UBI JUS IBI REMEMDIUM

MAXIM:

Ubi jus ibi remedium

MEANING:

When there is a right, there is a remedy.

EXPLANATION:

The word “jus” means legal authority to do something or demand or to demand something. The word “remedium” means that the person has the court of action in law. The person has the rights to sue. It means that where there is a wrong, there is a remedy.

It is a Latin maxim which means that where there is a wrong, there is a remedy. If any wrong committed then the law provides a remedy for that wrong by applying this principle. No person should suffer a wrong without a remedy. It means that if the right was breached by a person then the law will provide a suitable remedy for that wrong. This principle also says that no wrong should be allowed to go without any compensation.

Law of equity says that if there is a breach of right then the right which is breached is incomplete without a proper remedy.

ESSENTIALS OF THE MAXIM:

 This maxim will apply only when the right which exists should be recognised by the court of law.

 A wrongful act which violates the legal rights of a person must have been done.

 This maxim will be applied only if any legal injury has been caused to the person.

 This maxim can be used only when sufficient relief has not been provided by the court of law to the person who is suffered from the injury.

MAXIM RELATED TO THE CASE – ASHBY V. WHITE:

In Ashby v. White, the plaintiff’s (Ashby) legal right of voting was violated by the defendant (White). Here comes the maxim – ubi jus ibi remedium which means when there is a right, there is a remedy. According to this maxim, the plaintiff’s right was violated for which he needs a remedy. The plaintiff’s suit was successful. Thus the court held that the legal right of the plaintiff was violated by the defendant. So the defendant was liable to pay the compensation to the plaintiff.

CASE LAWS:

 SARDAR AMARJIT SINGH KALRA V. PROMOD GUPTA & ORS.,

In this case, the court held that the principle of ubi jus ibi remedium is recognised as a basic principle of the theory or philosophy of law. The Supreme Court also held that it is the duty of the courts to protect and maintain the rights f parties and help them instead of denying them relief.

 D.K. BASU V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

D.K. Basu who was working as the executive chairman in legal ai services, West Bengal, a non- political organisation registered on 26-08-1986. It was registered under the Societies Registration Act. He wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India telling him about the certain news which was published in newspapers namely the Indian Express and The Telegraph regarding the death of a person in the police lockups and custody.

After that, the Supreme Court issued some guidelines which need to be followed during the arrest of an accused person. The court further added that mere declaration of violence in police custody or judicial custody is a legal wrong. Thus they have to provide certain compensation for the wrong done by them.

 BHIM SINGH V. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR

In this case, the petitioner was an MLA of Jammu and Kashmir parliamentary assembly. He was arrested by a police officer while he was on his way to the parliamentary session. He was restrained from attending the parliamentary session. He was not even presented before the magistrate in time. The petitioner had a legal right to attend the meeting of the parliament. Thus his fundamental right under Article 21 of our Indian Constitution was violated. Hence, the Supreme Court held that the defendant was responsible and liable to pay the compensation. Finally, the petitioner was awarded with Rs.50, 000 as compensation for the infringement of his fundamental right.


Credit: arshiya .

10 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All