UT RES MAGIS VALEAT QUAM PEREAT

MEANING:
The maxim "Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pereat" is a construction rule that states the construction
of a rule should give the rule effect rather than destroy it, when there are two plausible
constructions from a provision, one of which gives effect to the provision and the other renders
the provision ineffective, the former is accepted and the latter is dismissed.
A statute is supposed to be an authentic repository of the legislative will and the function of a
court is to interpret it “according to the intent of them that made it.” From that function the court
is not to resile, it has to abide by the maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat, lest the intention of
the Legislature may go in vain or be left to evaporate in thin air. The court should as far as
possible avoid that construction which attributes irrationality to the Legislature. It must
obviously prefer a construction which renders the statutory provision constitutionally valid rather
than that which makes it void. It is because the Legislature is presumed to enact a law, which
does not contravene or violate the constitutional provisions, and is presumed not to have
intended an excess of is own jurisdiction.
The rule is well-settled that a construction which imputes to the Legislature tautology or
superfluity in the use of language must as far as possible, be avoided. The Court should always
prefer a construction which will give some meaning and effect to the words used by the
Legislature, rather than that which will reduce it to futility. A construction which renders any
provision in the Act nugatory and defeats the object of the provision is avoided, even though the
language of the statute suffers from a slight inexactitude.

CASE LAWS:
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992)
Facts:
On January 1, 1979, the Government headed by the PM Sri Morarji Desai designated the second
Backward Classes commission u/a 340 of the Constitution to research the SEBCs inside the
region of India and prescribe ventures to be taken for their progressions. The commission
presents its report in December 1980 and recognized 3743 stations as socially and instructively
in backward classes and prescribe a booking for their 27 % Government employments for them.
Due to inward disagreements, Janta Government fallen and Congress party headed by PM Smt.
Indira Gandhi came to control at the middle. The Congress government didn't execute the
commission report till 1989. In 1989 the Congress party vanquished and Janta government again
came to control and issued Office Memoranda to execute the commission report as it guaranteed
to the electorate. In the wake of passing this reminder tossed the country into unrest and a rough
hostile to reservation development shook the country for three months bringing about
tremendous loss of people and property.
Issues:
Whether the classification is based on the caste or economic basis?
Whether the Article 16 (4) is exception of article 16 (1) or not?
Whether in Article 16 (4) backward classes are similiar as SEBCS in Article 15 (4) or not?
Would making “any provision” under Article 16(4) for reservation “by the state” necessarily
have to be by law made by the legislatures of the state or by law made by parliament? Or could
such provisions be made by an executive order?

Application of the maxim:

Generally, it begins with a presumption in favour of constitutionality and prefers a construction
that keeps the statute within the legislature's authority. It should be remembered, however, that if
the presumption of constitutionality fails, the statutes will not be deemed effective or operative.
The state legislation was struck down by the Supreme Court as being in violation of the
constitution and exceeding the legislative competence.