA was then fully repealed in 2016, in part because some of its provisions overlapped with the
provisions of a separate Act, the Companies Act of 2013.
 and Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (“RDDBFI”). Recovery of
Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions (RDDBFI Act), 1993 is an Act to provide for the
establishment of Tribunals for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to Banks and
Financial Institutions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

 Justice Thakker, in this case, said that since section 34 had an overriding clause of RDDBFI, it was
supposed to be considered superior to SICA. This was based on the maxim- Generalis Specialibus
non Derogant– the later general act did not repeal the erstwhile special act (in this case SICA).

 But Justice Altamas Kabir observed that in view of a specific exception to Section 34 (1) carved out
in Section 34 (2) which states that the provisions of RDDBFI Act shall be in addition to and not in
derogation of SICA, it is clear that the intention of the legislature was that SICA would prevail over
RDDBFI.

 In this case, the interpretation rule (Generalis Specialibus non Derogant) was not followed.
In the following case laws this maxim was applied

 However, In the case of General Manage Telecom v. M. Krishnan and Anr, AIR 2010 SC 90, it was
held that, if there is any claim regarding telephone bills then it is to be addressed under the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1985 and not under the Consumer Protection Act. This is through the maxim of
Generalis Specialibus non Derogant– by application of this maxim, the Consumer Protection Act is
considered general law.

 Generalis Specialibus non Derogant means erstwhile special law is given superiority over later
general law. This has been followed in many cases in India as well as the US and other countries
such as Canada and the UK.
 But, mechanically applying this maxim yields no good. It is important to note that:

 Special law and general law are to be assigned to acts according to the case in question.
 The intention of the legislature in enacting a specific law has to be taken into account.
 The courts should always check first if the doctrine of harmonious construction and Principle of
election can be applied or not before applying this maxim.
 Ignorantia facit excusat
ignorantia juris non excusat
 Ignorantia facit excusat ignorantia juris non excusat
(ignorance of fact is an excuse but ignorance of law is no excuse)

 As we know, there are different types of law in India, like family law, contract law, law of tort, labour
law, tax law, administrative law, procedural law, criminal law, civil law procedure, etc. And we are
made to follow these laws. If anyone ignores the law, they will be held liable.

 Let us understand the concept of general defences before we proceed to the concept of ignorance of
fact being an excuse, but ignorance of law is no excuse.

 General defences mean the set of defences, i.e., excuses that help a person escape his liability if his
actions qualify under the given provision of defences. If the defendant fails to prove why he has to do
that act, he cannot escape his liability. There are some specific defences which are available for
wrongful acts:
General defences

 Volenti non-fit injuria:

 Plaintiff, himself the wrongdoer:

 Inevitable accident:

 Act of God:

 Private defence:

 Mistake:
Mistake:
 There are two types of mistakes which a normal person can do according to tort: Mistake of Law and Mistake
of Facts

 Sec 76 and Sec 79 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC), 1860, deals with the provisions of mistake of fact and
mistake of law precisely. It is rooted in the principle of Ignorantia Facti Excusat, Ignorantia Juris Non-
Excusat, which infers that ignorance of fact is an excuse, but ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 Section 79 in The Indian Penal Code: Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing himself
justified, by law.—Nothing is an offence 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.

 Section 76 in The Indian Penal Code: Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself
bound, by law.—Nothing is an offence 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.
IGNORANTIA FACTI EXCUSAT
 Ignorantia facti excusat is a Latin maxim which literary means ignorance of a fact or a mistake of a fact
is an excuse. This maxim can be applied to civil as well as criminal jurisprudence. According to this
maxim, a person will be excluded from civil or criminal liability if he/ she was ignorant of relevancy of
the fact and circumstances or else did a wrongful act which they didn’t intended to an unlawful
consequence.

 Example: Nirmal sees a young girl about to jump into river , believing in good faith that girl in
question is about to commit suicide , grapples her and drags her away is not guilty of offence of
molestation.

 Example: If , A by mistake in the dead of the night mistakes B (his flat mate) for a burglar and in good
faith shoots B under such circumstances where B can actually be mistaken for burglar (like coming
through window rather than the main gate) then A will be entitled to claim defence of section 79.
Case law
RAJ KAPOOR VS. LAXMAN (1980) 2 SCR 512 (SC)

 FACTS OF THE CASE:

 The appellant, Raj Kapoor, is the producer of the film “Satyam Shivam Sundaram” that was released in year 1978. A
viewer of the film filed a suit against the producer, director, actor, case team etc. for showing the contents that is against
the public morals and alleging that the title of the movie misguiding the public and showing obscene material.

