Answer- (c) Maxim: "Jure Naturae Sunt Immutabilia"
Meaning:
The Latin maxim Jure Naturae Sunt Immutabillia translates to
"By the law of nature, things are unchangeable." In the context of
statutory interpretation, this maxim implies that certain fundamental
principles of law, especially those grounded in natural law or public policy,
are immutable and cannot be altered by human laws or positive law. It suggests
that laws based on natural justice, equity, and basic human rights hold a
special status, which makes them unalterable even by legislative authority.
This maxim can be used to argue that there are certain core
principles that remain constant despite changes in legislation or
interpretation, ensuring that justice and fairness are maintained at all times.
________________________________________
Application of the Maxim in Statutory Interpretation
In the context of statutory interpretation, courts often use
this maxim when interpreting statutes that might conflict with principles of
justice, fairness, and rights based on natural law or public policy. The courts
might assert that laws violating such immutable principles would be deemed
invalid or interpreted in a manner that is consistent with these unchangeable
laws.
Here are some examples and decided cases where this maxim
has played a role in statutory interpretation:
________________________________________
1. Case: Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)
• Facts: In
this case, the constitutional validity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal
Code, dealing with sedition, was challenged. The argument was that the law
violated the freedom of speech and expression, which is a fundamental right
under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution.
• Court's
Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 124A, but emphasized
that any act of sedition would need to be examined within the confines of the
natural justice principle. The law must not violate the essence of fundamental
rights, and must adhere to the constitutional mandate of justice.
• Relevance
to Maxim: This case illustrates the application of Jure Naturae Sunt
Immutabillia as the Court clarified that the right to freedom of expression
could not be arbitrarily restricted in violation of natural justice principles,
even when the statute permits it.
________________________________________
2. Case: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
• Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government, and she challenged it
on the grounds that it violated her right to personal liberty and freedom under
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The question was whether a law could
deprive a person of their liberty without following the principles of natural
justice.
• Court's
Ruling: The Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21, ruling
that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to go
abroad. The Court held that any restriction on fundamental rights must be just,
fair, and reasonable and must adhere to the principles of natural justice.
• Relevance
to Maxim: This case reinforces the notion that laws affecting fundamental
rights cannot be arbitrary and must conform to the unchanging principles of
justice, as dictated by natural law, even if they are backed by statutory
provisions.
________________________________________
3. Case: R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
(2004) - The Belmarsh Case
• Facts:
The case involved the indefinite detention of foreign nationals suspected of
terrorism under the Anti-terrorism, Crime, and Security Act 2001. The detainees
challenged their detention without trial, claiming it violated their rights
under the European Convention on Human Rights, which forms part of natural
justice principles.
• Court's
Ruling: The House of Lords held that the detention of individuals without trial
was inconsistent with the European Convention and violated the principles of
natural justice, as it undermined the right to a fair trial and the principle
of equality before the law.
• Relevance
to Maxim: The decision reinforced the concept that even in the face of national
security concerns, laws and actions must not violate immutable natural rights.
In this case, human dignity and fairness were upheld as being unchangeable
legal principles.
________________________________________
4. Case: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
• Facts: In
this case, the Supreme Court of India dealt with the issue of sexual harassment
at the workplace, where the law was silent. The petitioners argued that
existing laws were insufficient in addressing the issue.
• Court's
Ruling: The Supreme Court laid down guidelines for the prevention of sexual
harassment in the workplace, emphasizing the importance of upholding the
fundamental right to gender equality and dignity.
• Relevance
to Maxim: The Court in Vishaka recognized that the rights of women to be free
from sexual harassment were fundamental and could not be compromised. The
application of natural justice principles was critical, and the Court used the
maxim Jure Naturae Sunt Immutabillia to uphold these unalterable principles of
equality and dignity.
________________________________________
Conclusion
The maxim Jure Naturae Sunt Immutabillia asserts the
unchanging nature of certain principles that underlie the concept of justice,
human rights, and natural law. In statutory interpretation, courts apply this
maxim to ensure that laws, even if enacted by the legislature, do not infringe
upon the fundamental rights that are considered unalterable and inherent to
human dignity. The cases mentioned above demonstrate how this principle is
applied to preserve justice and fairness, often overriding statutory provisions
that conflict with these natural laws.
Comments
Post a Comment