1. Ab Initio – From the beginning

• Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875) LR 7 HL 653)
  – A contract beyond the company’s object clause (ultra vires) is void ab initio.
• Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224)
  – Void marriages under Hindu Marriage Act are null ab initio.

2. Actionable per se – The very act is punishable, no proof of damage is required

• Ashby v. White (1703) 2 Ld Raym 938
  – Wrongful denial of the right to vote is actionable per se.
• Bhagwan Das v. Girja Shankar (2002) 3 SCC 570
  – Defamation is actionable per se, no proof of actual damage required.

3. Actio personalis moritur cum persona – A personal right of action dies with the person

• Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary (AIR 1967 SC 1124)
  – Maxim applied: personal actions like defamation, assault, etc. die with the person.
• Cotton v. Heywood (1860) 139 ER 611
  – The right to sue in a tort of personal nature dies with the party.

4. Actori incumbit onus probandi – The burden of proof is on the plaintiff

• Addagada Raghavamma v. Addagada Chenchamma (AIR 1964 SC 136)
  – Burden of proof lies on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative.
• A. Raghavamma v. A. Chenchamma (1964) 2 SCR 933
  – Same principle reaffirmed.

5. Actus me invito factus non est mens actus – An act done by me against my will is not my act

• R. v. Larsonneur (1933) 24 Cr App R 74
  – Illustrates the exception (strict liability), where the defendant’s involuntary act still led to liability.
• State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005) 8 SCC 534
  – Principle discussed in context of compulsion vs. voluntary act.

6. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea – An act does not make one guilty unless accompanied by a guilty mind

• State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (AIR 1965 SC 722)
  – Mens rea is not always necessary where the statute creates strict liability.
• R v. Prince (1875) LR 2 CCR 154
  – Mens rea requirement discussed; conviction without knowledge of age.

7. Actus reus – Guilty act

• Om Prakash v. State of Punjab (1961 AIR 1782)
  – Both actus reus and mens rea must be present for criminal liability.
• Sherras v. De Rutzen (1895) 1 QB 918
  – Distinguished offences requiring actus reus + mens rea.

8. Actus Reus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea – No crime without guilty mind

• M.H. George v. State of Maharashtra (1965 AIR 722)
  – Mens rea is essential unless expressly excluded by statute.
• Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1966 SC 43)
  – Honest mistake of fact negates mens rea.

9. Ad hoc – For the particular end or case at hand

• Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association (2010) 11 SCC 1
  – Ad hoc tribunals and appointments examined.
• S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 124
  – Ad hoc arrangements in tribunals challenged under judicial review.

10. Alibi – At another place, elsewhere

• Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (1997) 1 SCC 283
  – Burden to prove alibi lies on the accused under Section 103 Evidence Act.
• Sk. Sattar v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 8 SCC 430
  – Alibi must be proved with certainty to exclude possibility of presence at crime scene.

11. Amicus Curiae – A friend of court

• Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983) 2 SCC 96
  – Court appointed amicus curiae to assist in matter relating to custodial violence.
• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India (2016) 5 SCC 1 (NJAC case)
  – Several amici curiae were appointed to aid the Constitution Bench.

12. Ante Litem Motam – Before a lawsuit is brought

• Rai Chand Jain v. Miss Chandra Kanta Khosla (AIR 1991 SC 744)
  – Ante litem motam declarations have higher evidentiary value in family and pedigree matters.
• Monir’s Law of Evidence cited English authorities (e.g., R v. Eriswell, 1790), recognizing the rule of pedigree declarations ante litem motam.

13. Assentio mentium – Meeting of minds

• Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas (AIR 1966 SC 543)
  – Consensus ad idem (meeting of minds) essential for valid contract.
• Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893) 1 QB 256
  – Acceptance and meeting of minds established through conduct.

14. Audi alteram partem – No man shall be condemned unheard

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
  – Landmark case affirming right to be heard before impounding passport.
• Ridge v. Baldwin (1964 AC 40) (UK)
  – Dismissal without hearing violated principles of natural justice.

15. Bona fide – In good faith

• Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley (1956) 1 QB 702
  – Fraud vitiates even bona fide acts.
• Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran (1995) 5 SCC 518
  – Appointments obtained by fraud cannot be protected on ground of bona fide belief.

16. Bona vacantia – Goods without an owner

• Khajamian Wakf Estates v. State of Madras (1970) 3 SCC 894
  – Property without a rightful owner vests in the State as bona vacantia.
• Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jayantilal Amratlal (AIR 1968 SC 700)
  – State entitled to property bona vacantia in absence of legal heirs.

17. Boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem – Duty of a good judge to enlarge remedial authority

• K.K. Kochuni v. State of Madras (AIR 1960 SC 1080)
  – Court expanded interpretation to provide effective remedy.
• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981 Supp SCC 87)
  – Principle reflected in liberal interpretation of locus standi in PIL.

18. Caveat – Caution registered in court

• Nirmal Chand v. Girindra Narayan (AIR 1978 SC 53)
  – Purpose of caveat under Section 148A CPC explained.
• Kattil Vayalil Parkkum Koiloth v. Mannil Paadikayil Kadeesa Umma (AIR 1991 Ker 411)
  – Court explained caveator’s right to notice before any interim order.

