What is the meaning of Sui Generis?

Telegram: https://t.me/Legal_Talks_by_DesiKanoon

YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMmVCFV7-Kfo_6S42kPhz2w

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-talks-by-desikanoon/id1510617120

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3KdnziPc4I73VfEcFJa59X?si=vYgrOEraQD-NjcoXA2a7Lg&dl_branch=1&nd=1

Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS84ZTZTcGREcw?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuz4ifzpLxAhVklGMGHb4HAdwQ9sEGegQIARAD

Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/4b89fb71-1836-414e-86f6-1116324dd7bc/Legal-Talks-by-Desikanoon 

Important Judicial Precedents

Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1999) 2 SCC 131 –

In this case, it was observed that the concept of sui generis is applied generously in the adjudication of disputes related to International Law to ascertain whether a particular law or a treaty covers “any area territorially or any subject topically” or not. If not, the adjudicating body devises its sui generis or “one of a kind” method to resolve such disputes. The Court, while delving on the question that whether the National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRC) is a sui generis body or not, in respect of a task assigned to it, namely, to look into flagrant human rights violations in a particular matter, opined that the NHRC became a sui generis body as soon as the Supreme Court directed it by way of a Judicial Order to carry out certain tasks at its behest. Thus, to carry out those certain tasks, the NHRC did not require any jurisdiction to be conferred on it from any statute or that any statute could not have limited its jurisdiction to carry out those tasks and could have acted sui generis that is in a unique manner in order to fulfil the task assigned to it.

Rajendra v. State of Maharashtra – (2021) 2 Mah LJ 457 –

In this case, the Court was looking into question of “what could be a small and what could be a large gathering.” According to the Court, the general classifications of gatherings like funerals and marriages have nothing in common and are of entirely different character and hence, the principle of sui generis could have no applicability in such certain circumstances where each situation (gathering) is of a different character and there could be no straight-jacket formula to make specific classifications. A marriage or a funeral could have a small gathering or a large gathering, depend upon a number of factors. Same is true for any general species of public gatherings.

Therefore, we see that the concept of sui generis has no applicability in situations where no specific categorization exists and that its applicability is limited to identify the uniqueness of an object from a large set where a precise taxonomy exists. This could be a reason that it is used heavily in academic literature.

K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 1985 Supp SCC 714 –

In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the sui generis status of the Constitution of India. According to the Court, Constitution of India is inherently sui generis since it is born in specific circumstances. It has a geography, history, economics etc. different from other countries and does not fit into a water-tight compartmentalization. Therefore, it would be utterly improper to apply the general rules of statutory interpretation to interpret it.

The Court asserted that even our Indian Constitution Makers were not concerned merely with the words and their arrangement in the Constitution, rather their emphasis was on “the philosophy and the pervading “spirit and sense” of the Constitution, so elaborately exposed for our guidance in the Directive Principles of State Policy and other provisions of the Constitution.”

Therefore, in this context, sui generis would mean the specific nature of the Constitution of India and that there is no classification where the Constitution of India could fit necessitating adoption of a sui generis approach for its interpretation.

Federation of Hotel & Restaurant Assn. of India v. Union of India, (1989) 3 SCC 634 –

In this case, the Supreme Court held that if a tax is imposed under the residuary powers of the Central Government and such a tax does not fall within any other classification, then it could be termed as sui generis or nondescript tax and could be held to be valid. It was beautifully quoted that “the point of the reference is emphatically not to seek a pattern to which a due exercise of the power must conform.” I think this is precisely the purpose of the principle or the concept of sui generis. A lack of discernible pattern makes an object or a situation to be sui generis. Another takeaway from this Judgment is that sui generis also means nondescript.

Mehar Singh Saini, In re., (2010) 13 SCC 586 –

Section 317 of the Constitution of India provides that the members of the Public Service Commissions could be removed from their office only by the President of India, after an Inquiry by the Supreme Court. The manner or the nature of the Inquiry has not been specified. Therefore, in this case, it was observed that the Supreme Court is free to devise its own sui generis procedure to conduct an Inquiry in terms of Article 317 to suit the facts of a given matter at hand and to ensure justice. The Court also observed that there are various degrees of proof that are required in various laws such as service law works on the principle of preponderance of probability and the criminal law works on the principle of proving beyond reasonable doubt. The very fact that the Constitution Makers inserted Article 317 in the Constitution  of India and used open ended words to grant powers to the Supreme Court to conduct Inquiries under it, postulates that it intended the Supreme Court to adopt a sui generis approach that is different from the service law or the criminal law.

Thus, we see that, here sui generis means non-adoption of an already known approach and adoption of a case-specific approach to conduct an Inquiry , by the Supreme Court.

Daroga Singh v. B.K. Pandey, (2004) 5 SCC 26 –

In this case, the Supreme Court discussed an offence that is sui generis. The offence is that of criminal contempt of court. Just like Article 317, the contempt laws of India provide power to the judge who initiates the criminal contempt proceedings “to remain in full control of the hearing of the case.” The Court discussed that in other criminal offences, specific procedures are followed but in case of criminal contempt, custom-made procedure by the particular judge could be devised to conduct the proceedings, making criminal contempt an offence sui generis.

Conclusion

Sui generis is an interesting term having limitless utility both in the field of law and otherwise. The Courts have used this term in situations where there has been a lack of classification in realms where otherwise the classification is stark or unambiguous. In legal parlance, the principle of sui generis entails a comparative approach. First an object or a situation is to be differentiated from the existing classification and then it could be called as sui generis.