LEX NON A REGE EST VIOLANDA by Sushma Gowda

Literal Meaning:-The law must not be violated even by the king.

Origin:-Latin legal Maxim Lex non a rege est violanda states that every people should have equal rights any default by any person should be take into consideration even though the human being is king, Reputed person, or person with power or political background. Every human being should compliance with all rules and regulation made thereunder any non-compliances may lead to action will be taken by jurisdiction.

Explanation:- Violations of any rights, whether of the citizen, or by the citizen, or the State, or by the State, may be judicially resisted and the rights may be enforced. Lex non a rege est violanda, the law is not to be violated by the king is an old maxim, and equally applicable to the modern State.

Illustration:- the Lex non a rege est violanda states that every rules and regulation made there under is applicable to all including crowned person, kings, politician, high power person

Case References:-

However in the case Om Prakash Sood And Anr. vs State Of Himachal Pradesh it is observed that “The statutory right to elect candidates for municipal constituency could not, either directly or indirectly, be denied or abridged, but the non-compliance with the statutory provisions has in this case, violated the exercise of their right; and till the constituency is called to elect its representative, the franchise stands abridged. The voter in this constituency has been shut off from the ballot box, which is obnoxious to the statutory guarantee of the right to vote. Any contravention of law by or in the name of the State can be resisted in the judicial forum”

Sri B R Shivaramaiah vs The Registrar General

Reviewing Authority is also duty bound to review the same in its entirety. If these statutory and constitutional obligations are not discharged, and if the said non-compliance act results in dismissal of a person from service, it is certainly to be said as arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 311 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, Latin Legal Maxim Lex non a rege est violanda applies.

Under these circumstances, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KRUSHNAKANT B. PARMAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER reported in 2012(2) SCALE 545 wherein the judgment it is observed thus:

 The question relating to the jurisdiction of the Court in judicial review in a Departmental proceeding fell for consideration before this Court in M.B. Bijlani vs. Union of India and others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88 wherein this Court held:

‘It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Although the charges in a departmental proceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analysing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with.”