19. Caveat actor – Let the doer beware

• Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932 AC 562) (UK)
  – Duty of care doctrine; manufacturer must beware of acts causing harm.
• Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills (1936 AC 85)
  – Applied principle that one who does an act must ensure it causes no harm.

20. Caveat emptor – Let the buyer beware

• Ward v. Hobbs (1878) 4 AC 13 (UK)
  – Purchaser bought diseased pigs, rule of caveat emptor applied.
• Kailash Nath Associates v. DDA (2015) 4 SCC 136)
  – Caveat emptor cannot protect against fraud/misrepresentation.
• State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (AIR 1952 SC 252)
  – Court clarified limits of caveat emptor under Indian law.

21. Caveat venditor – Let the seller beware

• Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979) 2 SCC 409
  – Seller/government cannot go back on representation made to buyer (promissory estoppel, seller beware).
• Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills (1936 AC 85)
  – Seller is responsible for latent defects not disclosed.

22. Certiorari – Writ quashing orders of inferior courts/tribunals

• T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa (AIR 1954 SC 440)
  – Nature and scope of certiorari explained.
• Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan (AIR 1964 SC 477)
  – Writ of certiorari lies to correct jurisdictional errors of inferior tribunals.

23. Communis hostis omnium – Common enemy of all

• MV Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. (1993) Supp (2) SCC 433
  – Pirates considered as communis hostis omnium.
• United States v. Smith (1820) 18 US (5 Wheat) 153 (US SC)
  – Piracy declared crime against all nations.

24. Corpus – Body

• Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494
  – In context of habeas corpus, prisoner’s body and rights protected.
• ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521
  – Habeas corpus suspension during Emergency discussed.

25. Corpus delicti – Facts constituting a crime

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622)
  – Circumstantial evidence must prove corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt.
• R v. Onufrejczyk (1955) 1 QB 388 (UK)
  – Conviction for murder possible even without discovery of dead body, if corpus delicti otherwise proved.

26. Crimen trahit personam – Crime follows the person (Interterritorial Jurisdiction, IPC § 2)

• Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. State of Bombay (AIR 1957 SC 857)
  – Indian Penal Code applies to foreigners committing offence affecting India.
• Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India (1993) 3 SCC 609
  – Criminal conspiracy with part of offence in India attracts IPC jurisdiction.

27. Damnum sine injuria – Damage without legal injury

• Gloucester Grammar School Case (1410) YB 11 Hen IV, 47
  – Loss without violation of legal right is not actionable.
• Municipal Corporation of Bombay v. Govind Laxman (AIR 1965 SC 425)
  – Mere loss not sufficient unless legal right violated.

28. De facto – In fact

• Gokaraju Rangaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1981 SC 1473)
  – De facto doctrine protects actions of a judge who acted under color of authority.
• R v. Speyer (1916) 1 KB 595 (UK)
  – Actions of de facto public officers are valid in law.

29. De jure – By law

• Gokaraju Rangaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1981 AIR 1473)
  – Distinction between de jure judge (lawful) and de facto judge (factually in office).
• State of Karnataka v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 68)
  – De jure powers of Union over States interpreted.

30. De minimis – About minimal things

• State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani (2003) 7 SCC 291
  – De minimis principle applied where trivial offences don’t warrant prosecution.
• Jivabhai Purshottam v. Chhagan Karson (AIR 1961 SC 1491)
  – Minor irregularities ignored under de minimis rule.

31. De Minimis Non Curat Lex – Law does not care for trifles (IPC § 95)

• State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani (2003) 7 SCC 291
  – Applied the de minimis principle to trivial acts not warranting prosecution.
• Veeda Menezes v. Yusuf Khan (AIR 1966 SC 1773)
  – Law ignores small or insignificant harm where no real injury caused.

32. De novo – Anew, afresh

• K. Ajit Babu v. Union of India (1997) 6 SCC 473
  – Tribunal directed to hear the case de novo.
• R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad v. Settlement Commission (1989) 1 SCC 628
  – Orders remanded for de novo consideration.

33. Dictum – Obiter dictum (not binding but persuasive)

• Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur (1989) 1 SCC 101
  – Obiter dicta not binding precedent.
• Mohandas Issardas v. A.N. Sattanathan (AIR 1955 Bom 113)
  – Dicta distinguished from binding ratio decidendi.

34. Doli capax – Capable of criminal intent

• Ulla Mahapatra v. Emperor (AIR 1933 Pat 542)
  – A child above 7 years but below 12 can be doli capax if proved capable of understanding act.
• R v. Smith (1845) 1 Cox CC 260 (UK)
  – Child above 10 presumed doli capax.

35. Doli incapax – Incapable of crime

• Hiralal Mallick v. State of Bihar (1977) 4 SCC 44
  – Children below 7 years are doli incapax under IPC § 82; between 7–12, rebuttable presumption applies (IPC § 83).
• R v. Lowe (1839) 4 St Tr (NS) 200 (UK)
  – Under 7 years, child conclusively presumed incapable of crime.

