Defining Legal Maxims:

• In literary terms, a legal maxim is a very concise expression more like a term of
any fundamental rule or principle. It is often pedagogical and often relates to
some specific actions.
• Each legal maxim is the concise form of a big definition and each of them came
from a different source or case laws. Most of the Latin Maxims originate from
the medieval era in the European states where Latin was the language of
preference for legal purposes.
• Maxims were originally quoted in Latin.The maxims were not written down in an
organized code or enacted by legislatures, but they have been handed down
through the generations of judges.
 These are an established principle or proposition. A principle of law
universally admitted as being just and consonant with reason. They
are principles and authorities, and part of the general customs or
common law of the land; and are of the same strength as acts of
parliament.
 Oxford Dictionary, “…..any simple and memorable rule or guide for
living;….”
 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, “An established principle or proposition. A
principle of law universally admitted, as being just and consonant
with reason.”
1. Actus Non- facit Reum Nisimen Sit Rea:
Meaning: An act does not make one guilty unless there is a guilty
intention.
Origin: Latin.
Explanation: This maxim is a cardinal doctrine of the criminal
Law. It explains, for any act to be illegal in nature it must be done with a
guilty mind. Thus to convict the defendant, it must be proved that the
criminal act was carried out with a criminal intend. The two basic components
of criminal law are Actus Reus and Mens Rea. Actus Reus is the wrongful act
committed and Mens Rea is the state of mind behind such acts. Not only is the
act of the accused important but the intention of the accused to do the
specific act is equally important to prove the guilt of the accused. Thus it can
be concluded that mere commission of a criminal act or breach of law is not
sufficient to constitute a crime. It should be combined with the presence of
wrongful intent.
• Further the mens rea is important to understand the severity of the
crime committed. This maxim is established to differentiate between
intentional and unintentional criminal act so that the quantum of
punishment can be decided accordingly The essential ingredient is the
blameworthy condition of the mind. Its absence can negate the
liability

• 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.
• In simple words, 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 defence 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 categorised 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.
• Case Law:
• In R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State Of Kerala [1] 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”.

1. R. Balakrishna Pillai V. State Of Kerala, Criminal Appeal No. 372

of 2001
• Also in the case of Capt. Abdul Sattar Ahmed Pagarkar v. R.H.
Mendsonsa, Commissioner of Police[2] the maxim
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea was explored. It stated that the
intention behind the acts is to be understood. In the present case all
the offences which were in question needed existence of an intention
to commit an offence with dishonesty. These have to be dishonest
intention of causing wrongful loss to the person aggrieved and
wrongful gain to person who is to be the target of the investigation.

2. Capt. Abdul Sattar Ahmed Pagarkar V. R.H. Mendsonsa,

Commissioner of Police, 2003 CriLJ 3790
• However in the case of Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra [3] the
Supreme Court held that “We do not accept the argument that the
prosecution must prove that the person who sells or keeps for sale any
obscene object knows that it is obscene before he can be adjudged guilty.”
Thus the mens rea is not considered as important as the act committed. If
the person is found having obscene material in his possession then he will
be liable under sec 292 of IPC. His intention or knowledge about the
obscene material need not be proved.

3. Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, 1965 AIR 881

Refer:
4. State of Maharashtra v. Mayor Hans George – AIR 1965, SC 722.
2. Actio – Personalis Moritur Cum Persona
Meaning: A personal right of action dies with the person.
Origin: Latin
Explanation: This is a well Known maxim in the law of tort. It relates to
the extinction of liability of a person at his death. According to this maxim, rights of
action arising out of tort are destroyed by the death of the person injured or
injuring.
However, in due course of time, the rule was reversed by the Law Reformed
(Misc. Provs.) Act, 1934, and it remained applicable only to actions for defamation,
seduction, enticement of a spouse, and claims for damages for adultery.
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”.
Cases involving determination of liabilities of the parties arising as a result
of breach of contractual duties, a personal right to action does not die with the
person. Their legal representative or authorized attorney can file suit for specific
performance and claim damages.
CASE LAW:

• In the case of Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v.