 The complainant filed the complaint under section 292 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial court after examining some
witnesses issued notice to the producer/present appellant.

 The producer moved to High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order of trial court accusing that the criminal
proceeding is abuse of law and contended that the film has been duly considered for public show. The Central Board of
Film Censors grant the ‘A’ certificate to the film under section 5(A) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

 The High Court dismissed the appeal of the producer saying that there is nothing frivolous in the appeal to quash the
proceedings. Aggrieved by the order of High Court, the producer (appellant) comes to this Court under defence of Section
79 of Indian Penal Code to neutralize the Section 292 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

 ISSUES:

 Whether the certificate issued by Central Board of Film Censors under section 5 (A) of Cinematograph Act, 1952
RULE OF LAW:
 Section 5(A) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952
 Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
 Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
CONTENTIONS:
Contention by appellant:
 The appellant argued that the film has been granted ‘A’ certificate by the Central Board of Film
Censors under section 5 (A) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the act of appellant comes under
defence of Section 79 of Indian Penal Code. The act of appellant justified under the purview of
section 79 of IPC. There was no intention to hurt the sentiments of the public at large by showing
the film. The appellant had reasonable belief that his act was justified by law.
Contention by Respondent:
 The respondent argued that the film was showing obscene content in the name of a Good title. The
producer, actor, director misguided public by way of fascinating title and showing obscenity,
indecency that is offense under Section 292 of Indian Penal Code.
JUDGEMENT:

 The Hon’ble Court held that the section 79 of IPC provides defence to a doer who has done an act, which is amount to
offence in other sense, under the good belief that he is justified by law in doing that act.

 The weapon of section 79 immune the doer of an act who is under good belief to do that act justified by law. Furthermore,
the Hon’ble Court held that the film was certified by Central Board of Film Censors after considering all the points of
section 292 of IPC under section 5 (b) of the Act. IPC is general law and Cinematograph Act is special law.

 The members of the Board have a high caliber and expertise. The court held that the certification was issued after checking
all the essentials of section 292. So, the Hon’ble Court held that the appellant’s act was considered as justified by law and
comes under the purview of section 79 of IPC.

 Thus, the appeal allowed, and it is right to discharge the accused from charges as it is groundless, and the prosecution
extinguish from the proceeding.
IGNORANTIA JURIS NON EXCUSAT
 Ignorantia juris non excusat maxim is originated from ancient Roman law which literary means
ignorance of a law or a lack of knowledge of these laws is not an excuse. It implies that the court
presumes that every party is aware of the law. Hence cannot claim ignorance of the law as a defence
to escape liability. The notion of legal literacy is based on the principle that every individual must be
aware of their rights and obligations.
 Example: Dhruva was a passenger from Saudi to India in a Plane. When the plane landed at the
airport at Delhi on 18th February 18, 2022, it was found on search that Dhruva carried 2kgs of gold
bars in person and that he had not declared it in the 'Manifest for transit'. On 16th February 18, 2022,
Government of India issued a notification and modified its earlier exemption and now it is necessary
that, the gold must be declared in the 'Manifest' of the aircraft.
 Example: Ram fails to file his income-tax returns for a considerable number of years. The Income
Tax department serves upon him a 'show-cause notice' as to why proceedings should not be initiated
against him for the recovery of the income tax due from him with interest and penalty.
Case law

 Mayor Hans George v. The state of Maharashtra (AIR 1965 SC722)

 In case the accused was a German national.

 He was on his way from Zurich to Manila on a Swiss aircraft which arrived in Bombay while in transit. He remained
within the aircraft and did not come out.

 He did not file a declaration under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, regarding the gold he was carrying.

 During the checking, the customs found the gold on aircraft.

 The accused was booked under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.

 The cause of action arose in India. The Supreme Court had that his trail and conviction under the Indian law was valid.