36. Detinue – Wrongful detention of goods

• K.K. Dewan v. District Judge, Chandigarh (AIR 1993 P&H 59)
  – Recognized detinue as tort distinct from conversion.
• General and Finance Facilities Ltd. v. Cooks Cars (Romford) Ltd. (1963) 1 WLR 644 (UK)
  – Leading case on detinue, wrongful detention of goods.

37. Donatio mortis causa – Gift in contemplation of death

• Staniland v. Willott (1852) 3 Mac & G 664 (UK)
  – Essentials of donatio mortis causa explained.
• Kaliaperumal v. Rajagopal (2009) 4 SCC 193
  – Indian Supreme Court recognized conditional gift in expectation of death.

38. Estoppel – Prevented from denying

• B.L. Sreedhar v. K.M. Munireddy (2003) 2 SCC 355
  – Estoppel prevents a party from resiling from admission.
• Pickard v. Sears (1837) 6 A & E 469 (UK)
  – Classic case laying down estoppel principle.

39. Ex gratia – As a favour, not enforceable in law

• SBI v. Anju Jain (2008) 8 SCC 475
  – Ex gratia payment is discretionary, not a legal right.
• State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334
  – Recovery of excess ex gratia payments not allowed in equity

40. Ex officio – By virtue of office

• Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010) 11 SCC 1
  – Certain judicial members sit ex officio in tribunals.
• Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992 Supp (2) SCC 651)
  – Speaker acts ex officio while deciding disqualification under Tenth Schedule.

Excellent — let’s complete 41 to 50 with leading case laws (Indian + English) that illustrate these maxims:

41. Ex parte – Proceedings in the absence of the other party

• Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah (AIR 1955 SC 425)
  – Court held ex parte proceedings valid if notice properly served.
• Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar (AIR 1964 SC 993)
  – Remedy available against ex parte orders explained under CPC.

42. Ex post facto – After the fact

• Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab (AIR 1965 SC 444)
  – Beneficial ex post facto laws can apply retrospectively (lighter punishment).
• Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1953 SC 404)
  – Article 20(1) of Indian Constitution prohibits retrospective criminal laws imposing harsher punishment.

43. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus – False in one thing, false in everything

• Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab (2015) 7 SCC 722)
  – Maxim not accepted in India; falsehood in part does not mean entire testimony rejected.
• Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar (AIR 1965 SC 277)
  – Indian courts separate truth from falsehood; whole testimony not discarded.

44. Fatum – Beyond human foresight

• R. v. Hall (1932) 48 TLR 521 (UK)
  – Act of God/fate beyond human foresight recognized in contract and tort.
• Dhanrajamal Gobindram v. Shamji Kalidas (AIR 1961 SC 1285)
  – Doctrine of frustration: unforeseen events beyond human foresight discharge contracts.

45. Factum probandum – Fact to be proved

• Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1952 SC 343)
  – Circumstantial evidence must establish factum probandum (guilt).
• Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (AIR 1973 SC 2773)
  – Burden on prosecution to establish essential factum probandum.

46. Factum probans – Relevant evidentiary fact (Evidence Act, §3)

• Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor (AIR 1939 PC 47)
  – Statements admissible as factum probans in proving relevant fact.
• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622)
  – Distinguished between primary fact (factum probans) and fact in issue (factum probandum).

47. Fraus est celare fraudem – It is fraud to conceal a fraud

• S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1
  – Fraud vitiates all judicial acts; suppression of material facts = fraud on court.
• A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 221
  – Fraud and concealment nullify judicial proceedings.

48. Functus officio – Authority exhausted after decision

• K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat (2000) 6 SCC 195
  – Once authority passes a final order, it becomes functus officio.
• S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka (1993 Supp (4) SCC 595)
  – Functus officio doctrine explained; cannot review final orders except under law.

49. Furiosi nulla voluntas est – No free will in the insane

• Surya Kumar v. State of Bihar (AIR 1974 SC 1560)
  – Mentally unsound persons lack requisite mens rea; IPC §84 applies.
• McNaghten’s Case (1843) 10 Cl & F 200 (UK)
  – Established insanity defence; insane persons lack free will.

50. Furiosus absentis loco est – A madman is like one absent

• Niranjan Singh v. State (AIR 1952 SC 106)
  – Insane person treated as absent in law, incapable of understanding proceedings.
• Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol. IX (1934 ed.)
  – Maxim discussed: insane person considered legally absent, lacking capacity.

51. Furiosis furore suo punitur – A madman is punished by his own madness

• McNaghten’s Case (1843) 10 Cl & Fin 200 (UK HL)
  – Insane persons not criminally liable; their punishment lies in their madness.
• Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1964 SC 1563)
  – Insanity plea under IPC §84, court held that insane persons are excused as they are punished by their condition itself.

