The law does not notice trifling matters.
The Latin legal maxim means that the law does not take notice of trivial matters. It is a common law principle which provides that the judges will not sit in judgment or take notice of extremely minor transgressions of the law. As per this Maxim rationale citizens would deem an appeal for trivial matters an utter waste of time and resources. It will bring the judicial system into disrepute.
A promised to B that they together will go to watch a movie on Sunday. However, A didn’t turn up at the theatres and B suffered mental trauma and agony. B sued A for damages. Here the court will dismiss the appeal of B as law does not take account of trivial matters.
A. State (Delhi Administration) vs. Puran Mal
The court examined the adulteration of food articles in consideration of this Latin legal maxim and propounded that a food article unfit for human consumption cannot be set to be covered under the rule of de minimis non curat lex.
B. State of Bihar and Others vs. Harihar Prasad Debuka and Others
The checking of documents or the filling in and submission of Forms and returns, detour to a public weighbridge and the like may be an inconvenience, and unless they are shown to be unreasonable and not in public interest the court may apply the maxim ‘de minimis non curat lex’.
C. Chunilal Jethalal V. Ahmedabad Borough Municipality
The learned Judge held, I think rightly, that the words “kept for use within the borough” meant kept for normal use within the borough, and no doubt where a vehicle is kept for normal use outside the borough, an occasional user within the borough could be rejected on the principle of de minimis non curat lex.
Edited by Vigneshwar Ramasubramania
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje
 State (Delhi Administration) v. Puran Mal, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 741.
 State of Bihar and Ors v. Harihar Prasad Debuka and Ors., A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1119.
 Chunilal Jethalal v. Ahmedabad Borough Municipality, LQ 1939 HC 0544.