 The court also held that it is not necessary for Indian law to be published outside India so that foreigners can know
about them. the ignorance about the law or any change it cannot be pleaded.
Nemo Dat Quod Non-Habet
Nemo Dat Quod Non-Habet

 Nemo dat quod non habet, literally meaning “no one gives what he doesn’t have” is a legal rule, sometimes called
the nemo dat rule, which states that the purchase of a possession from someone who has no ownership right to it
also denies the purchaser any ownership title.
 Section 27, Sale by person, not the owner. Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any other law for the time
being in force, where goods are sold by a person who is not the owner thereof and who does not sell them under
the authority or with the consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had,
unless the owner of the goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the seller’s authority to sell.

 Where a mercantile agent has possession of the goods or a document of title to the goods with the consent of the
owner, any sale made by him in the ordinary course of business of a mercantile agent shall be as valid as if he had
been expressly authorized by the owner to make the sale, given that the buyer acts in good faith and has not
received notice from the seller that he or she does not have authority to sell at the time of the contract of sale.
Case law

 The case of Greenwood v Bennett. In this case, the rightful owner of a Jaguar car (Bennett)
assigned it for repairs to a man named Searle. Searle then took the car and used it for his own
purposes, crashing it and causing significant damage. For 75 (pounds), Searle sold the car to Harper,
who owned a garage. Harper had no idea that Searle was not the car's owner. Harper then invested
226 (pounds) on repairs before selling the car to a mortgage lender.

 The court determined that the car belonged to Bennett because Searle did not have title and thus
could not transfer it to Harper. Harper was unable to transfer title to the finance company for almost
the same reason. Bennett was able to restore the car, but he also had to pay Harper for the stuff he's
done to it.
Let’s look at exceptions to this rule:

 1. Title transfer by Estopple

 2. The Sale by A Mercantile (/ˈməːk(ə)ntʌɪl/ ) Agent, given under Section 27
 3. The Sale by joint owner, given under Section 28:
 4. The Sale by A Person in Possession Under A Voidable Contract, under Section 29:
 5. The Sale by The Seller in Possession under Section 30 (1):
 6. The Sale by the Buyer in Possession under Sec 30(2):
 7. Resale by An Unpaid Seller under Sec 54(3):
 8. The Sale by Finder of Goods Sec 169, Indian Contract Act 1872:
 9. The Sale by Pawnee (/pɔːˈniː/) Sec 176 of Indian Contract Act 1872:
1. Title transfer by Estopple: (a legal rule that prevents someone from
changing their mind about something they have previously said is true in court)

 A purchaser can obtain a good title if the owner of the goods is precluded from refusing the seller's authority to sell by his
action, according to Section 27. When the owner is unable to refuse the seller's authority, estoppel against him occurs. The
seller's representation that he or she has the authority to sell creates estoppel.

 Estoppel arises from one of the following:

 An act or omission, but it must be a legal obligation.

 Negligence, but not just any negligence, but negligence in relation to the person.

 The case of K. M. Mohambaram v. Ram Narayan Brahmin.

 A was appointed as the bus owner's agent to operate the bus for hire. He left a signed letter to the District Magistrate
requesting that G permit be granted to A. A defrauded the bus owner by altering the letter and addressing it to the DSP,
requesting him to transfer the registration in A’s name. A did the same thing, selling the bus to a third party who had no
knowledge of A's authority to sell. The buyer's title was challenged by the original bus owner. It was decided that A could
not have predicted that he would commit such forgery. He was not barred from contesting the buyer's title under Section 27
of the SOGA.
2. The Sale by A Mercantile (/ˈməːk(ə)ntʌɪl/ )Agent, given
under Section 27

 If a mercantile agent has the authority to sell goods and does so, there is no problem because, in general, an agent
with the authority to sell can convey a good title. The issue starts when the mercantile operative deprives of the
goods without authorization.

 Section 2(9) defines the term mercantile agent. A mercantile agent who has the authority to sell goods, consign
goods for the purpose of sale, buy goods, or collect money on the security of goods in the ordinary course of
business. In other words, a mercantile agent is someone who has goods or documents in their possession.

 In Folker v. King case, the plaintiff gave his car to a mercantile agent with the intention of selling it for at least 575
pounds. The mercantile agent, on the other hand, misappropriated funds by selling them to the defendant for pounds
140. The defendant (a buyer) was found to have good title to the product in a plaintiff's action.