52. Furiosis nulla voluntas est – A madman has no will

• Surya Kumar v. State of Bihar (AIR 1974 SC 1560)
  – Insane persons lack free will to commit crime; IPC §84 applies.
• Niranjan Singh v. State (AIR 1952 SC 106)
  – Mentally ill person equated with being absent; no will or capacity to contract/consent.

53. Habeas corpus – You may have the body

• ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521)
  – Habeas corpus suspended during Emergency (later criticised and overruled).
• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1)
  – Overruled ADM Jabalpur; reaffirmed habeas corpus as fundamental right safeguard.
• Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494)
  – Writ issued to protect rights of prisoners.

54. Ignorantia facti excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat – Ignorance of fact is an excuse, ignorance of law is not

• State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (AIR 1965 SC 722)
  – Ignorance of law is not excusable.
• R v. Prince (1875) LR 2 CCR 154 (UK)
  – Ignorance of fact may sometimes excuse, but not ignorance of law.

55. Ignorantia juris non excusat – Ignorance of law excuses no one

• Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of U.P. (1979) 2 SCC 409)
  – Ignorance of law is no defence against obligations.
• Banshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1958 SC 909)
  – Ignorance of criminal law cannot excuse liability.

56. Injuria sine damnum – Violation of legal right without actual damage

• Ashby v. White (1703) 2 Ld Raym 938
  – Denial of voting right actionable without proof of damage.
• Bhim Singh v. State of J&K (AIR 1986 SC 494)
  – Illegal detention of MLA constituted violation of rights; compensation awarded even without pecuniary loss.

57. Ipso facto – By the fact itself

• Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India (1991) Supp (1) SCC 271)
  – Certain consequences follow ipso facto from statutory provisions.
• State of Kerala v. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar (1996) 1 SCC 435)
  – Lease termination ipso facto by operation of law.

58. In promptu – In readiness

• Basant Singh v. Janki Singh (AIR 1967 SC 341)
  – Admissions made in promptu (at once, spontaneously) carry greater evidentiary value.
• Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. (AIR 1952 SC 343)
  – Courts attach weight to evidence given in promptu.

59. In lieu of – Instead of

• K. Narasimha Murthy v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2004) 13 SCC 356)
  – Compensation awarded in lieu of reinstatement.
• Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (2010) 3 SCC 192)
  – Relief granted in lieu of reinstatement considering facts.

60. In personam – Against a person

• Penn v. Lord Baltimore (1750) 1 Ves Sen 444 (UK)
  – Decree in equity acted in personam, not in rem.
• Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Manju Sharma (2009) 6 SCC 379)
  – Decrees like divorce operate in personam, binding only on parties.
• R. Viswanathan v. Rukn-ul-Mulk (AIR 1963 SC 1)
  – Distinction between judgments in rem and in personam explained.

61. Innuendo – Spoken words that are defamatory because they have a double meaning

• T.V. Ramasubba Iyer v. A.M.A. Mohindeen (AIR 1972 SC 459)
  – Defamation may arise through innuendo (hidden/double meaning words).
• Tolley v. J.S. Fry & Sons Ltd. (1931) AC 333 (HL, UK)
  – Cartoon implying amateur golfer endorsed a product was defamatory by innuendo.

62. In status quo – In the present state

• Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. (AIR 1954 SC 44)
  – Court ordered property to remain in status quo pending litigation.
• Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1990) 4 SCC 557
  – Interim orders often direct parties to maintain status quo.

63. Inter alia – Among other things

• Ramchandra Keshav Adke v. Govind Joti Chavare (1975) 1 SCC 559
  – Court observed that powers included inter alia procedural safeguards.
• Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari (2007) 8 SCC 600
  – Legal pleadings often use inter alia to include non-exhaustive grounds.

64. Inter vivos – Between living persons

• CIT v. Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel (1965) 55 ITR 637 (SC)
  – Transfer inter vivos distinguished from testamentary disposition.
• Re Hamilton (deceased) [1958] Ch 370 (UK)
  – Gifts inter vivos vs gifts by will explained.

65. Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium – It is in the interest of the State that there be an end to litigation

• Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi (AIR 1960 SC 941)
  – Basis of doctrine of res judicata; litigation must have finality.
• Daryao v. State of U.P. (AIR 1961 SC 1457)
  – Reiterated principle: endless litigation is against public policy.

66. Jus cogens (Ius cogens) – Compelling law

• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241)
  – International human rights norms (jus cogens) recognised domestically.
• Prosecutor v. Furundžija (1998) ICTY
  – Torture prohibited as jus cogens norm.

67. Jus in personam – Right against a specific person

• Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Manju Sharma (2009) 6 SCC 379)
  – Divorce decrees operate in personam.
• Penn v. Lord Baltimore (1750) 1 Ves Sen 444 (UK)
  – Equitable decrees bind parties personally (in personam).

68. Jus in rem – Right against the world at large

• R. Viswanathan v. Rukn-ul-Mulk (AIR 1963 SC 1)
  – Distinguished judgments in rem (status of a person/property binding universally).
• Cooper v. Phibbs (1867) LR 2 HL 149 (UK)
  – Property rights as jus in rem enforceable against all.

