'Latin Maxims Aren’t the Only Law': Madras High Court Backs Use of 'Swadeshi Maxims'

The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) recently observed that if courts can rely on Latin maxims and rest judgments on them, there is no reason to shy away from citing India’s own heritage, whether in Sanskrit, Tamil, or other Indian languages.

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan noted that maxims embody distilled wisdom and experience of society, expressed in precise and pithy language, and constitute universal legal propositions that form the foundations of law, as explained in P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advanced Law Lexicon.

Pointing out that courts largely fall back on Broom’s compilation of maxims, the judge recalled that even Mahatma Gandhi referred to Broom’s work in his autobiography, and said that after Independence in 1947, it would be fitting to compile legal maxims more apposite to India’s own clime and context.

Court observed so while disposing of a writ petition filed by Malarvizhi alias Kottaithai, a poor widow from Virudhunagar district in Tamil Nadu, whose husband Ayyappan Marimuthu died while working in Cameroon and whose employer failed to honour a written promise to pay compensation. The court held that the absence of a specific statutory framework cannot be a ground for the State to turn its back on citizens in distress overseas.

Court examined whether constitutional principles could fill the legislative vacuum. The judge emphasised that India is a welfare State and that the concept of parens patriae casts a duty on the State to protect its citizens, particularly when they are unable to protect themselves.

Relying on Supreme Court judgments, including Charan Lal Sahu v Union of India and Gaurav Kumar Bansal v Union of India, court noted that the State’s obligation to protect life and liberty can extend beyond territorial boundaries in appropriate cases. The judge also referred to decisions of the Delhi High Court and the Madras High Court itself where Indian missions abroad had been nudged into pursuing compensation claims on behalf of migrant workers or their families.

Drawing inspiration from the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Vishaka v State of Rajasthan, Justice Swaminathan held that in the absence of domestic law, international conventions and constitutional principles could be read together to advance fundamental rights, so long as there was no inconsistency.

Though India is not a signatory to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, court referred to its provisions recognising the duty of States to assist in compensation matters relating to the death of migrant workers.

The judge also invoked the idea of Rajadharma from Indian jurisprudence, observing that when the State benefits from overseas employment through foreign remittances, it has a corresponding duty to come to the aid of migrant workers and their families in times of crisis.

In Shanthi Parva of Mahabharatha, it is stated that the King who receives one-sixth of the income and still fails to protect the people becomes a sinner, court pointed out.

Court held that in the present matter, the Government of India has a constitutional duty. "The constitutional provisions and the Preamble construed in the light of the doctrine of Rajadharma postulate that the Government of India has a duty to provide legal aid to its citizens not only within the territory of India but also outside," Justice Swaminathan held.

He observed that the matter may have to be taken up at the highest levels with authorities in Cameroon, that pressure may need to be exerted on those who stepped into the shoes of the employer, and that legal notices, mediation or even formal legal proceedings abroad may be required.

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the Government of India explore every possible avenue to secure redress for the petitioner and carry out the process expeditiously. No costs were imposed.

Case Title: Malarvizhi @ Kottaithai v. The Secretary to Government of India & Ors.

Order Date: December 16, 2025

Bench: Justice GR Swaminathan