Forever, without limit, to infinity
Ad infinitum in legal context is referred as continue forever without any limit. It is generally used to describe a non-terminating process or a process which does not have amounts to a resultant end. It can also be used for a set of instructions which needs to be continued forever or to be stopped for an indefinite period of time. In general it denotes any mode of action which continues for a long period of time without having any definite end to it. There are many orders of court which are to be followed by the partied for indefinite amount of time and thus to describe such orders ad infinitum is used. Moreover it is used to explain or describe situations which continue for an unnecessarily lengthy period of time.
Ad infinitum is a Latin phrase which translates to “to infinity” or “forevermore”. To describe any course of action which is infinite in nature the maxim ad infinitum is used.
If two parties enter into a contract which is a non-terminating one then it is said to be an ad infinitum contract. Ex contracts in perpetuity
In the case of Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra and Anr the question that emerged was that whether on the ground of not granting of 14 days’ time from the date of receipt of communication of rejection of the mercy petition, should the warrant which is going to be executed should be stayed or not Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for India, appearing for the respondent, would submit that the mercy petition is considered by the President of India in exercise of his power under Article 72 of the Constitution of India and when he has rejected the mercy petition after due consideration of all the relevant facts on earlier occasion, if such kind of repetitive mercy petitions are allowed to be submitted and further challenge to the rejection of the same is permitted, the danger of the concept of ad infinitum would enter into the field.
Also in the case of Reema v. Sumer Singh Salkan the court observed that the process of maintenance is to support but not enrich the person getting the maintenance. Payments of the maintenance cannot continue ad infinitum.
In the case of Dr. Sharique Ali and others v State of Madhya Pradesh and others the scope of Grant-in-aid and Right to education was discussed and it was observed that the grant-in-aid is an assistance for some time to the educational institutions to meet their need and it is their obligation to be self-sufficient as the concept of grant-in-aid cannot be a contribution in perpetuity or ad infinitum.
Edited by Vigneshwar Ramasubramania
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje
 Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., (2015) 9 SCC 552
 Reema v. Sumer Singh Salkan. 2018 Indlaw SC 870
 Dr. Sharique Ali and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2002(1) M.P.H.T. 315