 The goods must be entrusted to the mercantile agent in his capacity as a mercantile agent; if the goods are entrusted
to him in any other capacity, he will not be able to convey a good title.
3. The Sale by joint owner, given under Section 28:

 If among the many joint owners of goods, gains sole possession of the goods with the consent of both
co-owners, the property in the goods is transferred to anyone who buys them in good faith from that
joint owner without knowing that the seller lacks authority to sell. If Section 28 had not existed, the
consumer would have received only co-ownership titles and would have been a co-owner with
another co-owner. As a result, the clause is a legal exception, no one may offer what he does not
possess.

 For an instance, if A and B are co-owners of goods and B has the possession of the goods to which
C has given the consent, B sells the goods to a buyer who acts in good faith. Then the buyer will
have a good title over the goods.
4. The Sale by A Person in Possession Under A Voidable
Contract, under Section 29:

 Contract Act's Sections 19 and 19-A express that if a party agree to an agreement is procured through pressure, extortion, or
unjustifiable impact, the agreement is voidable at the party's prudence. If an individual gets ownership of products under an
agreement that is voidable under section 19 or 19 An of the Contract Act and sells those merchandise before the agreement is
forestalled by the gathering qualified for do as such, the purchaser of those products gets a decent title to them, as per section 29. It
is important, nonetheless, that such a purchaser bought the products in accordance with some basic honesty and without
information on the vender's title deformity.

 For example, if X buys goods by coercion from Y and before Y could rescind the contract, X sells the goods to Z who acted in
good faith. In this case, Z will hold good title over the goods.

 In the case of Phillips v. Brooks (1919)

 A fraud was committed when a person purchased a valuable ring with a worthless check while posing as a respectable individual.
The ring was then pledged to another person. Following the discovery of the fraud, the question of whether the pawnee was entitled
to keep the ring arose. The pawnee had a good title to the ring, according to the Court, because he was unaware of the seller's
defective title and acted in good faith.
5. The Sale by The Seller in Possession under Section 30 (1):

 The seller is no longer able to deal with the goods once they have been sold and the buyer has taken possession of them. If
he retains possession of goods and deals with them, the buyer will sue him for exchange.

 Sec 30 (1), on the other hand, states that if the seller who sold the goods is still in possession of the goods or the documents
of title to them, the seller's or a Mercantile agent's delivery or transfer of the goods or the documents of title to them under
any sale, promise, or another disposition thereof will convey a good title to the buyer. Assuming the buyer is acting in good
faith and is unaware of the previous sale.

 In the case of Staffs Motor Guarantee Ltd v. British Wagon Co Ltd (1934)

 A who was the lorry owner, sold his lorry to the defendant. Later, he bought the lorry on hire-purchase from the defendant
and resold it to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not have a good title to the lorry, according to the Court, because A had
already sold it to the defendant, and when he sold it to the plaintiff, he did so as a bailee, not as a seller. As a result, the
exception will not be enforced. If the defendant had sold the vehicle to the plaintiff, the plaintiff would have had a good
title to the vehicle.
6. The Sale by the Buyer in Possession under Sec 30(2):

 This provision says that if a customer obtains possession of goods or the terms of the contract to
them with the seller's consent, any sale, pledge, or other disposition of those goods to any person will
convey good title without regard to any lien or other right of the original seller.
7. Resale by An Unpaid Seller under Sec 54(3):

 If an unpaid seller has practiced his right of lender or obstruction in transit and the buyer fails to pay
him, he has the right to possess the goods after offering the purchaser notice, according to this
section. When such a notion is not provided, the seller will not be able to recover any losses from the
buyer if the goods sell for less than the contract price, nor will he be able to keep the value if the
goods sell for more.

 For example, if A sells a bike to B worth 50,000 and B pays 48,000 but fails to pay 2,000. A still is an
unpaid seller.
8. The Sale by Finder of Goods Sec 169, Indian Contract Act
1872:

 The finder of goods often has the same liability as the bailee, according to Section 71 of the Indian
Contract Act. He must treat the goods with reasonable care while they are in his custody and revert
them once the owner has been verified. Nevertheless, if the owner cannot be recognized with
sufficient certainty or fails to pay the finder's legitimate fees, the finder may sell the goods, according
to Section 169 of the ICA.
 When finder of thing commonly on sale may sell it. When a thing which is commonly the subject of
sale is lost, if the owner cannot with reasonable diligence be found, or if he refuses, upon demand, to
pay the lawful charges of the finder, the finder may sell it— (1) when the thing is in danger of
perishing or of losing the greater part of its value, or (2) when the lawful charges of the finder, in
respect of the thing found, amount to two-thirds of its value.
9. The Sale by Pawnee (/pɔːˈniː/) Sec 176 of Indian Contract
Act 1872:

 The bailee is called 'pawnee'. —The bailment of goods as security for payment of a debt or
performance of a promise is called 'pledge'. The bailor is in this case called the 'pawnor'.