Raman Bhai Prabhat Bhai, 1987 (3) SCC 234, wherein due to
negligence on the part of the petitioner’s driver, a boy aged 14 years
was crushed to death. The Brothers of the deceased boy filed suit
claiming compensation. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal passed an
award of compensation which was affirmed by the High court and by
the Apex court. The court held the contention of the compensation
that the right of personal action dies with the person is no more
recognized rule of law. Hence, the corporation is liable to pay
compensation to the deceased brother.
• The Supreme Court of India in Girja Nandini v Bijendra Narain
Choudhury (1967 AIR 1124, 1967 SCR (1) 93) referred to the
above maxim and held that “a personal action dies with the
person has a limited application”. It operates in a limited class of
actions ex delicto (arises out of a tort) such as actions for
damages for defamation, assault or other personal injuries not
causing the death of the party, and in other actions where after
the death of the party the relief granted could not be enjoyed or
granting it would be nugatory.
• The Bombay High Court in Khuzemabhai Syedna v. Mufaddal
Burhanuddin Saifuddin, (2017 (3) ABR 203 , (2017) 3 BOM CR
322) held that the maxim ‘actio personalis moritur cum persona’
though part of English Common Law has been subjected to criticism
even in England. It has been dubbed as an unjust maxim, obscure in
its origin, inaccurate in its expression and uncertain in its application.
It has often caused grave injustice.
• Refer:
• Supreme Bank v P.A Tendulkar (AIR 1973, SC 1140)
• Sec. 306 of Indian Succession Act 1925
• Fatal Accident Act 1855
• Motor Vehicle Act 1939
3. De Minimis non Curat Lex
 Meaning: The law does not concern itself with trifles; expression of the rule
that the law will not remedy an injury that is minimal.
 Origin: Latin
 Explanation: A legal doctrine by which a court refuses to consider trifling
things. In a lawsuit, the de minimis doctrine is applied by a court to avoid
resolving trivial matters that are not worthy of judicial scrutiny.
 As per this Maxim rationale citizens would deem an appeal for trivial matters
an utter waste of time and resources. It will bring the judicial system into
disrepute.
 In Dhingra Mechanical Work V. Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP, Lucknow
(1971) Allahabad High Court held that “ it does not take notice of trifles”
  Sec. 95 of IPC reads: “Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it
is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that
harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain
of such harm”.

• Illustration
• A promised B they’ll go watch a movie together on Sunday. A did not appear at
the theatres, however, B suffered mental trauma and agony. B sued A for
damages. The court will dismiss B’s appeal here because the law does not take
into account trivial issues.
• X drives at a high speed along a dusty road and his motor wheels throw a little
dust on Y, a pedestrian’s clothes. Here X, on the basis of the maxim de minimis
non curat lex, is not liable for the tort as the matter is trivial in nature.
• Case Law:
• In the leading case of Coward v. Baddeley, 1859, A bystander touched a fireman
on the arm to draw his attention to another part of a building in which a fire
raged. On a suit filed for battery by the fireman, the court held that on the basis
of maxim de minimis non curat lex, the by-stander was not liable for battery.
4. Audi alteram partem
Meaning: Hear the other party or no man should be condemned unheard.
Origin: Latin
Explanation: This maxim is based on the principle of natural justice and fair
play, and is followed in judicial hearing. Natural justice is the concept of common
law which implies fairness, reasonableness, equality and equity. This doctrine
states the no one shall be condemned unheard. Under this doctrine, both the
parties have the right to speak. 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. In other words a party cannot be left to undergo any degree of
punishment without an opportunity of being heard. This is considered to be a
principle of fundamental justice or equity. For any judgement to be legally valid it
should be passed after giving both the parties the right to defend themselves
• This maxim includes two elements:
(i) Notice: notice of the case to be met, and
All the effected parties must be given a notice before the proceedings takes
place. The notice is given to make the parties aware of the facts and issues
in the case that is going to be adjudicated. This is done in order to give the
parties sufficient amount of time in order to prepare for their defence.
(ii) Hearing: opportunity to explain
The second facet of audi alteram partem is the rule of hearing. He parties
should be allowed to represent themselves and state the facts in
accordance to their understanding. They should be heard by the court of
law.
• CASE LAW:

• The Supreme Court in N.K Prasad V. Government of India (2004 (6) SCC 299) held
“..the rule of audi-alteram partem cannot be put into a straight jacket formula. Its
application will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Hence, if a
contesting party after having proper notice choose not to appear that party at
later stages cannot be permitted to say that he was not given a proper
opportunity of being heard ”
• In Suresh Koshy George v. The University of Kerala and Others [1] it was observed
that the aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it
negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas
not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law
of the land but supplement it. The concept of natural justice has undergone a
great deal of change in recent years. In the past it was thought that it included
just two rules namely : (1) no one shall be a judge in his own case and (2) no
decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing
(audi alteram partem).
• Refer:
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978, SC5597.

