Presumption Against Impairing Obligations / Advantage from One's Own Wrong — Interpretation of Statutes Notes

Presumption Against Impairing Obligations / Advantage from One’s Own Wrong

Two fairness assumptions run quietly through interpretation. First, a statute is not read to impair existing obligations and vested rights unless it clearly says so. Second — an old and powerful maxim — no one may take advantage of his own wrong; a statute is not construed to let a person profit from his own default. Together they keep interpretation honest.

What are these two presumptions?

Two related, fairness-based presumptions:

1. Against impairing existing obligations / vested rights. The legislature is presumed not to intend to take away or impair vested rights, existing obligations, or accrued liabilities unless it does so expressly or by necessary implication. This overlaps with the presumption against retrospectivity (Topic 5): a statute is read, where possible, so as not to disturb rights and obligations already fixed under the old law. Contracts and obligations validly entered into are not lightly treated as impaired by a later general statute.

2. No advantage from one’s own wrong — nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria [no one can take advantage of his own wrong]. A statute is construed so that a person cannot profit from his own wrongful act, default or omission. Where one reading would let a wrongdoer benefit from his own breach and another would not, the court prefers the latter. A party who, by his own conduct, has prevented a thing from happening cannot rely on its non-happening to claim an advantage.

Their features:

• Both are rebuttable presumptions — clear words to the contrary must be given effect.
• They operate as tie-breakers on ambiguity, aligning with the presumptions against injustice and absurdity (Topics 4, 8) and against retrospectivity (Topic 5).
• The “own wrong” maxim is applied to prevent abuse — for example, a person who obstructs a proceeding cannot then plead the delay he caused to defeat it.

Maxim: “Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria” — no one can take advantage of his own wrong; a statute is not construed to permit a person to profit from his own default.

In Simple Terms: Two fairness assumptions guide interpretation: a statute is not read to destroy existing obligations or vested rights unless it clearly says so; and it is not read to let a person benefit from his own wrong or default. Both are presumptions and yield to clear contrary words.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — A wrongdoer cannot profit from his default

Facts. A statute allows a right to lapse if a step is not taken within a period. The party who was to take the step is himself prevented from doing so by the other party’s obstruction, and that other party now claims the right has lapsed.

Rule. No one can take advantage of his own wrong; a statute is construed so a person cannot profit from his own default or obstruction (nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria).

Apply. The lapse was caused by the obstructing party’s own wrongful conduct; allowing him to rely on the lapse would let him profit from his own wrong, which the court will not sanction.

Conclusion. The obstructing party cannot claim the right has lapsed; the statute is read to deny him an advantage from his own wrong.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Two fairness presumptions"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["Against impairing existing obligations / vested rights"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> B["No advantage from one's own wrong"]:::leaf
    A --> A1["Not disturbed unless express / necessary implication"]:::leaf
    B --> B1["A wrongdoer cannot profit from his own default"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> C["Both rebuttable by clear words"]:::leaf
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

• Union of India v Major General Madan Lal Yadav (1996) — no one can take advantage of his own wrong; a person cannot rely on a default he himself caused.
• Keshavan Madhava Menon v State of Bombay (1951) — a statute is not read to impair vested rights or completed transactions unless clearly intended.

Back to Top

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Interpretation of Statutes topics