Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium: The Enduring Principle of Remedy in Indian Jurisprudence

Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium: The Enduring Principle of Remedy in Indian Jurisprudence

Introduction

The Latin maxim ubi jus ibi remedium, which translates to "where there is a right, there is a remedy," stands as a foundational pillar of legal systems worldwide, including that of India. It encapsulates the fundamental principle that the existence of a legal right inherently implies the availability of a legal mechanism for its enforcement and for redressal in case of its infringement. This article delves into the jurisprudential significance and application of this maxim within the Indian legal framework, drawing extensively upon judicial pronouncements from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts. It explores how Indian courts have interpreted and applied this principle to ensure access to justice, uphold fundamental rights, and provide remedies for civil wrongs and statutory violations.

The Genesis and Doctrinal Moorings of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium

The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium has deep roots in common law traditions. As noted by the Supreme Court in Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai And Others[11], and reiterated in cases like Ashok Kumar Jaiswal v. Ashim Kumar Kar[15], the maxim has been considered so valuable that it led to the invention of the form of action called "an action on the case."[11], [15] Broom's Legal Maxims highlights that where no precedent of a writ could be produced, the Clerks in Chancery would agree in forming a new one, emphasizing that the novelty of a particular complaint is no objection, provided an injury cognizable by law is shown.[11], [15] This underscores the judiciary's inherent power and duty to innovate and adapt legal procedures to provide remedies for new forms of wrongs. The principle, as articulated in the classic case of Ashby v. White and cited by the Delhi High Court in Cref Finance Limited v. Puri Construction Ltd. & Ors[13], posits that "if a man has a right he must have a means to vindicate and maintain it, and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise and enjoyment of it; and indeed it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal."[13]

The Rajasthan High Court in ANIL AGARWAL S/O KAILASH CHAND v. SURESH CHAND S/O LATE SHRI RAMESH CHAND TIWARI[16] further elucidates this by referring to the complementary maxim, "Lex Semper Dabit Remedium" (the law will always give a remedy), affirming that if a person has a right, they must have the means to vindicate and maintain it.[16]

Judicial Application of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium in India

The Indian judiciary has consistently invoked ubi jus ibi remedium to ensure that justice is not denied due to procedural lacunae or the absence of a specific pre-existing remedy. This application spans across various domains of law, from constitutional rights to civil and statutory claims.

Enforcement of Fundamental Rights

The Constitution of India guarantees fundamental rights, and Articles 32 and 226 provide potent remedies for their enforcement through the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively. The judiciary has been particularly vigilant in ensuring that violations of fundamental rights, especially the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, are met with effective remedies, including monetary compensation.

In Rudul Sah v. State Of Bihar And Another[10], the Supreme Court awarded compensation for illegal detention, emphasizing that Article 32 empowers the Court to forge new tools and devise new remedies for enforcing fundamental rights. This was further solidified in Nilabati Behera (Smt) Alias Lalita Behera v. State Of Orissa And Others[5], where the Court held the State liable for custodial death and awarded compensation, distinguishing public law remedies under Article 32 from private law actions in tort. The Court clarified that the State's plea of sovereign immunity is not available as a defence in cases of violation of fundamental rights.[5]

The principles laid down in these cases were reinforced in D.K Basu v. State Of W.B .[3], which issued comprehensive guidelines to prevent custodial violence and reiterated the availability of compensation for such violations. Similarly, in Chairman, Railway Board And Others v. Chandrima Das (Mrs) And Others[9], the Supreme Court upheld an award of compensation for the rape of a foreign national by railway employees, holding the State vicariously liable and affirming that Article 21 protections extend to non-citizens. The Court observed that in the domain of public law, when the right to life is violated, a remedy under Article 226 is available.[9] The Chhattisgarh High Court in Nitin Aryan v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary And Others[17] also affirmed that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with human dignity, and its breach entails entitlement to compensation.

