Absoluta sentential expositore non indigent (an absolute sentence needs no

explanation/ a clear and unambiguous statement needs no interpretation)

If the language of any law is not only plain but admits of its one meaning, the task
of interpretation can hardly be said to arise. Thus, it is not allowable; to interpret
what has no need of interpretation.
New Shorrock Spg. And ors. vs N.U. Raval, Income-Tax Officer, AIR 1959
Bom 477

In this case court mentioned in its judgment that if the language employed gives
the rule in words of sufficient clarity and precision, no more requires to be done.
Indeed, in such a case the task of interpretation can hardly be said to arise.

Mahavirprasad Badridas vs M.S. Yagnik, Second Wealth-Taxon, AIR 1960

Bom 191, 1959 37 ITR 191 Bom

In this case, court mentioned in its judgment that the language of an enactment is
plain and clear upon its face and of itself fairly subject of one meaning the task of
interpretation can hardly be said to have arisen, which clearly shows the presence
of Absoluta sententia expositor non indiget.

In pari material (on the same subject matter)

When applied to statutes, it indicates that laws dealing with a similar topic should
be interpreted together to ensure consistency and clarity. This principle helps
resolve potential conflicts and provides a more comprehensive understanding of
the law according to legal resources.

How It Works

When a court finds that two legal provisions:

 are enacted for the same purpose, or

 cover the same field of law, or
 address related issues,

Then the court reads them together, even if they are in different Acts or
Codes, to find the intended meaning.
Contemporanea expositio est optima et fortissimo ( a contemporary exposition
is the best and most forceful)
It implies that while interpreting any law, the judges should take the prevailing
circumstances into the consideration. They should observe not only the “What the
law is? But also “Why that particular Law was enacted? What were the prevailing
circumstances at that time?”.
Cum Grano Salis (With a grain of salt)
Meaning: This maxim suggests that certain terms should be interpreted with
caution, especially when the language is broad or vague
When a statute uses general terms, courts are advised to apply them in a way that
does not stretch the meaning excessively, unless the language clearly permits it.
Example: A statute may say "dangerous weapons," but the term "dangerous"
should be interpreted cautiously to avoid over-broadening the scope of the law.
Facit per aliquod quod per se non potest (He does through another what he
cannot do by himself.)
Meaning:
It’s usually used in legal or philosophical reasoning to describe a situation where
a person or entity accomplishes something indirectly by using an intermediary
because they are not allowed, not able, or not capable of doing it directly.

For example:

In corporate law, a company can conduct business through its authorized agents, a
practice endorsed by this maxim.

Advantages of Maxims of Interpretation

Clarity and Certainty in Interpretation
Maxims help to provide clear guidelines for understanding the meaning of
ambiguous or complex provisions. By applying maxims such as Noscitur a Sociis
(a word is known by the company it keeps) or Ejusdem Generis (of the same kind),
judges can narrow down the possible meanings of words or phrases in the statute.
This leads to greater certainty in legal interpretation, ensuring that the law is
applied consistently and predictably across cases.

Respect for Legislative Intent

By applying the context in which the statute was enacted, courts can interpret the
law in a way that reflects the purpose and objective intended by lawmakers. This
ensures that the law serves its intended purpose, avoiding any distortion or
misinterpretation that could lead to unintended consequences.

Promotes Consistency in Legal Reasoning

Maxims ensure that courts follow a uniform approach when interpreting similar
legal provisions. These maxims are time-tested principles that courts regularly rely
on to resolve statutory ambiguities. This promotes legal consistency and
predictability, which is crucial for upholding the rule of law and ensuring fair
treatment for all parties involved.
Example: In interpreting tax laws, the maxim Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant
ensures that specific tax provisions will take precedence over general provisions,
leading to consistent application across cases involving specific industries.

Efficient Legal Resolution

By adhering to established maxims, courts can interpret statutes more efficiently
without unnecessary difficulties or over-complications. maxims provide ready-
made tools for resolving ambiguities. This leads to quicker resolution of legal
disputes, saving time for the courts and parties involved.

