The Doctrine of De Minimis Non Curat Lex implies that the law does not concern itself with trifles. The Latin word 'De minimis' means 'about minimal things' and the maxim means that "law is not concerned with small things." The de minimis legal history dates back to the fifteenth century.

In simple words it means that the Court is not legally required to pass judgment in cases of minor transgressions of the law. Thus, according to this maxim, the courts shall not intervene in disputes where the substance of the controversy is minor/minimal/insignificant. The maxim results in summary dismissal of cases involving redressal of minimal disputes/controversies.

The law curtails legal action where the impact of the breach of law is negligible/insignificant or the purported breach is technical/venial. This maxim applies in circumstances where the failure to comply with the restriction/covenants has negligible impact. One of the compelling reasons is that our judiciary is already overburdened and it would be a complete wastage of time and resources of the judiciary to hear & decide trivial matters.

The maxim is recognized under Section 95 of Indian Penal Code.

The said Section 95 of IPC reads as under:
Act causing slight harm:
"Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm."

It would be trite to refer to the case of S.Ramesh vs. State Through The Inspector of Police decided on 21 August, 2018 wherein the Madras High Court dealt with Section 95 IPC and it's interplay & held thus:

Section 95 IPC has it's itself foundation on the maxim de minimis non curat lex (The Law takes no account of trifles). This section is intended to prevent the penalization of negligible wrongs or of an offense of trivial character. Whether the act, which amounts to an offense, is trivial would undoubtedly depend upon the nature of the injury, the position of the parties, the knowledge or intention, with which an offending act is done and other related circumstances.

Under this provision, those cases even though fall within the letter of the penal law are yet not within its spirit, and or all over the world considered by the public, as innocent. In other words, the harm that results out of an offense, if is so slight and trivial that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.

It would be relevant to refer to Allahabad High Court judgment more than a century old in the case of Makhan Lal And Anr. vs Suraj Prasad And Musammat Kamla decided on 9 February, 1922 reported in (1922) ILR 44 All 382, wherein the Court applied this maxim. The Court held thus:

"The failure to prove a small margin in a large sum like Rs. 8,000 is amply covered by the old maxim de minimis non curat lex. I agree with the order proposed."

It would be apposite to refer to the case of India TV Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd., 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4298 wherein the Delhi High Court held that this maxim could be used in accordance with section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act as a separate defense. The High Court discussed at length the principle of the applicability of de minimis.

The facts of the case were that from a song of five stanzas five words were copied. After applying the five well-known factors commonly considered by courts in the de minimis application, the court concluded that the offense is trivial and applied the doctrine of de minimis.

It would be apropos to refer to the Apex Court case in Smt. Somawanti v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 151 wherein the Apex Court in relation to Copyright observed thus:
They are not intended to be repeated by others or used in such a way that a book can be used, but the de minimis non curat lex principle still applies to a supposed wrong in taking part in dramatic works as well as in reproducing a part of a book.

The Apex Court in the case of State (Delhi Administration) v. Puran Mal, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 741 did not apply this Latin legal maxim while dealing with adulteration of food articles held that a food item unfit for human consumption cannot be considered to be covered by the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex rule.

It would be appropriate to refer to the Apex Court in State of Bihar and Ors. v. Harihar Prasad Debuka and Ors., A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1119 wherein checking documents or filling in and submitting forms and returns, detouring to a public weighbridge can be an inconvenience and the court can apply the maxim 'de minimis non curat lex ' unless it is shown to be unreasonable and not in the public interest.

It is noteworthy that the Apex Court in Tarapore & Co., Madras vs M/S. V/O Tractors Export, Moscow 1970 AIR 891 did not, in the peculiar facts & circumstances apply this maxim & observed thus:

"Such documents must be scrutinised with meticulous care, the maim de minimis non curat lex cannot be invoked where payment is made by later of credit. If the seller has complied with the terms of the letter of credit, however, there is an absolute Obligation upon the banker to pay irrespective of any disputes there may be between the buyer and the seller as to whether the goods are up to contract or not".

In Mahadev Govind Gharge & Ors vs Spl.Land Acq Officer (2011) 6 SCC 321, the Apex Court applied this maxim & observed thus:

"25. Such provisions should be construed on their plain meaning and it may not be necessary for the Court to bring into service other principles of statutory interpretation.
However, the maxim De minimis non curat lex shall apply to such statutory provisions."

The Apex Court in Umesh Chand Gandhi vs Ist Addl. Dist & Sessions Judge [1993] INSC 383 applied this doctrine while dealing with a provision of the Rent Control Act & observed thus:

"The mistake in calculation must be due to the above bona fide mistake. It is settled law that the courts of justice generally do not take trifling and immaterial matters into account except under peculiar circumstances. The strictness or harshness or inflexibility would lead to injustice or miscarriage of justice. Therefore, in working out equities, the court would apply in general the maxim "de minimis non curat lex".

