De minimus non curat lex implies

Question

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 (Nemo debet esse judex propria causa) and (2) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem).
Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi-judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably. But in the course of years many more subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice. Till very recently it was the opinion of the courts that unless the authority concerned was required by the law under which it functioned to act judicially there was no room for the application of the rules of natural justice. The validity of that limitation is not questioned.
If the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice one fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable to administrative enquiries. Often times it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial enquiries. Enquiries which were considered administrative at one time are now being considered as quasi-judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi-judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries. An unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have more far reaching effect than a decision in a quasi-judicial enquiry as observed by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [Civil Appeal No. 990/68, decided on 15-07- 1968], the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a court that some principle of natural justice had been contravened the court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case.
[Extract from the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262, decided on April 29, 1969, hereafter ‘A.K. Kraipak’].

Answer 1

Translating the Latin phrase directly gives the fastest route to the answer: de minimis non curat lex means the law does not concern itself with trifles.

Personal liability, necessity, private defence: Each of these corresponds to a different, well-known Latin maxim or statutory defence (general liability, necessitas non habet legem, and the right of private defence respectively), none of which is about trivial harm.
Trifling acts do not constitute an offence: This is the literal and legal meaning of the maxim, reflected in Section 95 IPC's exclusion of acts causing harm too slight to warrant complaint.

Since the maxim is specifically about disregarding trivial harm, the correct answer is Trifling acts do not constitute an offence.

Answer 2

An illustration makes the maxim's scope clear. Suppose someone lightly brushes past another person on a crowded train, technically touching them without consent.

Every person is liable for his own acts: Taken to its extreme, this would make even the lightest, most trivial touch a punishable act, an outcome the law does not intend.
Trifling acts do not constitute an offence: Section 95 IPC exists precisely to prevent such trivial, everyday contact from being treated as a criminal offence, since no reasonable person would complain about such minor harm. The maxim de minimis non curat lex is the Latin shorthand for this very idea.
Necessity knows no law: This maxim would instead apply to something like breaking a window to escape a fire, an act done out of unavoidable compulsion, a very different scenario from a trivial, harmless act.
Private defence: This maxim covers acts done to protect oneself or one's property from an attack, again a distinct scenario from one involving merely insignificant harm.

The illustration of trivial, harmless contact matches only the option about trifling acts.

Therefore, the correct answer is Trifling acts do not constitute an offence.

Answer 3

An illustration makes the maxim's scope clear. Suppose someone lightly brushes past another person on a crowded train, technically touching them without consent.

Every person is liable for his own acts: Taken to its extreme, this would make even the lightest, most trivial touch a punishable act, an outcome the law does not intend.
Trifling acts do not constitute an offence: Section 95 IPC exists precisely to prevent such trivial, everyday contact from being treated as a criminal offence, since no reasonable person would complain about such minor harm. The maxim de minimis non curat lex is the Latin shorthand for this very idea.
Necessity knows no law: This maxim would instead apply to something like breaking a window to escape a fire, an act done out of unavoidable compulsion, a very different scenario from a trivial, harmless act.
Private defence: This maxim covers acts done to protect oneself or one's property from an attack, again a distinct scenario from one involving merely insignificant harm.

The illustration of trivial, harmless contact matches only the option about trifling acts.

Therefore, the correct answer is Trifling acts do not constitute an offence.

De minimus non curat lex implies

Show Hint

The Correct Option is B

Approach Solution - 1

Approach Solution -2

Top Questions on Jurisprudence

Questions Asked in AIBE exam