69. Jus naturale – Natural law

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225)
  – Court invoked natural law principles in basic structure doctrine.
• Calvin’s Case (1608) 7 Co Rep 1a (UK)
  – Natural law used to justify rights of subjects.

70. Jus necessitatis – Right of necessity

• Indian Position:
  – Covered under Section 81, IPC – Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent and to prevent other harm.
  – Section 87, IPC relates to consent to risk of harm, not necessity.
• Case Law:
  – Gopal Naidu v. Emperor (AIR 1923 Mad 523) – Act done out of necessity falls under IPC §81.
  – R v. Dudley & Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273 (UK) – Necessity is no defence to murder (sailors killing cabin boy to survive).

71. Jus non scriptum – Customary law

• State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali (AIR 1952 Bom 84)
  – Court recognised the force of customary Hindu law (jus non scriptum).
• Manzur Hasan v. Muhammad Zaman (AIR 1925 PC 36)
  – Customs (unwritten law) enforced when not opposed to public policy.

72. Jus scriptum – Written law

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225
  – Constitution and statutes are jus scriptum.
• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 27)
  – Court strictly applied written constitutional provisions (before evolution of expansive interpretation).

73. Jus – Law or right

• Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008) 6 SCC 1
  – Jus = legal right; court discussed scope of fundamental rights under Articles 14–21.
• Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932 AC 562, HL)
  – Recognition of legal rights/duties under tort law.

74. Justitia nemini neganda est – Justice is to be denied to nobody

• Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan (2016) 8 SCC 509
  – Access to justice is a fundamental right; justice cannot be denied.
• A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602
  – Fair trial is part of justice; courts cannot deny it to anyone.

75. Jus soli – Right of soil (citizenship by place of birth)

• Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 654
  – Discussed domicile and residence, relating to jus soli principle.
• U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (169 U.S. 649, 1898, US SC)
  – Held: person born in U.S. is citizen by jus soli.

76. Jus sanguinis – Right of blood (citizenship by descent)

• R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Pham (2015 UKSC 19)
  – Citizenship traced by jus sanguinis principle.
• Indian Constitution, Articles 5–8 (citizenship by descent incorporated).

77. Lex fori – Law of the forum (law of the country where court sits)

• Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 254
  – Jurisdiction depends on the law of the forum where proceedings are filed.
• Phipps v. Phipps (1872) LR 7 Ch App 569 (UK)
  – Procedural matters governed by lex fori.

78. Lex non a rege est violanda – The law must not be violated even by the king

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225
  – Even Parliament cannot violate the Constitution; supremacy of law.
• Entick v. Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 1030 (UK)
  – Government cannot act beyond law; king himself is subject to law.

79. Locus standi – Right of a party to appear and be heard

• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 149) – Expanded locus standi → Public Interest Litigation.
• Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305 – Limited locus standi in criminal cases; PIL not a licence for busybodies.

80. Mala fide – In bad faith

• State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (1980) 2 SCC 471
  – Acquisition of land quashed as mala fide exercise of power.
• E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3
  – Mala fides and arbitrariness violate Article 14.

81. Malum in se (plural: mala in se) – Wrong or evil in itself

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
  – Actions like arbitrary deprivation of life/liberty are inherently unjust, reflecting the malum in se principle.
• R v. Dudley & Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273 (UK)
  – Murder held inherently wrong, regardless of necessity defence.

82. Malum prohibitum – Wrong because prohibited by law

• State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (AIR 1965 SC 722)
  – Carrying foreign currency without permission held punishable, not inherently immoral but prohibited by statute.
• U.S. v. Balint (258 U.S. 250, 1922, US SC)
  – Selling narcotics without proper order was malum prohibitum.

83. Mandamus – “We command”

• Praga Tools Corp. v. C.A. Imanual (AIR 1969 SC 1306)
  – Writ of mandamus issued to compel public duty.
• Comptroller and Auditor-General v. K.S. Jagannathan (1986) 2 SCC 679
  – Mandamus lies to prevent injustice due to wrongful inaction of public authority.

84. Mens rea – Guilty mind

• State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (AIR 1965 SC 722)
  – Mens rea not required in absolute liability offences.
• Nathulal v. State of M.P. (AIR 1966 SC 43)
  – Mens rea essential unless statute excludes it.

85. Misnomer – Wrong name

• State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer (2003) 5 SCC 448
  – Misdescription/misnomer of a party not fatal if identity is clear.
• King v. North (1837) 4 Ad & El 435 (UK)
  – Misnomer of a corporate body does not invalidate proceedings.

86. Modus operandi – Way of working

• State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Chaganlal Raghani (2001 CriLJ 2698 Bom HC)
  – Court looked at the modus operandi of the accused in theft cases.
• R v. Straffen (1952) 2 QB 911, UK
  – Modus operandi used as evidence to link accused with multiple offences.

87. Modus vivendi – Way of living

• Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) 3 SCC 615
  – Right to live according to one’s beliefs (Jehovah’s Witness students not forced to sing national anthem).
• West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (319 U.S. 624, 1943, US SC)
  – Protecting freedom of life and belief, respecting different modus vivendi.

