The laws are adapted to those cases which occur more frequently.
The maxim Ad ea quae frequentius accidunt jura adaptantur states that the laws are adapted to those cases which more frequently occur. Laws are usually framed giving more emphasis to cases with tends to occur more frequently rather than on cases which are rare or accidental in occurrence. It is not possible for any law to include every case which may occur or has a possibility to arise. All legislation is based on the principle that it should be sufficient enough for providing the ordinary course of action. Keeping in view the cardinal principle of law that every law is designed to further the ends of justice, law should be applied for catering to the needs of public at large. Thus when the language of a statute, act, contract or any legal document in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction, leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment or objective it should be remembered that laws are Ad ea quae frequentius accidunt jura adaptantur and interpreted accordingly.
The fundamental rule of interpretation that Judiciary must always try to expound the law and not to legislate the law. Thus when laws having ambiguous and uncertain language are set forth for interpretation the golden rule of interpretation needs to be followed. This rule is made with an aim to achieve social welfare. When literal interpretation renders irrational meanings and defeats the actual intention of the legislature, it is the duty of the court to uphold the objective of the act or statute. While using the golden rule of interpretation it is important to remember that laws are made with a view to be applied on situations that are apprehended to happen frequently.
Section 375 of IPC is not gender neutral. The offence of rape is said to be committed only by a man against a woman. It is very rare to witness a situation where a woman commits rape of a man or of another woman. However the later is also punishable but not under section 375. Thus laws are made in accordance with the frequent offences rather than rare instances.
For example if there is a contact of sale between two parties and the amount to be paid was not mentioned in a particular currency then it is interpreted to be in the currency used in the local territory of the parties in question.
In the case of Ghulam Ahmad Dar and others v Abdul Rahim Dar and others it was observed that:
Laws ought to be, and usually are, framed with a view to such cases as are of frequent rather than such as are of rare or accidental occurrence; or, in the language of the civil law, jus constitui oportet in his quoe ut plurimum accidunt, non quoe ex inopinato; for, neque leges neque senatusconsulta ita scribi possunt ut omnes casus qui quandoque inciderint comprehendantur, sed sufficit ea quoe plerumque accident contineri; laws cannot be so worded as to include every case which may arise, but it is sufficient if they apply to those things which most frequently happen.
In Nagar Palika Nigam v Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and Othres SC held that Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the Legislature. Language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent. At this juncture, it would be necessary to take note of a maxim “Ad ea quae frequentius accidunt jura adaptantur”
Further in the case of State of Kerala and another v P.V. Neelakandan Nair and others the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (r. 62) was in question. It was regarding the benefit of increment and promotions. The court took note of the legal maxim “Ad ea quae frequentius accidunt jura adaptantur” and held, the rules does not refer to pay revisions which is conceptually different from annual increments within prescribed pay scale.
Edited by Vigneshwar Ramasubramania
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje
 Ghulam Ahmad Dar and others V. Abdul Rahim Dar and others, 2018 SCC OnLine J&K 292
 Ibid para 25
 Palika Nigam V. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and Othres, 12 SCC 364;AIR 2009 SC 187
 Kerala and another V. P.V. Neelakandan Nair and others, (2005) 5 SCC 561