WHERE THERE IS NO LEGAL REMEDY THERE IS NO LEGAL WRONG
It is a Latin proverb which implies that where there is a wrong, there is a remedy. In other words, if there is any wrong committed by a person then law provided a remedy for it. The proverb can be stated as that any individual won’t endure wrong without a remedy, it implies that once it is demonstrated the right was breached then equity will provide a suitable remedy. This standard likewise underlines the way that no wrong ought to be permitted to abandon any compensation if it can be reviewed by a court of law. The law presumes that there is no right without a remedy; and if all remedies are gone to implement a right, the right in the purpose of the law ceases to exist.
Justice Pollock said that good and bad are in opposition to one another. Right activities are those which are endorsed by moral principles, wrong activities are those which are not recommended by moral rules or which are disallowed by law. If there should be an occurrence of lawful activity, anything which isn’t right isn’t perceived by laws. It is assumed that at whatever point a wrong is submitted it implies that lawful obligations have been excluded.
Henceforth the presence of obligation includes a right then it additionally gives the chance of wrong. Obligation, good and bad is not discrete yet they are the distinctive lawful parts of similar rights and events. Once in a while, it happens that there might be two obligations and wrong and wrong don’t occur just when the obligation is genuinely defended. In the event that there exists an obligation to accomplish something and in the event that it is appropriately done, at that point it is said that the obligation is released and the man who was lawfully bound is presently liberated.
Tort law is said to be the development of the Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium maxim.
The term ‘jus’ means legal right to do or claim it. The term “remedium” means the individual has the right of litigation in the legal case. The literal sense of the maxim is when a solution is found to be false.
In the case of Leo feist v. young, the circuit court of appeals of the United States of America observed that “it is an elementary maxim of the equity of jurisprudence and without a remedy, there is no wrong.”
The Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States of America in the case of Leo Feist v. Young (1943) observed that “It is an elementary maxim of equity jurisprudence that there is no wrong without a remedy.”
The maxim also states that the person whose right is being infringed has a right to enforce the infringed right through any action before a court. All law courts are also guided with the same principle of ‘Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium’
In the leading case of Ashby v. White, the Court observed, “When the law clothes a man with a right he must have means to vindicate and maintain it and remedy if he is injured in the exercise and enjoyment of it, and it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal”
Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Promod Gupta & Ors. the court held that the principle of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium is recognized as a fundamental principle of the theory of law or philosophy. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is the court’s responsibility to protect and preserve the right of parties and to support them, rather than refuse them relief.
In Ashby vs. White, the plaintiff was a qualified voter and he was detained from giving a vote in a parliamentary election by the defendant who was a police officer. The party to whom he wanted to vote had won the election and the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant stating that he was detained from giving a vote and his right to vote was infringed and also claimed a certain amount of compensation for the damage caused to him. The defendant in his defense said that the party to whom he wanted to vote had won the election and therefore no damage and injury was caused to him.
The court held that no damage or injury was caused as the candidate for whom the plaintiff wanted to vote had won the election but his right to vote was violated. To restrain a person from giving vote is a civil wrong and therefore the plaintiff had the right to seek remedy from the court of law. The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium was applied in this case and the plaintiff was awarded some amount of compensation.
In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, Mr. D.K. Basu who was working as the executive chairman in legal aid services, West Bengal, a non-political organization registered on 26-08-1986 under the Societies Registration Act. He wrote a letter addressing the Chief justice of India telling him about certain news that was published in newspapers namely the Indian Express and The Telegraph regarding the death of a person in police lockups and custody.
After hearing this case Supreme Court issued some guidelines which need to be followed during the arrest of an accused person. The court further said that a mere declaration of violence in police custody or judicial custody is a legal wrong and does not provide any remedy to the victim or family of victim on the death of the victim. Only giving punishment to the victim is not sufficient. To file a civil suit for compensation is a long process and compensation should be provided to the person who sustained injury. The quantum of compensation should be decided considering the circumstances of the case.
In Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, the petitioner was MLA of Jammu and Kashmir parliamentary assembly. While he was on his way to attend the parliamentary session he was wrongfully arrested by a police officer and he was restrained from attending the parliamentary session. He was not presented before the magistrate in time and he had a legal right to attend the meeting. His fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution was also violated. At last Supreme Court held that the defendants were responsible and awarded Rs.50,000 as compensation to the petitioner for the infringement of his fundamental right.
In Maretti v. William, the defendant was the owner of the bank, and the plaintiff’s fund was deposited in the defendant’s bank. The plaintiff had sufficient balance in his account in spite of that the defendant refused to honor the cheque to him. The court held that the defendant is liable for the loss caused to the plaintiff. The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium was applied as the plaintiff’s legal right was violated and defendants were liable to pay damages.
In Shivkumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the Supreme court held that where statutory enactments do not provide any remedy but only creates rights and liabilities if any person complains of his rights being violated or wrongly affected such person can approach the civil court on the basis of the principle of legislation that where there is a right, there is a remedy.
In the case of C. Veera Thevar vs The Secretary To Government, the court held that there is no wrong without a remedy. The laws say that in every case where a person is wronged and caused injury then should be provided. Mere declaration of invalidity or death in lockup does not provide any remedy to a person whose fundamental right is violated.
This Article is Authored by Shreya Gupta, 2nd Year BBA LLB Student at JIMS Engineering Management Technical Campus (JEMTEC).