The Supreme Court in KAUSHAL KISHOR v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH GOVT. OF U.P. HOME SECRETARY[18] acknowledged that sufficient constitutional and legal remedies under Articles 32 and 226 are available for citizens whose fundamental rights are infringed.

Access to Justice and Availability of Forums

The maxim implies that where a right exists, there must be a forum for its enforcement. The Supreme Court in Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai And Others[7] stated, "Where there is a right there is a forum for its enforcement." This principle guides courts in ensuring that litigants are not left remediless. In Bhagubhai Dhanabhai Khalasi And Another v. State Of Gujarat And Others[22], the Supreme Court emphasized that "Access to justice is a human right. When there exists such a right, a disputant must have a remedy in terms of the doctrine ubi jus ibi remedium."[22] This sentiment was echoed by the Madras High Court in Sellam Associates v. State Of T.N.[26].

The judiciary also strives to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. The Supreme Court in Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai And Others[11] observed that when the law does not debar seekers of justice from joining hands, they must have a common path, and multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided. The Karnataka High Court in SRI. DEVARAJ P R v. KARNATAKA CO OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LIMITED[28], quoting Dhannalal, reiterated that "where there is a right, there is a remedy too," even if it requires innovative procedural solutions.

However, the existence of a right to a remedy does not mean that any forum can be approached at any time. The principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies is a significant consideration. While the Kerala High Court in T. Jayarani v. Assistant Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies (General) & Others[12] noted that a writ petition might not be turned down merely on the plea of an alternative remedy when guided by equity and the rule of ubi jus ibi remedium, the general rule, as discussed in ASSOCIATION OF GREENWOODS COMMUNITY v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR[20], is that alternative remedy is a rule of discretion, with well-recognized exceptions such as violation of natural justice or proceedings under a void statute. The Supreme Court in Union Of India v. T.R Varma .[4] also indicated that High Courts are generally hesitant to entertain petitions under Article 226 when alternative effective remedies exist.

The Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union Of India And Others[6], while upholding the establishment of administrative tribunals, struck down provisions that excluded the jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles 226/227, affirming that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and ensuring that an ultimate remedial forum remains accessible.

Statutory Rights and Common Law Remedies

The maxim is equally applicable to rights created by statutes and those recognized under common law. In Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Others[2], the Supreme Court held that when a statute regulates a pre-existing common law right (like the right to erect buildings), the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction is not absolute, and civil courts retain authority to intervene in cases of jurisdictional errors or procedural lapses by statutory authorities. This ensures that a remedy remains available if statutory bodies act ultra vires or in violation of natural justice.

In Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. v. State Of Gujarat .[8], the Supreme Court, while dealing with a tortious claim against the State and the applicability of the Limitation Act, ensured that the interpretation of limitation provisions did not unjustly extinguish the remedy. The Court held that Article 36 of the Limitation Act, 1908, was not exhaustive for all torts, and Article 120 could be invoked, thereby preserving the claimant's right to seek a remedy.

The Calcutta High Court in Ashok Kumar Jaiswal v. Ashim Kumar Kar[15] reiterated that "when a person has a right recognized by law, there must be a forum and procedure for enforcement of such right. Such person cannot be bereft of remedy in case such right is infringed or breached."

The Maxim in Specific Contexts

Public Law Remedies and State Liability

A significant application of ubi jus ibi remedium in India has been in the domain of public law, particularly in holding the State accountable for its actions or omissions. As seen in Rudul Sah[10], Nilabati Behera[5], D.K. Basu[3], and Chandrima Das[9], the Supreme Court has proactively fashioned remedies, including compensation, for violations of fundamental rights by State instrumentalities. In Shiv Shankar Dal Mills And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others[21], Justice Krishna Iyer eloquently stated, "Where public bodies, under colour of public laws, recover people's moneys, later discovered to be erroneous levies, the dharma of the situation admits of no equivocation. There is no law of limitation, especially for public bodies, on the virtue of returning what was wrongly recovered to whom it belongs." This underscores the moral and legal imperative for the State to provide remedies for its wrongful actions.

Civil Disputes and Procedural Justice

In civil disputes, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and other procedural laws are designed to provide remedies for the enforcement of civil rights. The principle of ubi jus ibi remedium ensures that procedural laws are interpreted in a manner that facilitates, rather than obstructs, access to justice. The Supreme Court in Union Of India v. T.R Varma .[4] emphasized adherence to principles of natural justice in administrative inquiries, which is a facet of ensuring a fair remedial process. The Delhi High Court in Cref Finance Limited v. Puri Construction Ltd. & Ors[13] invoked the maxim while considering the grant of jural protection in a commercial dispute, highlighting the need for a remedy when a right is asserted.

The Role of Judicial Review

Judicial review itself is a paramount remedy. As affirmed in L. Chandra Kumar[6], the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts and the Supreme Court is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be ousted. This ensures that actions of the legislature and executive are subject to scrutiny, providing a remedy against unconstitutional or arbitrary actions. The Rajasthan High Court in ANIL AGARWAL S/O KAILASH CHAND[16], [27] linked the maxim to the power of judicial review, stating that courts, in exercising this power, would zealously guard human rights and fundamental rights.

Challenges and Nuances in Application

While ubi jus ibi remedium is a potent principle, its application is not without limitations or nuances. Courts must balance this maxim with other legal principles and practical considerations.

The existence of an alternative remedy, as discussed earlier, can influence a court's decision to exercise its writ jurisdiction.[4], [12], [20] The Supreme Court in NIDHI SEED CORPORATION v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS[19] held that a writ of mandamus can be granted only where there is a statutory duty imposed upon an officer and there is a failure to discharge that obligation, not merely to enforce contractual obligations. This indicates that the nature of the right and the corresponding duty are crucial in determining the availability of a specific remedy like mandamus.

The principle of vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt (the law assists the vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights) acts as a counterweight. As noted by the Allahabad High Court in State Of U.P. v. Ist Additional District Judge And Others[29], there are exceptions to the general rule of ubi jus ibi remedium, and delay or laches can be a ground for refusing relief. Similarly, statutes of limitation prescribe time limits for seeking remedies, reflecting a legislative policy that rights should be pursued within a reasonable period.

In Arunima Baruah v. Union Of India And Others[23], the Supreme Court, while acknowledging ubi jus ibi remedium and the need to hear genuine grievances, upheld the dismissal of a writ petition due to suppression of material facts. This highlights that the conduct of the party seeking a remedy is also relevant.

Furthermore, the right to appeal is not an inherent right but a creature of statute. The Supreme Court in Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar (cited in South Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Tech Mahindra .[25]) distinguished between the inherent right to bring a suit and the right of appeal, which must be conferred by law. This means that while a primary remedy for a right violation might be available, the hierarchy and types of subsequent remedies (like appeals) are governed by statutory provisions.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jawarchand Poonamchand Dassaji v. State Of M.P And Others[24], while discussing Public Interest Litigation (PIL), cautioned that recourse to extraordinary provisions like Article 226 should be an exception, with ordinary remedies under ordinary law being the norm, though PIL serves to protect those who are hapless and helpless or in cases of public injury of great magnitude.

Conclusion

The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium remains a vibrant and indispensable principle in Indian jurisprudence. It reflects the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that no legal right is rendered illusory for want of an effective remedy. Through dynamic interpretation of constitutional provisions, statutory enactments, and common law principles, Indian courts have consistently strived to operationalize this maxim. Whether by awarding compensation for violations of fundamental rights, ensuring access to appropriate forums, or exercising the power of judicial review, the Indian legal system endeavors to provide redress for every legally recognized wrong. While tempered by considerations of alternative remedies, laches, and statutory limitations, the core tenet of ubi jus ibi remedium continues to guide the judiciary in its quest to deliver substantive justice and uphold the rule of law, thereby reinforcing public faith in the legal system as an effective guarantor of rights.

