1.

Audi Alteram Partem:

The literal meaning of Audi Alteram Partem is to “hear the other side”. / No man shall be
condemned unheard.
 It denotes that every party shall get an opportunity of hearing, to plead and assert evidence to
support his case.
 This ensures a fair hearing and fair justice to both the parties.
 No decision can be declared without hearing both the parties. The aim of this principle is to give an
opportunity to both the parties to defend themselves.
 The doctrine is the basic concept of the principle of natural justice.
Key components of this doctrine:
 Notice:
o Before any action is taken, the affected party must be given a notice to show cause against the
proposed action and seek his explanation.
o A notice must contain the time, place and date of hearing, jurisdiction under which the case is filed,
the charges, and proposed action against the person.
o Any order passed without giving notice is against the principles of natural justice and is void.

Maneka Gandhi v Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597

This writ petition was filed by the petitioner journalist whose passport was seized by authorities under
the Passport Act, “in public interest”, without giving her a hearing and also without furnishing her the
reasons for passing such an order. The Supreme Court held that the impugned order was clearly in
violation of the rule of natural justice embodied in the maxim audi alteram partem.

2. ACTA EXTERIORA INDICANT INTERIORA SECRETA

“Acta Exteriora” means the outward acts or what we do, “indicant” means indicate, and “Interiora
Secreta” means the inward secret.
It simply means that external acts indicate the secret within the intent. (means that the outward acts
indicate the thoughts, which are hidden within.)
This maxim denotes that people behave according to their intentions and what follows via the actions is
a natural consequence.
Law judges not what is in a person’s mind, a person’s inner intensions are to be read and understood
from his act and omissions, taken as a whole, whenever a person’s state of mind is relevant, ‘external
actions reveals inner secrets’ comes in play Section 15 of the evidence act.
For example – when someone intends to hurt anyone, he will be acting upon that intention by means of
shouting at that person or slapping or punching. Thus, certainly, the act shows the original intension of
the person. This maxim deals with intent which is crucial in criminal law as well as civil law.

Elias v. Pasmore (1934) 2 K.B. 164

In order to effect the arrest of a person, the defendant, who was police officer, entered the plaintiff’s
premises. Whilst there, he seized and carried away documents found on the premises. Amongst the
documents, there were some which constituted evidence at the trial of the person who was arrested, but
there were others which did not so constitute, and these were subsequently returned. In an action for
trespass, it was held that the defendant was a trespasser ab initio only as regards document that were
seized and returned, but was not liable for any changes on the premises for the purpose of the arrest.
2.Caveat Emptor
The doctrine of Caveat Emptor is an integral part of the Sale of Goods Act. It translates to “let the buyer
beware”. This means it lays the responsibility of their choice on the buyer themselves.
A seller makes his goods available in the open market. The buyer previews all his options and then
accordingly makes his choice. Now let’s assume that the product turns out to be defective or of
inferior quality. This doctrine says that the seller will not be responsible for this. The buyer himself is
responsible for the choice he made.
It is the duty of the buyer to check the quality and the usefulness of the product he is purchasing. If the
product turns out to be defective or does not live up to its potential the seller will not be responsible for this.
Example. A bought a horse from B. A wanted to enter the horse in a race. Turns out the horse was not
capable of running a race on account of being lame. But A did not inform B of his intentions. So B will not
be responsible for the defects of the horse. The Doctrine of Caveat Emptor will apply.
Priest v. Last (1903) 2 K.B. 148
In this case, the plaintiff went to a shop and asked for a hot water bottle which he required for his wife.
The defendant sold a rubber bottle to him. Telling that it would stand hot, but not boiling water. When
the plaintiff went home and filled it with hot water, the bottle burst and his wife was injured. The court
held that the defendant was liable, as there was an implied condition that the rubber bottle would be fit
for the purpose for which it was meant to be used.

4.. SALUS POPULI EST SUPREMA LEX :

The health of the people is the supreme law.
"The health [welfare, good, salvation, felicity] of the people should be the supreme law"; "Let the good
[or safety] of the people be the supreme [or highest] law"; [1] or "The welfare of the people shall be the
supreme law") In cases of necessity yield (uplabdh karun dene) to the welfare of the community an
individual’s property and liberty may be placed in jeopardy (danger) or even sacrificed.

Taylor v whitehead 2 Dougl 745

It was held in this English case that if a highway is under repairs, a person can lawfully go over the
adjoining private land of a person, since it is for the paramount public good that there should be, at all
times, free passage through the highways for all subject of the realm.

5.UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM

There is no wrong without a remedy.
This Latin maxim which meanAs that wherever there is a right, there is remedy. It consists of two main
ingredients of the doctrine jus and remedium. Where 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.

Everyone in the vicinity has the right to have a good legal remedy by the competent national tribunals
for the acts which violate your fundamental rights and human rights which are granted to him by the
constitution or by any law in the vicinity.

Ashby V. White (1703) 2 Raym Ld. 938

In leading English case, the defendant, a returning officer at a voting booth, wrongfully and maliciously
refused to register a duly tendered vote of the plaintiff who was a qualified voter, the candidate for
whom the vote was sought to be tendered was, however, elected and no actual loss was suffered by the
rejection of the plaintiff’s vote. The court held that the plaintiff had a right to vote and this legal right
was violated by the defendant. He would, therefore, have a remedy at law. The plea that the rejection of
the vote did not result in an injury was not allowed as a defence.

6.Noscitur a sociis
Noscitur a sociis is a legal maxim which is used to clear the doubtful words written in the statute so as to
find the clear meaning of the word.
This is a rule that says when we are not sure what a word means, we can look at the words around it to
help us understand. It's like when we don't know a word in a sentence, we can guess what it means by
looking at the other words in the sentence. This rule is used when we are trying to understand the
meaning of a law or rule.
R. V. Harris (1836) 7 C. & P. 446
In this case, where an Act made it an offence to shoot at or to stab, cut or wound any person, the court
held that the word “wound” would be restricted, on account of the proceeding words (namely, “stab”
and “cut”) to injuries inflicted by an instrument and would not cover biting off someone’s finger or nose
or burning someone’s face with acid.

7.ACTUS DEI NEMINI FACIT INJURIAM

The law holds no man responsible for an act of God.
actus means act
dei means god
nemini means kind of no.
So the basic meaning is "no one resposible when something (wrong) is done by god (nature) e.g.
extreme storm, or big rainfall, tsunami etc and because of someone injured by nature then no one will go
to jail.
Illustration: suppose extreme storm came and your car goes in the air and drop on somebody's house.
And his house is broken then he can't sue you. And if he will then the judge will say it was act of god or
actus dei nemini facit injuriam.

Tunda v. Rex 1950 Cr. Lj. 402 (All. HC)

The accused and the deceased were friends who were wrestling fans and were engaged in a wrestling
bout. While wrestling, the deceased’s head accidentally came in contact with a concrete platform
resulting in injuries to the skull and eventual death. The accused was tried under section 304 but later on
convicted under section 304A. He preferred an appeal to the Allahabad High Court, which held that
when the accused and deceased agree to wrestle with each other, there was an implied consent on each
part to suffer any accidental injuries. The injury was accidental and there was no foul play on part of the
accused and hence is to be given the benefit under section 80 and section 87.

8. CESSANTE RATIONE CESSAT LEX : when the reason for a law ceases, the law itself ceases
Shivsagar Veg Restaurant V. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
9. Ignoranita facti excusat : ignoranita juris non excusat

Ignorantia Facti Excusat

“Ignorantia Facti Excusat” means that ignorance of fact is an excuse. This principle provides a defence
for individuals who may have caused harm due to a lack of knowledge or information. For example, if a
person was driving a car and accidentally hit a pedestrian who suddenly ran onto the road, the driver
may be able to use “Ignorantia Facti Excusat” as a defence if they can prove that they did not see the
pedestrian and could not have avoided the accident.
FACT: George was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the airport
at Bombay on 28th November, 1962 it was found on search that George carried 34kgs of gold bars in person
and that he had not declared it in the 'Manifest for transit'. On 26th November, 1962 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.
In the above situation George ought to be aware about the law.It is true that he will be prosecuted as
ignorance of law is not excusable.

Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat

“Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat” means that ignorance of the law is no excuse. This principle places the
responsibility on individuals to know and follow the law, regardless of whether they were aware of the
law or not. In other words, a person cannot avoid liability by claiming that they did not know the law.
Motilal Padampat Mills Ltd V State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1979) 118 ITR 326(SC). The Hon
Court observed as follows:
“It must be remembered that there is no presumption that every person knows the law. It is often said
that everyone is presumed to know the law, but that is not a correct statement: there is no such maxim
known to the law.”
So the Hon court in very clear terms has stated the law. There is no room for doubt. In a case decided by
the Hon Supreme court the judges openly admitted that they have never heard of the law which was
stated to have been violated by an illiterate person in a remote village. Therefore, the Hon court
acquitted the person charged for violating that law. India did not bluntly apply the maxim.
10.Vigilantibus, non domientibus, jura subveniunt
The law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights.
It means that those who are careless with their rights cannot be assisted by law. For one to claim to take
advantage of his/her right they need to be watchful of those rights too.
One person who decides to maintain his/her silence during the statutory period, after the statutory period
they cannot claim enforcement of the rights. / In order to claim one's right, she/he must be watchful of
his/her right. Only those persons, who are watchful and careful of using his/her rights, are entitled to the
benefits of law. Law confers rights on persons who are vigilant of their rights.
Riajendra Singh v. Santa Singh, (1973) 2 SCC705
The apex court held that, applying the maxim “vigilantibus etnon dormientibus jura subveniunt” means
the laws come for the rescue of those who are vigilant but not sleepy.

10.Volenti non fit injuria

Damage suffered by consent is not a cause of action.
is Latin for “to a willing person, it is not a wrong.” This legal maxim holds that a person who
knowingly and voluntarily risks danger cannot recover for any resulting injury. This principle was
the common-law basis for the assumption of the risk doctrine.
(which states that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result,
knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other
party)
Haynes v. Harwood (1935) 1 K.B. 146
The defendant’s horses, negligently left unattended in a crowded street, bolted when a boy threw a
stone at them. The plaintiff, a constable on duty inside a police station, seeing that persons were in
grave danger, ran out to stop the horses, and was severely injured in doing so. It was held that he was
entitled to recover compensation. The defendant was negligent in keeping the carriage unattended in
public street. Therefore, the defence of voluntarily incurring the risk would not be open to him. He
could have foreseen the consequences.
In the case of Hall v. Brookland (1932) All E.R. Rep 208, the plaintiff went to see a car race in
which two cars collided with each other and as a result of the collision, the plaintiff who was sitting
as an audience was also injured when one of the cars flew into the audience. Here the defence of
volenti non fit injuria was applied because the plaintiff had given his consent to such a risk by going
to the race.