 Pawnee’s right where pawnor makes default.—If the pawnor makes default in payment of the debt,
or performance; at the stipulated time or the promise, in respect of which the goods were pledged, the
pawnee may bring a suit against the pawnor upon the debt or promise, and retain the goods pledged
as a collateral security; or he may sell the thing pledged, on giving the pawnor reasonable notice of
the sale.

 If the proceeds of such sale are less than the amount due in respect of the debt or promise, the
pawnor is still liable to pay the balance. If the proceeds of the sale are greater than the amount so
due, the pawnee shall pay over the surplus to the pawnor.
Conclusion

 The Nemo Dat principle in India is covered by the Indian Contract Act and the Sale of Goods Act.

 It is a well-known fact that no one can transfer a higher title than the one they currently hold, for the
simple reason that they are not authorized to do so.

 The principle of Nemo Dat quod non-habet, which translates to no one can give what they don't have.

 It means that no one can transfer a better title than he himself has in the context of the sale of goods.

 The principle is specifically addressed in sales of goods act between sections 27 and 32, and various
exceptions were added to broaden the scope of the principle and make it more compatible with the
agreement of sales of property and goods.
 Noscitur a sociis
/ˌnɒsɪtə eɪ ˈsəʊʃɪiːs/
/ˌnəʊsɪtʊə ˈɑː ˌsəʊsiɪs/
Meaning

 According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, noscitur a socii refers to “the meaning of an unclear
or ambiguous word (as in a statute or contract) should be determined by considering the words with
which it is associated in the context.”

 The term has Latin origins, with noscitur meaning knowing, a meaning with, and socii meaning
association. Simply put, it refers to ‘knowing with association.’

 Every word has a place in every sentence, which means that every word has two understandings with
it – one, denotation, and two, connotation. Denotation refers to the actual meaning of the word, and
connotation is the meaning of that word according to the placement of the word in that particular
sentence. Both these understandings are used in order to apply the rule of noscitur a socii for the
purposes of interpretation.
Applicability of the rule

 Lord Macmillan had defined this rule of interpretation of statutes as “the meaning of a word is to be
judged by the company it keeps.” The philosophy of the said rule has been stated in “Words and
Phrases” as ascertainment of the understanding of any unclear word through getting a grasp of the
nearby words associated with it

 The applicability of this rule of interpretation arises when a word or phrase in question cannot be
interpreted in isolation and requires the words that surround it to also be understood in order to better
grasp the concept.
Scope of the rule

 The scope of this rule of interpretation is limited, for it can only be applied in the circumstances
where the law was either not clear or it was ambiguous.

 Otherwise, when there are no apparent problems with interpretation, the rule cannot be used.

 It has also been made clear that the rule cannot be used nefariously to make any of the associated
words redundant.

 The rule of noscitur a sociis cannot be used in cases where the intention of the legislature or
Parliament as the case, reflects its deliberate usage of words which would widen the scope.
Case law

Mango Singh v. Election Tribunal [AIR 1957 SC 871]

 At the time of nomination, the appellant owed municipal taxes in excess of one year’s demand.

 He paid up all taxes before the date of poll and was elected.

 His election was set aside. He contended before the Supreme Court that the important date was not the date of
filing nomination but the date of poll.

 The Supreme Court observed that the important date was not the polling date but the date of filing of
nomination and the word ‘demand’ should be interpreted in the light of other words that are in its company.

 In general terms ‘demand’ would mean ‘called for’ or ‘asked for’ but in the light of other words that are in
company it would mean arrears or dues which include unpaid municipal taxes.
Application of the rule of noscitur a socii in the Indian judiciary

 There have been various cases in the courts where the rule of noscitur a socii has been used.

