{"id":1573,"date":"2016-12-25T12:29:33","date_gmt":"2016-12-25T06:59:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.infipark.com\/articles\/?p=1573"},"modified":"2026-09-10T08:58:20","modified_gmt":"2026-09-10T03:28:20","slug":"ubi-jus-ibi-remedium","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.infipark.com\/articles\/ubi-jus-ibi-remedium\/","title":{"rendered":"UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading has-text-align-center\" id=\"ubi-jus-ibi-remedium\">UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The word&nbsp;<strong>\u2018Jus\u2019<\/strong>&nbsp;means the legal authority to do or demand something, and the word&nbsp;<strong>\u2018remedium\u2019<\/strong>&nbsp;means the right of action in a Court of law. Literal meaning of this maxim is that whenever there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy . Sometimes it is expressed that there is no wrong without a remedy .<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The principal upon which this maxim is based is that if a man has a right and if his right is injured , he must, of necessity, have a mean to vindicate or a remedy. It is useless to think about a right without a remedy . Because want of right and want of remedy are same thing . Both the right infringed and the remedy sought should be legal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The law of torts was developed to some extent on the basis of this maxim. But he maxim does not say that there is legal remedy for every wrong. Justice Stephen ( of England) remarked that the maxim would be more intelligibly and correctly stated if it were to be reversed to say that where there is no legal remedy, there is no legal wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">There are many moral and political wrongs which are not recognized by law and are therefore not actionable. A cruel war may raze houses to the ground, or oppressive legislation may reduce men to moral slavery, or a contract required to be made on a stamped paper may be made orally in all these cases, irreparable harm may be caused, and yet, a legal remedy may not be available.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Thus, the maxim does not mean that there is a legal remedy for every moral or political wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-rank-math-toc-block\" id=\"rank-math-toc\"><h2>Table of Contents<\/h2><nav><ul><li><a href=\"#ubi-jus-ibi-remedium\">UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM<\/a><ul><li><a href=\"#doctrine-in-indian-constitutional-framework\">Doctrine in Indian Constitutional Framework<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"#key-cases-table\">Key Cases Table<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"#application-in-civil-and-criminal-proceedings\">Application in Civil and Criminal Proceedings<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"#key-distinctions\">Key distinctions<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"#limitations-and-exceptions\">Limitations and Exceptions<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"#international-comparisons\">International Comparisons<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"#frequently-asked-questions-faq\">Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)<\/a><ul><li><a href=\"#faq-question-1788936536263\">What is the meaning of ubi jus ibi remedium?<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"#faq-question-1788936562119\">Does the maxim apply when limitation periods have expired?<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"#faq-question-1788936575864\">Can courts refuse relief despite the maxim?<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"#faq-question-1788936589161\">How does it relate to Article 32 and Article 226?<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"#faq-question-1788936607366\">Is the principle limited to constitutional cases?<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"doctrine-in-indian-constitutional-framework\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Doctrine in Indian Constitutional Framework<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Ubi jus ibi remedium operates as a foundational guarantee that where a legal right exists, a remedy must follow. In the Indian Constitution this principle finds direct expression through Article 32, which empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights, and through Article 226, which confers similar high-court powers for both fundamental and other legal rights. Courts have consistently invoked the maxim to reject arguments that certain violations lack enforceable remedies, thereby reinforcing access to justice across civil, criminal, and constitutional proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The maxim interacts with limitation law by ensuring that time bars under the Limitation Act, 1963 or the Limitation Act, 1908 do not extinguish the underlying right itself, only the remedy in ordinary suits; writ jurisdiction remains available where the right persists. Practitioners should therefore examine whether a claim routed through regular civil procedure has timed out before considering writ remedies that keep the maxim alive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"key-cases-table\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Key Cases Table<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table is-style-stripes\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Case<\/th><th>Facts<\/th><th>Holding<\/th><th>Ratio Decidendi<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India<\/td><td>Petitioners challenged bonded labour practices in several states.<\/td><td>Supreme Court issued directions for release and rehabilitation.<\/td><td>Where a right under Article 21 exists, courts must provide effective remedies even without statutory machinery.