References

  1. Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union Of India And Others (2020 SCC 4 727, Supreme Court Of India, 2020)
  2. Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Others (1993 SCC 3 161, Supreme Court Of India, 1993)
  3. D.K Basu v. State Of W.B . (1997 SCC 1 416, Supreme Court Of India, 1996)
  4. Union Of India v. T.R Varma . (1957 AIR SCC 882, Supreme Court Of India, 1957)
  5. Nilabati Behera (Smt) Alias Lalita Behera (Through The Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) v. State Of Orissa And Others (1993 SCC 2 746, Supreme Court Of India, 1993)
  6. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union Of India And Others (1997 SCC 3 261, Supreme Court Of India, 1997)
  7. Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai And Others (2002 SCC 6 16, Supreme Court Of India, 2002)
  8. Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. v. State Of Gujarat . (1994 SCC 4 1, Supreme Court Of India, 1994)
  9. Chairman, Railway Board And Others v. Chandrima Das (Mrs) And Others (2000 SCC 2 465, Supreme Court Of India, 2000)
  10. Rudul Sah v. State Of Bihar And Another (1983 SCC 4 141, Supreme Court Of India, 1983)
  11. Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 2002) - [Note: This appears to be the same as Ref 7, cited with slightly different context from the prompt]
  12. T. Jayarani v. Assistant Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies (General) & Others (Kerala High Court, 2016)
  13. Cref Finance Limited v. Puri Construction Ltd. & Ors (Delhi High Court, 2000)
  14. Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai & Ors (Supreme Court Of India, 2000) - [Note: Likely related to Ref 7 & 11, potentially an earlier phase or different reporting. Using 2002 SCC 6 16 as primary for consistency when the quote is identical.]
  15. Ashok Kumar Jaiswal v. Ashim Kumar Kar (Calcutta High Court, 2014)
  16. ANIL AGARWAL S/O KAILASH CHAND v. SURESH CHAND S/O LATE SHRI RAMESH CHAND TIWARI (Rajasthan High Court, 2023)
  17. Nitin Aryan v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary And Others (Chhattisgarh High Court, 2021)
  18. KAUSHAL KISHOR v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH GOVT. OF U.P. HOME SECRETARY (Supreme Court Of India, 2023)
  19. NIDHI SEED CORPORATION v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS (Uttarakhand High Court, 2017)
  20. ASSOCIATION OF GREENWOODS COMMUNITY v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR (Madras High Court, 2025) - [Note: Year 2025 seems like a typo in prompt, likely 2023 or 2024 if recent, or an older date. Using as provided.]
  21. Shiv Shankar Dal Mills And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others (1980 SCC 2 437, Supreme Court Of India, 1979)
  22. Bhagubhai Dhanabhai Khalasi And Another v. State Of Gujarat And Others (2007 SCC 4 241, Supreme Court Of India, 2007)
  23. Arunima Baruah v. Union Of India And Others (2007 SCC 6 120, Supreme Court Of India, 2007)
  24. Jawarchand Poonamchand Dassaji v. State Of M.P And Others (1996 SCC ONLINE MP 168, Madhya Pradesh High Court, 1996)
  25. South Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Tech Mahindra . (2019 SCC ONLINE DEL 11863, Delhi High Court, 2019)
  26. Sellam Associates v. State Of T.N. (Madras High Court, 2019)
  27. ANIL AGARWAL S/O KAILASH CHAND v. SURESH CHAND S/O LATE SHRI RAMESH CHAND TIWARI (Rajasthan High Court, 2023) - [Note: Same as Ref 16]
  28. SRI. DEVARAJ P R v. KARNATAKA CO OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LIMITED (Karnataka High Court, 2023)
  29. State Of U.P. v. Ist Additional District Judge And Others (Allahabad High Court, 2013)