 State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha

 State of Assam v. Ranga Muhammad

 Alamgir v. State of Bihar [AIR 1959 SC 436]

 Devendra M. Surti v. State of Gujarat [ AIR 1969 SC 63]

 Pradeep Agarbatti, Ludhiana v. State of Punjab [AIR 1998 SC 171]

 Devendra M. Surti v. State of Gujarat

Qui Facit Per Alium Facit Per Se
Respondeat Superior
 Background of the Maxims

 The maxim Qui Facit Per Alium Facit Per Se is a simple version of the 18th-century phrase. According to
Salmond, it stems from the legal assumption that all actions performed by a servant in and about his
master's business are undertaken with his master's direct or implicit authority, and therefore are the master's
acts for which he can be kept liable.

 This doctrine, however, is not new to the Indian political and legal system. Chanakya, in Chanakya Niti,
conceptualized the philosophy even before the Greeks and Romans did, and propounded it as follows: Raja
Rashtrakritam Papam Ragyaah Papam Purohit: / राजा राष्ट्रकृ तं पापं राज्ञः पापं पुरोहित: / రాజా రాష్ట్రకృతం పాపం రాగ్యాః పాపం
పురోహిత్: which means that the king is responsible for the wrongs done by his subjects. This philosophy is
somewhat similar to the maxims that is being discussed.
Meaning And Explanation

 The Latin legal maxim "Qui facit per alium facit per se" means "he who does an act through another
is deemed in law to have done it himself."
 However, for liability to arise, two parties must have a certain kind of relation. Liability of the
principal for the act of his agent, liability of spouses for each other's torts, and liability of the master
for the tort of his servant are all typical forms of such liability.
 Such indirect responsibility is an exception to the general rule that an individual is responsible for his
or her actions or omissions. Without a doubt, if a servant or agent commits a tort beyond the
jurisdiction of his organization or job and unrelated to it, the principal will not be responsible until he
first approved or subsequently ratified the act. He is as much a stranger to his master as any third
party beyond the scope of his work.
Meaning And Explanation

 Respondeat Superior: This means' let the principle be liable 'or' the superior must be responsible 'or'
‘a principal must answer for the acts of his subordinates’. In such cases, Not only is the one who
obeys, but also the one whose command becomes equally liable. This principle puts the master in the
same position as if he had done the act himself. The master is answerable as well as liable for every
such wrong act of the servant as is committed in the course of his service. Similarly, a principal and
an agent are jointly and severally liable as joint wrongdoers for any tort authorized by the principal
and committed by the agent.
 However, these maxim does not extend to criminal law.
 Qui facit per alium facit per se and Respondeat Superior both the maxims tell us about "liability by
relation."
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 negligent driving and injured him seriously. Now, C
files a suit for damages against A. In this case, A authorised B to drive her car 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 authorise B to drive in a way to hit someone. Thus, B was negligent on his
part in driving the car, so she should also be personally held liable.

 A gave some amount and cheques to his friend B, who was an employee of the State Bank of India, to
deposit the same in the account of his wife, C. The employee misappropriated the amount. C files suit
against the State Bank of India.

 X hired a crane for the purpose of loading heavy goods. Y was the owner of the company who supplied
crane. In the process of loading and unloading, Z got injured. Y would be held liable because he didn't
know 'how the work is to be done' and also, he was a hired servant (Independent Contractor for X). The
liability shall be owned by Y in the said case.
Case law
 Like in the case of Lloyd v Grace, Smith and Co.(1912) A.C.716, where Mrs. Lloyd was owner of
two cottages, which she wanted to sell out and invest the proceeded money in some nice place, so
she went to the office of Grace, Smith & Co. which was a firm of solicitors.
 Here, the managing clerk of the company fraudulently made Mrs. Grace to sign on the gift deed of
the cottages in the name of the clerk instead of the sale deed.
 The clerk then sold the property and misused the proceeds.
 The clerk had done the act, without taking permission from his principal, solely for his own personal
profit.
 It was held that the clerk was acting in the course of his principal’s employment under his authority,
even though he has done the act only for his personal benefits, then also the principal was held liable
for the fraudulent act of his agent.
Case laws

 Ballavdas Agarwala vs Shri J. C. Chakravarty

 K.T.M.S. Mohd. And Anr vs Union of India

 H E Nasser Abdulla Hussain Vs Dy. City

 Deo Narain a Rai and Anr. Vs Kukur bind and Ors.

