Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium

Meaning:

Where there’s a wrong, there’s a remedy.

Explanation:

The maxim states that if any wrong has been committed, the law provides a remedy. In simple terms, the law specifies a remedy for each wrong. This principle allows compensation if a wrong has been committed. According to the law, wrong actions are those which aren’t prescribed by moral rules or which are prohibited by law. When a person’s right is denied, the law affords the remedy of an action for its enforcement. Thus, this right to a remedy includes a right of action. The maxim also states that the person whose right has been infringed can go to the Court to enforce it.

The applicability or the essentials of the maxim are:

  • A right that is recognized by the law.
  • A wrongful act that violates the legal rights of the person.
  • When relief has not been provided by the court.
  • Legal injury.

Exceptions:

Although the maxim denotes that each wrong has equity of remedy provided by the law, it shall not apply to the following cases:

  • To people who don’t have legal damage.
  • To moral and political wrongs which aren’t actionable.
  • To breach of marriage vows.

Illustration:

A clock tower fell due to the negligence on part of the Municipal corporation thereby injuring many people. The injured people have the right to raise an appropriate remedy within the law court.

Case Laws:

In Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, the petitioner was the MLA of the Jammu and Kashmir parliamentary assembly. While he was on his way to attend a parliamentary session, he was wrongfully arrested by a policeman and he was restrained from attending the parliamentary session. He wasn’t presented before the magistrate in time and he had a right to attend the meeting. His fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution was violated. The 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 Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra vs. Pramod Gupta & Ors., the Supreme Court held that the maxim ‘Ubi jus ibi remedium’ is recognized as a basic principle of the theory or philosophy of law and that courts need to protect and maintain the right of parties and help them rather than denying them relief.In the case of Ashby vs. White, Ashby a registered voter, was stopped from voting. Regardless, the candidate he wished to vote for, won the election. Now the question arose that whether the right has been infringed and if the answer is in the affirmative, then can he ask for a remedy? The court held that though the plaintiff has suffered no damage because the candidate he wished to vote for, won the election but the right of the plaintiff has been violated and he’s entitled to enforce it. The maxim Ubi jus ibi remedium was applied in the case and compensation was provided to the petitioner.In Shivkumar Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the Supreme court held that where the statutory enactments don’t provide any forum for complaints but only create rights and liabilities, then the individual whose right has been infringed can approach Civil Court.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: