Maxim:
Boni Judicis Est Ampliare Justitiam, Non Jurisdictionem
Literal Meaning (Corrected)
It is the duty of a good judge to enlarge justice, not jurisdiction.
The phrase is often misquoted as “ampliare jurisdictionem”.
The correct and accepted interpretation—especially in Indian law—is ampliare justitiam (justice), not jurisdiction.
Origin
Latin (Common Law jurisprudence, later refined by English courts)
Explanation (Indian Legal Context)
This maxim lays down a foundational principle of judicial conduct. It means that a good judge should focus on advancing justice, rather than expanding the court’s legal powers beyond what the law permits.
In India, courts are creatures of statute and the Constitution. They cannot enlarge their jurisdiction on their own. However, within the jurisdiction that law grants, judges are expected to:
-
interpret laws liberally and purposively
-
mould relief to ensure substantial justice
-
prevent injustice caused by technicalities
-
ensure constitutional rights are meaningfully protected
Thus, the maxim does not justify judicial overreach. Instead, it emphasises that judges must use their existing powers effectively to do justice, rather than refusing relief on narrow or technical grounds.
Indian courts apply this maxim particularly in:
-
constitutional adjudication
-
public interest litigation
-
administrative law
-
equitable relief matters
Correct Legal Position in India
✔ Judges may amplify justice
❌ Judges may not enlarge jurisdiction
The maxim supports judicial creativity within legal limits, not judicial legislation or assumption of powers not granted by law.
Illustration (Simplified)
If a court has jurisdiction to hear a case, it should not deny relief merely because:
-
the situation is novel
-
the law is silent on procedure
-
the remedy is not expressly worded
Instead, the court may mould the relief to ensure fairness and justice—without stepping outside its jurisdiction.
Case Laws
Rex v. Philips, (1758) 1 Burr 302
Lord Mansfield clarified the misuse of the maxim and famously corrected it, stating:
“It is the duty of a good judge to enlarge justice, not jurisdiction.”
This correction remains the authoritative interpretation of the maxim.
Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court of India applied this principle while emphasising the constitutional duty of courts. It held that courts should not refuse to act merely because an issue involves policy considerations, especially when:
-
constitutional rights are affected
-
judicial review is necessary to prevent injustice
The Court observed that, in appropriate cases, it may be duty-bound to extend the arm of justice, in line with the principle:
“Est boni judicis ampliare justitiam, non jurisdictionem.”
Key Takeaway (Exam / Notes Ready)
The maxim Boni Judicis Est Ampliare Justitiam, Non Jurisdictionem means that a judge must advance justice within the bounds of law, without assuming powers not granted by statute or the Constitution.