Conclusion

 Maxims are well-established rules that serve as interpretive guides for jurists. The theory of vicarious
responsibility arose out of social convenience and rough justice rather than a legal philosophy. The
lord, having hired the servant and being best prepared to make good any harm that might sometimes
occur from the contract, is responsible to the rest of the world for all of his servant's torts performed
within its reach.

 These maxims have been employed in resolving questions, assisting good judgment, and enhancing
the argument.
 Res Ipsa Loquitur
/ˌreɪz ɪpsə ˈlɒkwɪtə(r)/
/reɪs ɪp sə ˈloʊ kwɪ tər/

 The Latin phrase "Res Ipsa Loquitur" means "the object speaks for itself." It is a widely
accepted principle in tort law. The principle is applied in circumstances where the evidence
is sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt on its own.
 As a result, the maxim highlights any circumstantial evidence or an object that by itself
demonstrates that a crime has been committed. It demonstrates that the accident would not
have occurred if the defendant had not been negligent.
The maxim of Res Ipsa Loquitur applies in situations like:

 The cause of the accident was under the management or control of the defendant.

 The accident is such as in the ordinary course of things and would not happen if those who have the
management use proper care.

Illustrations

 A load of bricks falls from the roof of a building being constructed by A company, injuring B, a
pedestrian on the street. Even though no one saw the weight fall in this case, the company A is
responsible for the Pedestrian's injuries.
Essentials of Res Ipsa Loquitur
Presence 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.

 In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti, 1966 due to the collapse of the Clock Tower situated
opposite the Town Hall in the main Bazar of Chandni Chowk, Delhi, a number of persons died. The Clock
Tower belonged to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and was exclusively under its control. It was 80 years'
old but the normal life of the structure of the top storey of the building, which had fallen, could be 40-45 years,
having regard to the kind of mortar used.

 In these circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the fall of Clock Tower tells its own story in raising an
inference of negligence on the part of the defendant. Since the defendants could not prove the absence of
negligence on their part, they were held liable. 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 the defendant's negligence.
Essentials of Res Ipsa Loquitur
Control by the 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 up to the accidents were under the control of others besides the
defendant, then the mere happening of the accident is insufficient evidence against the defendant.

 In Nihal Kaur v. Director, P.G.I., Chandigarh, 1996, scissors were left in the body of a patient
during an operation. Then his condition worsened, and he died. Scissors were recovered from the
ashes after cremation. Compensation of Rs. 1,20,000 was awarded to the defendants of the
deceased.
Essentials of Res Ipsa Loquitur
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 principal shall not apply.

 In the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishnan, 1981, in an accident,
the two buses brushed each other in such a way that the left hands of two passengers traveling in
one of these buses were cut off below the shoulder joint. It was held that the accident itself speaks
volumes about the negligence on the part of drivers of both vehicles. The doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur was applied to the case and, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation, the defendants
were held liable.
Res Ipsa Loquitur in Medical Practice
 In Mrs. Aparna Dutta v. Apollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd., 2000, the plaintiff got herself operated
on for the removal of her uterus in the defendant hospital, as there was diagnosed to be a cyst in the
area of one of her ovaries. Due to the negligence of the hospital surgeon, who performed the
operation, an abdominal pack was left in her abdomen. The same was removed by a second surgery.
Leaving foreign matter in the body during the operation was held to be a case of res ipsa loquitur.
The doctor who performed the operation and the hospital authorities were held liable to pay
compensation of Rs. 5,80,000 to the plaintiff for their negligence.

