| Ubi jus ibi remedium (Where there is a right, there is a remedy) | Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1 | Right to register FIR when a cognizable offence is reported; remedy must follow when a right is infringed. |
| Audi alteram partem (Hear the other side) | Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 | Government action affecting fundamental rights must follow principles of natural justice, including fair hearing. |
| Nemo judex in causa sua (No one should be a judge in their own cause) | A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262 | Decision-making process must be free of bias; no one can decide a case where they have personal interest. |
| Res ipsa loquitur (The thing speaks for itself) | Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti (1966) AIR SC 1750 | Collapse of municipal clock tower: the mere occurrence of such an accident indicates negligence without direct evidence. |
| Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (An act alone doesn’t make one guilty without a guilty mind) | State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (1965) AIR SC 722 | Criminal liability generally requires both act (actus reus) and guilty mind (mens rea), unless strict liability applies. |
| Volenti non fit injuria (To a willing person, no injury is done) | (Based on common law, applied in India; e.g., sports injury cases) | When someone voluntarily accepts a risk (e.g., spectator at a dangerous event), they can’t later claim damages for injury from that risk. |
| Ignorantia juris non excusat (Ignorance of law is no excuse) | M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case) (1987) 1 SCC 395 | Industries handling hazardous materials have strict liability; they can’t escape liability by claiming they didn’t know the law. |
| Qui facit per alium facit per se (He who acts through another does the act himself) | State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Shekhu & Ors. (2004) 12 SCC 211 | A principal (or employer) is liable for the authorized acts of their agent or employee. |
| Salus populi suprema lex (Welfare of the people is the supreme law) | K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 | Public welfare can justify reasonable restrictions on rights like privacy; balance between individual rights and public interest. |
| Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (Express mention of one excludes others) | B. Shama Rao v. UT of Pondicherry (1967) AIR SC 1480 | When the law explicitly lists certain cases, it is implied that others are excluded; used in statutory interpretation. |
No comments:
Post a Comment