Example: The use of Absoluta Sententia Expositore Non Indiget (an absolute
sentence needs no explanation) in cases where statutory language is clear helps
avoid the need for complex interpretative exercises, leading to a swift judgment.
Enhances Predictability in Legal Outcomes
The use of well-established interpretative rules reduces the scope for arbitrary or
unpredictable decisions. When similar legal provisions are interpreted in a
consistent manner across cases, the outcomes become more predictable.

This is particularly important in commercial, corporate, and regulatory law, where

individuals and businesses rely on consistent and predictable legal frameworks to
guide their decisions.

Example: If a company knows that the maxim In Pari Materia (on the same subject
matter) will be applied when interpreting related statutes, it can predict how laws
will interact and make more informed decisions.

Prevents Absurd Results

Maxims such as Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pereat (that the matter may have
effect rather than be void) help ensure that statutes are interpreted in a way that
avoids absurd or unjust results that might arise from a literal reading of the law.
This ensures that statutes serve their intended purpose and achieve just outcomes,
even when the language might be imperfect or outdated.

Example: If a statute regulates certain types of businesses but is written in a

manner that might exclude newer types of businesses (such as online businesses),
the maxim Ut Res Magis Valeat can be applied to ensure that the law covers all
businesses in line with its purpose.

Facilitates Judicial Harmony

Maxims offer a framework for judges to align their decisions with those of their
peers, ensuring that the law is interpreted harmoniously across different courts.
This contributes to the uniformity of legal principles, which strengthens the
integrity of the judicial system and makes it easier for lawyers, individuals, and
businesses to understand and navigate the law.

Disadvantages of Maxims of Interpretation

Potential Rigidity in Interpretation
Maxims are established guidelines for interpreting statutes, but strict adherence to
these principles can sometimes limit judicial flexibility.
A rigid application of maxims can prevent judges from considering the evolving
nature of society and its values. As societal norms change, laws may require a
more progressive or adaptive interpretation rather than a strictly textual one.

Example: A statute written decades ago may be interpreted strictly according to

maxims, even if the social context or technological advancements have changed
significantly, making the law outdated.
Over-Simplification of Complex Issues
Maxims are meant to simplify legal interpretation, but they can sometimes
oversimplify complex legal matters, leading to narrow or incomplete readings of
statutes.
When judges apply maxims without fully engaging with the case, they might
overlook important factors or fail to consider the broader implications of their
decisions.
Example: The maxim Ejusdem Generis (of the same kind) might limit the
interpretation of a statute by excluding important elements that are not "of the
same kind".
Inconsistent Application Across Cases
While maxims provide a standard framework, different judges may apply them in
varying ways depending on their interpretation of the law, leading to inconsistency.
Variations in the application of these maxims can result in conflicting rulings on
similar cases, undermining the predictability and stability of legal outcomes.
Risk of Judicial Overreach

Even though maxims are supposed to limit judicial intervention, their misuse or
overuse may lead to judicial overreach, where judges expand the scope of laws
beyond their intended meaning.

Example: A judge applying Ut Res Magis Valeat (that the law may have effect
rather than be void) might interpret an ambiguous statute in a way that results in an
outcome far beyond the original legislative intent, potentially altering policy
decisions.
Limited Scope for Judicial Innovation
The reliance on maxims may limit the ability of judges to engage in creative or
innovative legal reasoning, especially in novel situations or emerging legal fields.
Courts may be constrained by the maxims, limiting their ability to evolve the law
in response to new challenges or changing social, technological, or economic
conditions.
Challenges in Dealing with Ambiguities
Maxims are designed to resolve ambiguities, but they are not always effective in
addressing situations where statutes contain deeply ambiguous or contradictory
provisions.
In cases where the legislative language is unclear or contradictory, relying on
maxims alone might not provide a clear solution, leaving courts with the challenge
of interpreting laws in a manner that might still be vague or unjust.

Example: A statute that uses vague language like "public safety" may present
challenges when applying Noscitur a Sociis, leading to competing interpretations
about what constitutes threats to public safety in different contexts.