The act of the law does injury to no one.
Explanation & Origin
An act of court prejudice no one. Latin maxims developed in the Medieval era in European countries that used Latin as their language for law and courts.
Legitimate action requires no qualification.
A general presumption that the bringing of a lawsuit by one party against another party does not harm that second party (other than a frivolous action). Therefore no one can be injured by any legal action.
In other words , the maxim means an act of law is hurtful to no one. An act of law should be limited in its operation so that it shall not work prejudice to the rights of any person.
Some laws that are for the public good may be detrimental to some person. However, for such detriments there are no available remedies. Law is equal to everyone and therefore, changes in law cannot be made for the interest of a minor group of people.
Where an authority given by the law has been abused , the law places the party so abusing it in the same situation as if he had , in the first instance , acted wholly without authority ; and this , it has been observed , is a just principle , founded on the maxim , that the law wrongs no man.
A tenant whose house is destroyed by fire or tempest, though he is not discharged from his tenancy to the injury of his landlord, yet, he is not bound to rebuild the house, to the injury of himself. Unless indeed there be a covenant or agreement on his part to repair and keep the premises in repair, in which case, if there be no exception in case of fire, tempest, and he will have to rebuild if the premises are destroyed by fire or other casualty. He must, however, continue to pay the rent, if a lessee, to the end of his term or, if a tenant from year to year, until he determine the tenancy by notice. Neither is the landlord bound to rebuild in case of fire, though he may have insured the premises, and received the money from the insurance office. Against all these inconveniences to the tenant, he must provide by special stipulation in the lease or agreement. In this case actus legis nemini facit injuriam is applicable.
K.Shajahan vs Subramani Gounder [(2008) 2 MLJ 717]
In this case it was held that the maxims actus legis nemini facit injuriam would connote and denote that no one could raise any objection or complaint that he has been wronged by any steps taken by the Court.
P.G.Pattabi vs Mythili [(2010  L.W 785)]
The court pronounced that the maxim actus legis nemini facit injuriam denote that no one could raise any objection or complain that he has been wronged by any steps legally taken by the Court.
The objections raised on the side of the revision petitioner would all virtually tantamount to finding fault with the Court in adhering to the procedures. In such a case, it has to be seen as to whether any substantial prejudice has been caused to the revision petitioner in the execution proceedings.
Baburao Ganpatro Tirmalle vs Bhimappa Venkappa Kandakur [ILR 1996 KAR 1565]
In this case the Court is bound to invoke the principle actus legis nemini facit injuriam and do Justice to the aggrieved. The Court has then to pass appropriate orders permitting the tenant to reconstruct the premises in terms of its earlier order passed and if feasible in accordance with the approved plan and only to the extent it need accommodate the tenant and not beyond that. The expenses incurred in this behalf has to be made good by the landlord.
C.Velu @ Venkatesalam vs S.Kandasamy Chettiar(Died) [REA.136 of 2004]
Actus legis nemini facit injuriam-the act of the law does injury to no one this maxim was applied in this case.
Edited by Vigneshwar Ramasubramania
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje