legal maxim

This maxim is a Latin phrase which means “the general does not detract from specifics”. Often used in the interpretation of statutes, this maxim basically means that general laws do not prevail over specific laws. In other words, if a conflict arises between a rule of the specific law and the rule of any general law, it is the specific law which will be followed and decisions shall be made accordingly. The specific rule is meant to study any subject with greater detail and hence, the maxim, Generalis Specialibus Non Derogant. This maxim helps the judiciary in understanding the laws in a better manner. In respect to deciding which act is a general act and which specific, two things should be kept in mind. Firstly, the subject matter and secondly, the perspective.

Suresh Nanda v. C.B.I.

In this case, the passport of the petitioner was seized by the C.B.I. on account of his involvement in a case where he was accused. There was a conflict between Section 104 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Section 10(3) of the Passport Act, where the former says that any official document can be impounded by the Court or police as it may deem fit and the latter says that a passport can be impounded by the passport authority on the basis of certain laid down circumstances, among which comes an impending case in a Criminal Court in India. The Court held that since the matter was related to the impounding of a passport, it shall be governed by the Passport Act. Impounding is a tedious process and has certain permanent effects, it can only be done by a special authority, whereas, seizing a document did not require such extensive process and thus can be done by a general authority. Thus, the maxim Generalis Specialibus Non Derogant was applied and the petitioner was given remedies accordingly.

KSL & Industries v. M/s. Arihant Trades Ltd. & Ors.

The property belonging to Arihant was auctioned due to its failure to pay the debt to IDBI Bank. After the auction, Arihant opposed to the selling of the property to KSL and filed the suit. The Court found that there was a conflict between the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The High Court applied Generalis Specialibus Non Derogant and held the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 had a specific nature with respect to the case and hence it shall hold a higher hand when compared to the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. When the matter was appealed in the Supreme Court, it was held that Section 34(2) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 says that the provisions of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 should be read in addition to the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and not in contradiction to it. This specifies the intention of the legislature that the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 would prevail over the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Thus, it should be noted that while applying any statute the intention of the legislature should be of utmost important.