Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus is a Latin legal maxim which means The foundation being removed, the structure falls.According to Oxford Reference Sublato fundamento, cadit opus means that "Upon removal of the foundation, the work collapses. The maxim in legal terminology implies that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent proceedings would fail as illegality strikes at the root.

The maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" has been a cornerstone in legal proceedings, signifying that actions based on an unlawful foundation are inherently invalid. The principle underlines the invalidity of legal actions premised on an unlawful or improper beginning. The maxim has wide application in administrative, taxation and constitutional law impacting the legal landscape of our country. The Maxim is applied by Courts to prevent the building of legal structures on unlawful foundation.

The maxim plays a vital role in Indian law mandating the necessity for lawful foundations in legal actions. The Maxim emphasizes the necessity of lawful initiation and highlights that the proceedings based on a flawed initiation are null and void thereby laying the importance of lawful beginnings in legal and administrative process.

It would be trite to refer to the case of Kalabharati Advertising vs Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors 2010 (9) SCC 437 wherein the Apex Court considered the scope of the said maxim and observed thus:

20. The aforesaid judgments are passed on the application of legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus, which means in case a foundation is removed, the superstructure falls.

21. In Badrinath v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3243, this Court observed that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential acts, action, orders would fall to the ground automatically and this principle of consequential order which is applicable to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings is equally applicable to administrative orders."

It would be apropos to refer to the case of State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others 2011 (14) SCC 770 wherein the Apex Court held that if the show cause notice is defective then the consequential proceedings would not stand and the order so passed would be null and void. The Court held thus:

107. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. In such a fact-situation, the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" meaning thereby that foundation being removed, structure/work falls, comes into play and applies on all scores in the present case.

108. In Badrinath v. State of Tamil Nadue & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3243; and State of Kerala v. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam & Anr., (2001) 10 SCC 191, this Court observed that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential acts, actions, orders would fall to the ground automatically and this principle is applicable to judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings equally.

109. Similarly in Mangal Prasad Tamoli (dead) by Lrs. v. Narvadeshwar Mishra (dead) by Lrs. & Ors., (2005) 3 SCC 422, this Court held that if an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings, consequent thereto, will be non est and have to be necessarily set aside.

110. In C. Albert Morris v. K. Chandrasekaran & Ors., (2006) 1 SCC 228, this Court held that a right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin. (See also: Upen Chandra Gogoi v. State of Assam & Ors., (1998) 3 SCC 381; Satchidananda Misra v. State of Orissa & Ors., (2004) 8 SCC 599; Regional Manager, SBI v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, (2006) 1 SCC 530; and Ritesh Tewari & Anr. v. State of U.P.
& Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3823)."

Reference to Chairman-Cum-M.D.,Coal India Ld.& Ors vs Ananta Saha & Ors (2011) 5 SCC 142 would be appropriate wherein the Apex Court observed thus:

30. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, subsequent proceedings would not sanctify the same. In such a fact-situation, the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" is applicable, meaning thereby, in case a foundation is removed, the superstructure falls.

31. In Badrinath v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3243, this Court observed that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential acts, actions, orders would fall to the ground automatically and this principle of consequential order which is applicable to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings is equally applicable to administrative orders. (See also State of Kerala v. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam & Anr., (2001) 10 SCC 191; and Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors. AIR 2010 SC 3745."

It would be relevant to refer to Kanwar Singh Saini vs High Court Of Delhi 2012 (4) SCC 307 wherein the Apex Court summed up thus:

13. There can be no dispute regarding the settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior court, and if the court passes order/decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to a nullity as the matter goes to the roots of the cause. Such an issue can be raised at any belated stage of the proceedings including in appeal or execution. The finding of a court or tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/inexecutable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction. Acquiescence of a party equally should not be permitted to defeat the legislative animation. The court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the statute.

(Vide: The United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Their Workmen AIR 1951 SC 230; Smt. Nai Bahu v. Lal Ramnarayan & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 22; Natraj Studios Pvt. Ltd. v. Navrang Studio & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 537; Sardar Hasan Siddiqui & Ors. v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow & Ors. AIR 1986 All. 132; A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak & Anr., AIR 1988 SC 1531; Union of India & Anr. v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, AIR 1992 SC 96; Karnal Improvement Trust, Karnal v. Prakash Wanti (Smt.) (Dead) & Anr., (1995) 5 SCC 159; U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. v. Indure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1373; State of Gujarat v. Rajesh Kumar Chimanlal Barot & Anr., AIR 1996 SC 2664; Kesar Singh & Ors. v. Sadhu, (1996) 7 SCC 711; Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 2213; and Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) (P) Ltd., Kanpur, AIR 2000 SC 2484).

The Apex Court in Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal and Others 2013 (9) SCC 363 has observed thus:

23. More so, if the initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent conduct of a party cannot sanctify the same. "Subla Fundamento cedit opus"- a foundation being removed, the superstructure falls.

The Apex Court in Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam vs Anil Kanwariya 2021 SCC OnLine 739, Gangadhar Narayan Nayak @ Gangadhar vs The State Of Karnataka 2022 SCC OnLine SC 337 & Y. Balaji vs Karthik Desari on 2023 SCC Online SC 645 applied the said maxim Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus.

It is noteworthy that in proceedings u/s 147 (Reassessment) & 263 (Revision) under the Income Tax Act, 1961 if the Tribunal/ Court finds that the Officer acted in excess of Jurisdiction or the basic requisites for invoking the said sections were absent, the Courts quash the notices and all proceedings/ orders pursuant thereto, applying the said maxim, fall to ground. Similar is the fate of notices/proceedings/orders under section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 are null & void if the notice lacks Jurisdiction or the basic requisites for invocation of this Section are missing.

Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus is thus an established Legal Doctrine which has a very special place in our Jurisprudence system.

Written By: Inder Chand Jain
M: 8279945021, Email: [email protected]