88. Mutatis mutandis – With necessary changes

• Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (2007) 2 SCC 640
  – Provisions applied mutatis mutandis from one statute to another.
• State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata (2005) 12 SCC 77
  – Court clarified application of rules mutatis mutandis.

89. Nemo bis punitur pro eodem delicto – Nobody can be punished twice for same offence

• S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India (AIR 1954 SC 375)
  – Protection against double punishment recognised under Article 20(2), Constitution.
• Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (AIR 1953 SC 325)
  – Once punished by customs, not liable again criminally for same act.

90. Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa – No man shall be twice punished for same offence

• State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte (AIR 1961 SC 578)
  – Double jeopardy applies only if offence and ingredients are identical.
• Connelly v. DPP (1964 AC 1254, HL, UK)
  – Cannot be vexed twice for same cause; principle of autrefois convict/acquit.

91. Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa / Nemo judex in causa sua – Nobody can be judge in his own case

• A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC 150)
  – Rule against bias; no one can judge his own cause.
• Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 HLC 759 (UK)
  – Judge disqualified for having pecuniary interest in case.

92. Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire – No man at the point of death is presumed to lie (dying declaration)

• Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay (AIR 1958 SC 22)
  – Dying declaration admissible on presumption of truthfulness.
• P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 443
  – Court reaffirmed sanctity of dying declaration.

93. Nemo potest esse tenens et dominus – Nobody can be both landlord and tenant of same property

• Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property (1998) 7 SCC 184
  – Principle of tenancy and ownership cannot co-exist in same person.
• R v. London County Court Judge ex p. London Rent Assessment Committee (1912 1 KB 119, UK)
  – One cannot be both landlord and tenant simultaneously.

94. Nolle prosequi – Notice of abandonment by prosecutor/plaintiff

• State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey (AIR 1957 SC 389)
  – Prosecutor can withdraw from prosecution with court’s consent (akin to nolle prosequi).
• Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 288
  – Withdrawal of prosecution must be in good faith and with court’s approval.

95. Novation – New contract replacing old one

• Lata Construction v. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah (2000) 8 SCC 543
  – Section 62, Contract Act: novation requires complete substitution of contract.
• Scarf v. Jardine (1882) 7 App Cas 345 (HL, UK)
  – Novation arises when old contract replaced by new with consent of all parties.

96. Nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege – No crime or punishment except by law

• Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (AIR 1962 SC 955)
  – Punishment only if law clearly defines offence (sedition restricted to incitement to violence).
• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
  – Struck down vague Section 66A IT Act; principle: no punishment without clear law.

97. Nunc pro tunc – Now for then (retroactive correction by court)

• Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul v. Keshwar Lal Chaudhuri (AIR 1941 FC 5)
  – Higher court judgments may apply nunc pro tunc.
• Mitchell v. Overman (103 U.S. 62, 1880, US SC)
  – Courts may enter judgment nunc pro tunc to reflect earlier decision.

98. Non sequitur – Statement not logically following

• Harinagar Sugar Mills v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala (AIR 1961 SC 1669)
  – Argument rejected as a non sequitur (no logical connection).
• Moran Mar Baselios Catholicos v. State of Kerala (AIR 1954 SC 526)
  – Court criticised reasoning that was logically inconsistent (non sequitur).

99. Obiter dictum – Things said in passing (not binding precedent)

• State of Haryana v. Ranbir (2006) 5 SCC 167
  – Obiter dictum not binding, only persuasive.
• Mohandas Issardas v. A.N. Sattanathan (AIR 1955 Bom 113)
  – Court explained difference between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta.

100. Onus probandi – Burden of proof

• Addagada Raghavamma v. Addagada Chenchamma (AIR 1964 SC 136)
  – Onus probandi lies on person who asserts fact.
• Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 1 SCC 133
  – Burden of proof shifts depending on presumption/statute.

101. Pacta Sunt Servanda – Agreements must be kept.

• Principle that agreements and treaties are binding in good faith.
• Case law: LIC of India v. Consumer Education & Research Centre (1995) 5 SCC 482 – The Supreme Court emphasised the sanctity of contracts and held that contractual obligations must ordinarily be honoured.

102. Pari Passu – With an equal step.

• Creditors of the same class are treated equally.
• Case law: ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Sidco Leathers Ltd. (2006) 10 SCC 452 – SC explained that secured creditors stand pari passu unless statute provides otherwise.

103. Particeps Criminis – Partner in crime.

• A person who participates in the commission of a crime.
• Case law: State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659 – Court discussed “common intention” and participation in crime, highlighting liability of particeps criminis.

104. Per Curiam – By the Court.

• A decision delivered collectively by the court, without specifying individual judges.
• Case law: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225 – Though a split verdict, several parts of the judgment were expressed per curiam by the majority.

105. Per Se – By itself.

• Used to denote something evident on its own.
• Case law: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 – SC observed that “rarest of rare” cases are not per se defined but depend on facts.