1. Suresh Koshy George v. The University of Kerala, AIR 1969 SC 198

5. Delegatus Non- Potest Delegare
 Meaning: A delegated authority cannot be further delegated.
 Origin: Latin
• Explanation: This is a principle of constitutional and administrative law. It
means, 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. The purpose behind is, one who has the
power or authority from another person to do an act must do it himself or herself
as this is an eligibility and trust 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.
 Section 190 of the Contract Act 1872, is based on this legal maxim.
 Exceptions:
 Where the nature of the business requires delegation,
 In commercial traditions, e.g, Architect-surveyor, and
 Consent of principal
• Illustration
• ‘A’ has been authorised to execute a will upon the death of the testator. Now ‘A’
cannot delegate the power to another person to divide the property amongst the
heirs when the testator had appointed the authority to execute the will to ‘A’. If
he does so, he will be delegating an authority which was already delegated to
him. Here ‘A’ cannot sub-delegate his authority as “Delegatus non potest
delegare” applies.
• CASE LAW:
• A.K. Roy and anr. v. State of Punjab and anr.[1] 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.

• 1. 1986 AIR 2160, 1986 SCR (3) 961

6. Ex Nudo Pacto Non Oritur Action
Meaning: No cause of action arises from a bare promise or
agreement.
Origin: Latin
Explanation: The general meaning of the above maxim is that no right of
action arises from a contract entered into without consideration. It is one of the
most essential elements for the formation of a contract. It means something in
return. Consideration is based on ‘Quid Pro Quo’, which in its literal sense means
‘something for something’. Such consideration makes both the parties to the
contract or agreement to oblige in doing something or abstains from doing
something as per the wish or desire of the other.
• Consideration is a necessity under English Law as well as Indian Law for entering
into contracts. Almost every contract requires consideration except a deed. To
render any contract as binding, consideration is a necessary element
• Consideration can be anything which holds some value in the eyes of law. The
examples of different kinds of consideration can be – goods, money, services, or
promise.
• Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 –“Agreement without consideration,
is void, unless it is in writing and registered or is a promise to compensate for
something done or is a promise to pay a debt barred by limitation law”.

• Refer: Section 2 (d) Indian Contract Act 1872,

Illustration:
• A and B make a contract with each other regarding the sale of house. A sold his
house to B on a consideration amount of 50 Lakhs. In such a contract for the sale
of a house, the house is a consideration for one party and the amount paid in
return is the consideration for the other party
Case Law:
• Justice Heath in Lee V. Muggerie (1813, 128, ER 599) ruled that, “ promises
without consideration are not enforceable, because such promises are
gratuitous”.
7. Ubi jus, ibi remedium
Meaning: where there is a right there is a remedy.
Origin: Latin
Explanation: ‘Jus’ means “the legal authority to do or demand something”
‘remedium’- “the right of action in a Court of law”
The well-known Latin maxim Ubi jus, ibi remedium – meaning ‘where there
is a right, there is a remedy’, postulates that where law has established a right there
should be a corresponding remedy for its breach. The right to a remedy is one of
the fundamental rights historically recognized in all legal systems.
 The principle that rights must have remedies is ancient and venerable.
Remedies, thus, are an institutional guarantee that an obligation will be
observed and enforced. The primary function of ‘remedies’ in any legal
system is to redress the illegality and act as a credible threat against
potential violators. The credibility of any legal system thus, depends on the
efficacy of its remedial mechanisms through which rights and obligations
are upheld. Therefore, every legal system, whether domestic or
international, provides for a remedial mechanism to implement rights and
obligations
 Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison [1] observed, “it is a
general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is
also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is
invaded….”
 Refer : Ashby V. White (1703 (3)WLR 364)
• 8. Ignorantia facti excusat, ignorantia Juris non excusat :
Meaning:“Ignorance of facts excuses but ignorance of the law
does not excuse.
Origin: Latin
Explanation: Any act done under a mistaken impression of a
material fact is excused. Acts and contracts made under a mistake or an
ignorance of a material fact are voidable. However ignorance of law is not an
excuse.
• The rationale of the doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, a person
charged with criminal offenses or a subject of a civil lawsuit would merely claim
that one was unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even if that person
really does know what the law in question is. Thus, the law imputes knowledge of
all laws to all persons within the jurisdiction no matter how transiently. Even
though it would be impossible, even for someone with substantial legal training,
to be aware of every law in operation in every aspect of a state's activities, this is
the price paid to ensure that wilful blindness cannot become the basis of
exculpation. Thus, it is well settled that persons engaged in any undertakings
outside what is common for a normal person will make themselves aware of the
laws necessary to engage in that undertaking. If they do not, they cannot
complain if they incur liability.
• Illustration:
• In criminal cases this maxim applies, as if a man should think he has a right to kill
a person excommunicated or outlawed wherever he meets him and does so, this
is murder. But a mistake of fact is an excuse, as where a man, intending to kill a
thief or house-breaker in his own house, by mistake kills one of his own family,
this is no criminal action.
Source:
1. http://lawtimesjournal.in
2. http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/explore.html
3. http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-46
4. Herbert Broom (1845), Legal Maxims, 13th edition (2013), Universal Law
Publishing, India