MAXIM : Actus Curiae Neminem Grava bit

-Act of the Court Shall Prejudice No One


No act of the court should harm any litigant and it's a bound duty of the court to ensure and restore back the litigant to the position he was before harmed. It is not only within the power but it's the duty of the court to correct its own mistake in order to ensure no litigant is harmed by the mistake of the court. The earlier decisions could not be reviewed on the bases of this maxim. The application of this maxim is limited and it cannot be used to review or scrutinize the specific conclusion arrived in judicial decisions.


Lord Diplock in Issacs v. Robertson, it is pointed out that when a subordinate court or high court has done a mistake, it can be rectified in supreme court. When a mistake is resulted in earlier order of supreme court. There is no way of correcting it either by approaching the supreme court. In order to justify the injustice arose in earlier order the supreme court can revoke article 142 of the constitution and this power is exercised in rarest of the rare in order to main the disciple in judicial decisions.

Silver and Cohen v. Imax, Monahan Estate v. Nelson its held that " What the Court Ought not to prejudice a litigant"

Carl v. department of labour, " has been well said to be found in right and good sense, and to afford a safe and certain guide for the administration of justice, it is the duty of the court to see that the parties shall not suffer by the delay".

Credit: Seeba Ramzani. N 

7 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Marine Pollution In India And Its Laws

Marine pollution The ocean constitute almost 70% of the globe. It is estimated that around 50-80% of Oxygen produced on Earth comes from the oceans. Marine pollution also known as oceans pollutions co


INTRODUCTION : The Energy Policy Act, which was signed into law in 1992, came into effect on 24 October 1997. This law, for the first time, mandates energy-efficiency standards for all general purpose