106. Persona Non Grata – An unacceptable person.

• In diplomacy, a foreign national whose entry/residence is prohibited.
• Case law: Though not often litigated in Indian courts, the doctrine was discussed in Harbhajan Singh Dhalla v. Union of India (1987) AIR 9 Delhi, where diplomatic immunities were considered.

107. Potior est Conditio Possidentis – Better is the condition of the possessor.

• Possession is protected until a better title is proved.
• Case law: Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao (1989) 4 SCC 131 – Even a person in unlawful possession cannot be dispossessed except by due process of law.

108. Prima Facie – At first sight / On the face of it.

• Evidence sufficient unless rebutted.
• Case law: State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659 – “Prima facie case” defined as material sufficient for conviction if unrebutted.

109. Alimony – Maintenance after divorce.

• Case law: Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (2017) 14 SCC 200 – SC held that normally 25% of husband’s net salary can be awarded as alimony.

110. Palimony – Maintenance after live-in relationship (not marriage).

• Case law: D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469 – SC recognised rights of women in live-in relationships under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, akin to “palimony.”

111. Per Curiam – By a court.

• A decision delivered collectively by the court, without specifying individual judges.
• Case law: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225 – Though a split verdict, several parts of the judgment were expressed per curiam by the majority.

112. Per Incuriam – Because of lack of care.

• A decision rendered in ignorance of a binding precedent or statute.
• Case law: State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. (1991) 4 SCC 139 – SC clarified that judgments rendered per incuriam lack precedential value.

113. Quantum Meruit – As much as one has earned.

• Compensation for services rendered where no contract exists.
• Case law: Food Corporation of India v. Vikas Majdoor Kamdar Sahkari Mandli Ltd. (2007) 13 SCC 544 – SC awarded compensation on basis of quantum meruit where formal contract was absent.

114. Qui Facit Per Alium, Facit Per Se – He who acts through another acts himself.

• Principle of vicarious liability.
• Case law: State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254 – Employer held liable for employee’s acts done in course of employment.

115. Qui Peccat Ebrius, Luit Sobrius – He who sins when drunk must be punished when sober.

• Intoxication is not a complete defence.
• Case law: Basdev v. State of Pepsu AIR 1956 SC 488 – Intoxication only reduces liability if it prevents formation of mens rea, otherwise liability remains.

116. Quid Pro Quo – Something for something.

• Consideration in contract law.
• Case law: Chiranjit Singh v. Har Swarup AIR 1926 All 551 – Consideration must move at the desire of the promisor, i.e., quid pro quo.

117. Qui Sentit Commodum, Sentire Debet et Onus – He who enjoys the benefit must also bear the burden.

• Principle of reciprocal obligations.
• Case law: CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas AIR 1940 PC 124 – One who derives benefit from a transaction must also bear its burden.

118. Quo Warranto – By what authority.

• Writ questioning legality of a public office holder’s claim.
• Case law: University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491 – SC held writ of quo warranto can be issued if appointment violates statutory provisions.

119. Quod Necessitas Non Habet Legem / Necessitas Non Habet Legem – Necessity knows no law.

• Necessity may justify otherwise unlawful acts.
• Case law: State of West Bengal v. Ashutosh Lahiri (1995) 1 SCC 189 – SC recognised necessity in context of animal sacrifice and rights.
• Also read with IPC Section 81 – Act likely to cause harm but done without criminal intent under necessity.

120. Ratio Decidendi – The reason for the decision.

• Binding principle underlying a judgment.
• Case law: Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab (1979) 3 SCC 745 – SC explained that ratio decidendi is the principle of law which a case establishes, and is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution.

121. Respondeat Superior – Let the master answer.

• Employer/principal liable for employee/agent’s acts within course of employment.
• Case law: State Bank of India v. Shyama Devi (1978) 3 SCC 399 – Bank held liable for wrongful acts of employee done in course of employment.

122. Res Ipsa Loquitur – The thing speaks for itself.

• Negligence can be presumed when the accident itself implies negligence.
• Case law: Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti AIR 1966 SC 1750 – Collapse of clock tower applied doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

123. Res Judicata – A matter already judged.

• No party can re-litigate an issue already decided by a competent court.
• Case law: Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi AIR 1960 SC 941 – SC explained finality of litigation under Section 11 CPC.

124. Res Judicata Pro Veritate Accipitur – Judicial decision must be accepted as correct.

• Case law: Sheoparsan Singh v. Ramanandan Prasad Narayan Singh (1916) 43 IA 91 – Judicial decision, even if erroneous, binds unless reversed.

125. Rex Non Protest Peccare – The king can do no wrong.

• Doctrine of sovereign immunity (though diluted in modern India).
• Case law: Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of UP AIR 1965 SC 1039 – State not liable for sovereign functions. Later diluted in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746.

126. Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex – Welfare of people is the supreme law.

• Case law: State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh AIR 1952 SC 252 – SC held that public welfare is guiding principle of legislation.

127. Status Quo – State of things as they are now.

• Case law: Bhavan Vaja v. Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang AIR 1972 SC 1371 – Court ordered parties to maintain status quo to prevent injustice.