The Division Bench, therefore, rightly pointed out that the doctrine deserves extension giving the benefit to the tenant, but it is a question of fact to be decided in each case. Bona fide mistake may occur in myriad circumstances but it depends upon each case. Neither rigid nor exhaustive nor inflexible rule could be laid cutting its amplitude into mathematical formula, in which event also it would lead to miscarriage of justice or injustice."

Recently, the Apex Court in Vashist Narayan Kumar vs The State of Bihar decided on 2 January, 2024 in Appeal No. 1 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12230 of 2023) applied the said maxim & observed thus:

However, after a candidate has participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully, his candidature can only be cancelled, after careful scrutiny of the gravity of the lapse, and not for trivial omissions or errors." (emphasis supplied) The exception for trivial errors or omissions is for the reason that law does not concern itself with trifles. This principle is recognized in the legal maxim - De minimis non curat lex.

The Apex Court while dealing with the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 in the case of Raj Kumar vs The State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2019 SC 4902, did not apply the said maxim as violation of the slightest extent was likely to be detrimental to human health. The Court observed thus:

14. The Act does not make a distinction between cases coming under it on the basis of the degree of adulteration even if it be only to the slightest extent, if continued in practice, would adversely affect the health of every man, woman and child in the country. Hence even marginal or border line variations of the prescribed standards under the Act are matters of serious concern for all and as public interests are involved in them, the maxim, De Minimis Non Curat Lex. law does not concern itself about trifles, does not apply to them.

The Allahabad High Court in Mohd. Israil And Another vs Nausaba A Sabari And 5 Ors. decided on 12 September, 2016 Allahabad High Court 2016 Latest Caselaw 5773 ALL applied this maxim & observed thus:

"In view of the above mandatory provision the argument of substantial compliance may not be available to the defendants but for the maxim of "de minimis non curat lex".

The principle of "de minimis non curat lex" means that "the law does not concern itself about trifles". Thus, the question is if the shortage in deposit can be ignored by applying the said principle.

The aforesaid maxim in relation to Section 17 of the Act came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Raj Kumar Makhija and others Vs. M/s. S.K. and Co. and others 2012 (9) ADJ 337 (DB). The Division Bench explaining the principle observed that where the shortfall in deposit is of a negligible amount the aforesaid principle can be applied and the shortfall may be ignored."

In Dhingra Mechanical Works vs Commissioner of Sales Tax decided on 2 November, 1971 (1972 29 STC 238 All) the Allahabad High Court discussed the said maxim in details & observed thus:

"9. There is another reason why in this case the assessee should be held not to have committed any default in the payment of the admitted tax. The shortage is only of three paise which is much too trivial to be taken notice of. There is a well-known maxim de minimis non curat lex which means that the law does not take notice of trifles. An illustration of this principle is to be found in Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code. That section reads:

95. Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.

10. Herbert Broom has stated this principle in his book "Legal Maxims" in the following words (9th Edition, page 102):

Where trifling irregularities or even infractions of the strict letter of the law are brought under the notice of the court the maxim de minimis non curat lex is of frequent practical application. It has, for instance, been applied to support a rate, in the assessment of which there were some comparatively trifling omissions of established forms. So, with reference to proceedings for an infringement of the revenue laws, Sir W. Scott observed that the court is not bound to a strictness at once harsh and pedantic in the application of statutes.

The law permits the qualification implied in the ancient maxim, de minimis non curat lex. Where there are irregularities of very slight consequence, it does not intend that the infliction of penalties should be inflexibly severe. If the deviation were a mere trifle, which, if continued in practice, would weigh little or nothing on the public interest, it might properly be overlooked"

It would be befitting to refer to the case of Pradeep Kumar Singh @ Atma Singh & another vs Additional District Judge, Court decided by the Allahabad High Court on 17 August, 2021 holding that this maxim is not applicable as there was defiance to the provisions of an Act knowingly & deliberately. The Court observed thus:

27. The Division Bench considered the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Naseeruddin and others versus Sitaram Aggarwal JT 2003(2)SC 56, and observed that a similar controversy was being dealt with by the Supreme Court and while considering the Rajasthan Rent Control Act it was observed that if there is a provision giving power to the court to extend the prescribed period of limitation and condone the delay in default of payment of rent, the court can condone the delay, but not otherwise.

A clear line of distinction has been drawn between the provisions providing applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to the deposits and the legal provisions bereft of applicability of section 5 of the Limitation Act, to such deposits. It was held that where the statute does not provide either for extension of time or to condone the default in depositing the rent within the stipulated period, the court does not have power to do so.

