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.
”
Search
TOP STORIES
NEWS UPDATES
COLUMNS
BAR SPEAKS
ARTICLES
CARTOONS
VIDEOS
More
TOP STORIES
NEWS UPDATES
COLUMNS
BAR SPEAKS
ARTICLES
CARTOONS
VIDEOS
More
FOLLOW US
Home/News updates
‘Latin Maxims Aren’t the Only Law’: Madras High Court Backs Use of ‘Swadeshi Maxims’
Justice Swaminathan invokes Rajadharma while ordering legal aid for widow of migrant worker
By –
Salil Tiwari
|
18 Dec 2025 4:26 PM
Justice GR Swaminathan cites Rajadharma, Mahabharata, while dealing with a plea pertaining to overseas worker compensation
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.
Also Read – Bombay City Civil Court Restrains Kamal Rashid Khan From Publishing Allegedly Defamatory Content Against Vashu Bhagnani
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.
Also Read – ‘Sar tan se juda’ slogan not protected speech: Allahabad HC denies bail in Bareilly violence case
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.
Also Read – ‘Initial Years For Young Lawyers Are Financially Difficult’: Allahabad HC Reduces Maintenance To be Paid By Advocate
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.
Also Read – ‘Welfare State Cannot Look Away’: Madras HC on Legal Aid for Indians Employed Overseas
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