128. Sine Die – Without fixing a day (indefinite adjournment).

• Case law: Used in legislative/judicial practice. Example: Union of India v. Cipla Ltd. (2017) 5 SCC 262 – SC discussed effect of indefinite adjournments and delay.

129. Sine Qua Non – Without which nothing (essential condition).

• Case law: State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 – “Malafide” held as sine qua non for quashing FIRs under certain conditions.

130. Suo Motu – On its own motion.

• Case law: Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494 – SC took suo motu cognizance of prisoner’s rights.

131. Uberrima Fides – Utmost good faith.

• Especially in insurance contracts.
• Case law: LIC of India v. Asha Goel (2001) 2 SCC 160 – Insurance contracts are based on utmost good faith; suppression of material facts voids contract.

132. Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium – Where there is a right, there is a remedy.

• Case law: Ashby v. White (1703) 92 ER 126 (UK) – Voting right violation led to damages.
• In India: L.I.C. of India v. Consumer Education & Research Centre (1995) 5 SCC 482 – SC held right to health and medical aid is enforceable with remedies.

133. Veto – Power to reject law despite legislature’s approval.

• In India, President’s pocket veto discussed in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651 (though not directly veto, touches legislative-executive relations).

134. Vice Versa – Reverse position.

• Courts often use the maxim to denote reciprocal application.
• Case law: Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995) 3 SCC 635 – SC explained effect of conversion and marriage laws, using “vice versa” logic in reasoning.

135. Vis Major – Act of God.

• No liability for unforeseeable natural events.
• Case law: Nichols v. Marsland (1876) 2 Ex D 1 (UK) – Leading case on act of God.
• In India: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nirmal Textiles AIR 1972 SC 1389 – Force majeure clauses recognised.

136. Volenti Non Fit Injuria – To one who consents, no harm is done.

• Consent bars liability.
• Case law: Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club (1933) 1 KB 205 (UK) – Spectator injured at car race barred from claiming damages.
• In India: K.L. Vaid v. State of Bihar AIR 1957 Pat 407 – Applied in context of sports injury.

137. Vox Populi – Voice of the people.

• Case law: State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd. (1997) 2 SCC 453 – SC observed that governance must reflect vox populi in democracy.

138. Waiver – Voluntary relinquishment of a known right.

• Case law: Krishna Bahadur v. Purna Theatre (2004) 8 SCC 229 – Waiver must be intentional and with full knowledge of rights.

139. Actio personalis moritur cum persona- A personal right of action dies with the person.

• Case Law: Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124 – The Court held that purely personal actions such as defamation, assault, and adultery do not survive after the death of the person.

140. Actus curiae neminem gravabit- An act of the court shall prejudice no man.

• Case Law: Jang Singh v. Brij Lal, AIR 1966 SC 1631 – If a mistake of the court causes loss to a party, it should be rectified so that no party suffers.

141. Contemporanea expositio est optima et fortissima in lege- The best way to interpret a document is to read it as it would have been read when made.

• Case Law: K.P. Varghese v. ITO, (1981) 4 SCC 173 – The Court applied this maxim while interpreting tax statutes in their historical context.

142. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius- The express mention of one thing excludes others.

• Case Law: Tempest v. Kilner, (1846) 3 CB 249 – The Court held that if a statute or agreement expressly includes certain things, others are deemed to be excluded.

143. Generalia specialibus non derogant- General things do not derogate from special things. (Special law overrides general law)

• Case Law: Commercial Tax Officer v. Binani Cements Ltd., (2014) 8 SCC 319 – The Court held that a special law will always prevail over a general law.

144. Lex posterior derogat priori- A later law repeals an earlier law.

• Case Law: Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank, (2018) 1 SCC 407 – The Court held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, being a later special law, overrides earlier conflicting legislations.

145. Lex non cogit ad impossibilia- The law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform.

• Case Law: State of Rajasthan v. Shamsher Singh, (1985) 1 SCC 416 – The Court observed that the law does not expect performance of an impossible act.

146. Lex specialis derogat legi generali- A special law overrides a general law.

• Case Law: Life Insurance Corporation v. D.J. Bahadur, (1981) 1 SCC 315 – The Court held that the LIC Act, being a special enactment, overrides the general Industrial Disputes Act.

147. Ut res magis valeat quam pereat- It is better for a thing to have effect than to be void.

• Case Law: State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd., (1997) 2 SCC 453 – Statutes should be interpreted in a way that makes them workable rather than void.

148. Casus omissus pro omisso habendus est- A case omitted is to be held as intentionally omitted.

• Case Law: Hira Devi v. District Board, AIR 1952 SC 362 – The Court held that it cannot fill in omissions that the legislature has deliberately left.

149. Delegatus non potest delegare- A delegate cannot further delegate.

• Case Law: A.K. Roy v. State of Punjab, AIR 1986 SC 2160 – The Court held that delegated authority cannot be sub-delegated unless expressly permitted by statute.

150. Salus populi suprema lex esto- The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law.

• Case Law: Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardichan, (1980) 4 SCC 162 – The Court prioritized public welfare and directed the municipality to provide basic civic amenities.

Share this News