 So, this way Res Ipsa Loquitur is used in cases where any foreign material is left inside the body due
to negligence and causes harm to patients.
Res Ipsa Loquitur in Road Accidents
There are two conditions which are to be looked upon to apply Res Ipsa Loquitur to any case of road accidents. These are as follows:
 The type of accident that occurred must be usually a result of negligence - Accidents can occur in many ways but while
applying res ipsa loquitur it is first seen that in which manner the injury has occurred, or the specific manner of the accident is
looked upon.
 In Gangaram v. Kamlabai, 1979, the front tyre of a taxi burst as a result of which that taxi left the road, when on its offside and
turned somersault. Two passengers traveling in the taxi got killed in the accident. The high speed of the car was apparent from
the fact that the car had left drag marks nearly 20 feet on the Kutcha Road and then it toppled. It was held that the obvious
inference in this case that the tyre, which had burst, was old and unroadworthy, and the speed of the taxi was excessive, and,
therefore, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable to the case. The defendants could not give any satisfactory explanation
to rebut the presumption of negligence and they were held liable.
 The defendant had sole control over the conditions that led to injury - Res ipsa loquitur may not be applied if the victim
shared some responsibility for the injury.
 For example, if a person is taking on a cell phone and is distracted while walking on the road and suddenly a truck driver takes
an illegal turn and hits the person then the application of res ipsa loquitur may not fit properly. In these cases, the court may
reduce the amount of a victim's damages under contributory negligence.
Where the maxim does not apply

 The maxim res ipsa loquitur applies when the only inference from the facts is that the accident could
not have occurred but for the defendant's negligence. The maxim does not apply in cases where
different inferences are possible or where the reason for the negligence is unknown.

 In the case of R.S.R.T.C. v. Smt. Sagar Bai, 1999, there was an accident which was alleged to have
occurred due to the mechanical failure of the bus. There was no apparent evidence to indicate the
negligence of the bus driver. It was held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could not be applied
under the circumstances of the case and the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation could be
held liable only after its negligence was proved.

 K. Sobha v. Dr. Mrs. Raj Kumari Unithan, 1999

Conclusion

 So, Res Ipsa Loquitur is applied primarily in all prima facie cases, where at first instance the
negligence on part of the defendant is evident and without which the injury would not have occurred.
In such a case, it is presumed that the defendant is negligent, and it is on him to prove why he is not
negligent. The maxim is related to the negligence of a person and generally is applied to such cases
where the act has been caused by the negligence of a person.

 Res Ipsa Loquitur is applicable in cases of road accidents and medical practice where the harm is
caused due to negligence of one or both parties. So, the application of res ipsa loquitur directly
proves the act committed by the defendant and helps in proving a person liable.
 Ubi jus ibi remedium

 Ubi jus ibi remedium is a Latin maxim.

 The literal meaning of the maxim is that where there is right there is remedy.
 It consists of two main ingredients of the doctrine jus and remedium.
 The term jus means legal authority to do or demand something from and remedium means rights of
action.
 It simply gives us a meaning that if there is any violation of the legal right, then the law provides a
remedy to the affected person.
 What rights are protected under the said doctrine?
 Essentials Of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium
 Limitations Of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium:
 Conclusion

So, here we conclude that if any right of any human being is being infringed then there is always the law that
provides and make sure that no rights of people will be infringed.

If there is any violation of legal or fundamental right, then it ensures the proper damage and compensations by
invoking the maxim ‘UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM’.

Under this maxim no off-base will be unredeemable on the off chance that it very well may be preserved by the
court. No rights exist without a remedy.
 Res non potest peccare
MEANING

 Rex non-potest peccare is a Latin legal maxim which means that 'the king can do no wrong'. It is also
called as doctrine of Sovereign Immunity or Crown Immunity.

ILLUSTRATION: Due to some State act “A,” he suffered minimal damages but could not sue the State
since the concept of ‘Rex Non-Potest Peccare’ protected the state.
INDIAN LAW POSITION

 In its very first report, the Law Committee of India proposed that this obsolete theory be abolished.
However, the draught bill never was approved for repeal of this concept for different reasons and the
courts were left to assess whether the theory was compatible with the Indian constitution.
CASE LAW

 State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati AIR 1962 SC 933– It is the first post-constitution judgment in this
matter as far as the Supreme Court is concerned.

 Facts– -The jeep driver, owned and maintained by the State for the official use of the collector,
pulled a jeep out of the workshop and brought it back to the collector’s apartment after repair and
hurt a pedestrian gravely. The state was sued for damages; the state claimed immunity on the ground
of its ‘sovereign powers’ being discharged.

 Held– The Court rejected the claim of the State for sovereign immunity and concluded that the State
was not responsible for the conduct of the Jeep in sovereign capacity. In that decision, the High
Court noted that in modern times it has socialist and welfare functions, and it is impossible to
maintain the defense of State immunity in accordance with the ancient feudal concepts of justice.