Where the Statute prescribes a specific period within which the deposit has to be made, provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be extended if the default takes place. The Court observed that there is no provision under section 17 of the Act conferring power on the Court to condone the delay in complying with its conditions. It is not correct to say that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would still be available to such person who has committed default in making the full deposit and the Court can condone the delay in making the deposit.

The Court considered the argument raised regarding substantial compliance of the proviso to section 17 of the Act but observed that as per the language of the proviso if the deposit made by the tenant falls short of amount required to be deposited, the tenant will be deprived of the benefit, even if shortfall in such deposit was because of tenant's ignorance or without any malafide intention.

There being a shortfall of the amount required to be deposited, the application for setting aside the ex parte decree will not be maintainable, for want of compliance of the proviso to section 17 of the Act. In such a case even the bonafides of the tenant are not relevant. What is required to be seen is the amount that is not paid or deposited on the due date. If the amount is found to be small, which is of no Consequence, the Court would be justified in ignoring the said mistake by extending the doctrine of ''de minimis non curat lex' to such a case.

As to what is the case deserving to benefit of the aforesaid Rule is again a question of fact to be decided on a case to case basis. The Court considered that the applicant before it had taken a conscious decision to deposit the amount at a lower rate, than the amount specified in the ex-parte degree itself.

This being so, it could not be said by any stretch of imagination that there was a compliance of the proviso to section 17 of the Act in any manner, or it is a case of bonafide mistake or mistake in calculation. The applicant had a duty to calculate the correct decretal amount as per the decree and the Court was not required to get the decretal amount calculated for the applicant."

The Allahabad High Court in the case of M/S Shriram General Insurance vs. Arvind Kumar and Another decided on 11 January, 2017 explained the said maxim thus:
It is settled law that courts of justice generally do not take trifling and immaterial matters into account in view of the maxim de minimis non curat lex which means that the law does not concern itself with trifles.

There may be some injuries of so little consideration that in law no action lies for them. It is in such cases of small injuries of immaterial nature that the above maxim has been frequently applied."

The Allahabad High Court in the case of Varshney General Sales And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Ors 130 STC 202 (All) decided on November 2, 1994 observed thus:

69. Before taking up ground No. (B) at the outset, learned Additional Advocate-General urged, in view of the notification dated September 24, 1994, issued under Section 4 of the Ordinance exempting with effect from September 25, 1994 levy of tax on tobacco priced at rupees one hundred and fifty or less per kilogram and pan masala whatever name called with or without tobacco, a large number of petitioners would now only be affected by this tax for a period from June 1, 1994 to September 25, 1994. Thus, applying the principle of De minimis non curat lex the court should not embark upon considering the challenge at it is for a short period for a small sum.

70. Shri Sudhir Chandra, repelling this contention, argued that this principle would not be applicable as it is not a minor fraction of the imposition which is being affected. For this period the imposition of tax would run into lakhs and total may be crores. See Broom's Legal Maxims, Tenth Edition :

"De minimis non curat lex" (The law does not concern itself about trifles): Courts of justice generally do not take trifling and immaterial matters into account, except under peculiar circumstances, such as the trial of a right, or where personal character is involved, they will not, for instance, take notice of the fraction of a day, except in cases where there are conflicting rights, for the determination of which it is necessary that they should do so, as, for instance, in a claim for demurrage of a ship, in which case it has been expressly held that a fraction of a day counts for a day.

Where trifling irregularities or even infractions of the strict letter of the law are brought under the notice of the court, the maxim de minimis non curat lex is of frequent practical application. It has, for instance, been applied to support a rate, in the assessment of which there were some comparatively trifling omissions of established forms. So, with reference to proceedings for an infringement of the revenue laws, Sir W. Scott observed that 'the court is not bound to a strictness at once harsh and pedantic in the application of statutes.

The law permits the qualification implied in the ancient maxim, de minimis non curat lex. Where there are irregularities of very slight consequence, it does not intend that the infliction of penalties should be inflexibly severe. If the deviation were a mere trifle, which, if continued in practice, would weigh little or nothing on the public interest, it might properly be overlooked'."

71. This principle is applicable where there are trifling irregularities or omissions or for trifle deviations which would weigh very little in public interest may be overlooked. This would not be applicable where trial of one's right or claim is in issue affecting him. This principle of de minimis non curat lex would not be applicable on the facts of the present case.

Not only is there a serious challenge of their claim based on constitutional rights but affecting amounts running into lakhs of rupees could by no stretch be held as trifling irregularity or omission or it affecting only fraction."

The application of this maxim curbs unwanted litigation in trivial matters and prevents abuse of the process of law in insignificant matters. However, as noted above, the maxim is not applicable in certain circumstances and the facts of the case alone decide whether this maxim would apply or not.

Written By: Inder Chand Jain
Ph no: 8279945021, Email: [email protected]