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan<\/td><td>Sexual harassment at workplace lacking specific legislation.<\/td><td>Court laid down binding guidelines.<\/td><td>Absence of statute does not bar judicial enforcement of rights; ubi jus ibi remedium supplies the remedial gap.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Joseph Shine v. Union of India<\/td><td>Challenge to adultery provision under Section 497 IPC.<\/td><td>Provision struck down as violating Articles 14, 15 and 21.<\/td><td>Constitutional rights demand immediate remedies; the maxim prevents rights from remaining theoretical.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"application-in-civil-and-criminal-proceedings\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Application in Civil and Criminal Proceedings<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Ubi jus ibi remedium<\/strong> ensures enforcement pathways remain open across forums. In civil suits governed by the <strong>Limitation Act, 1963<\/strong> or the <strong>Limitation Act, 1908, <\/strong>the maxim preserves the underlying right even after a remedy in the regular court is time-barred, allowing litigants to explore writ routes where a fundamental or legal right persists. Criminal proceedings invoke the principle when statutory gaps or delays threaten access to justice, prompting courts to fashion appropriate directions rather than deny relief outright.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"key-distinctions\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Key distinctions<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Ordinary civil suits:<\/strong> Focus on limitation periods for appeals, revisions, and decree execution; practitioners must check whether a writ petition can revive the claim.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Criminal cases<\/strong>: Emphasis on speedy trial rights under Article 21, where courts apply the maxim to issue directions for investigation or compensation when statutory remedies prove inadequate.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Writ jurisdiction:<\/strong> Remains available beyond limitation bars in regular suits, reinforcing that rights without remedies violate constitutional guarantees.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"limitations-and-exceptions\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Limitations and Exceptions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Ubi jus ibi remedium is not absolute and courts routinely decline relief where sovereign immunity shields the state, the dispute presents a political question, or the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy. Under <strong>Article 300 <\/strong>of the Constitution and <strong>Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code<\/strong>, suits against the government often require prior notice, limiting immediate invocation of the maxim in ordinary civil proceedings. Writ courts further refuse relief on grounds of delay, laches, or when enforcement would infringe executive discretion in areas such as foreign policy or resource allocation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Common exceptions practitioners must note<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Sovereign acts and acts of state remain outside judicial scrutiny in many jurisdictions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Political questions like treaty implementation or parliamentary privilege are non-justiciable.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Availability of statutory appeals or revisions bars writ petitions even when a right exists.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"international-comparisons\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">International Comparisons<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Ubi jus ibi remedium finds echoes across legal traditions yet adapts differently under each system. In English common law the maxim traces to <strong>Ashby v White (1703)<\/strong>, where the House of Lords affirmed that denial of a vote entitled the plaintiff to damages, establishing that rights demand remedies. American jurisprudence invokes the same principle through <strong>Marbury v Madison (1803)<\/strong>, embedding judicial review as the constitutional remedy for rights violations. Civil-law jurisdictions such as France and Germany achieve similar outcomes through codified administrative courts that guarantee relief against state action without requiring separate writ petitions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Comparative snapshot<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>United Kingdom:<\/strong> Remedies via judicial review; sovereign immunity largely waived by statute.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>United States:<\/strong> Strong emphasis on constitutional torts and Section 1983 actions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>European Union:<\/strong> European Court of Human Rights provides supranational enforcement under Article 13 of the Convention.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"frequently-asked-questions-faq\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)<\/h2>\n\n\n<div id=\"rank-math-faq\" class=\"rank-math-block\">\n<div class=\"rank-math-list \">\n<div id=\"faq-question-1788936536263\" class=\"rank-math-list-item\">\n<h3 class=\"rank-math-question \"><strong>What is the meaning of ubi jus ibi remedium?<\/strong><\/h3>\n<div class=\"rank-math-answer \">\n\n<p>It means that where a legal right exists, a corresponding remedy must be available to enforce it.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"faq-question-1788936562119\" class=\"rank-math-list-item\">\n<h3 class=\"rank-math-question \"><strong>Does the maxim apply when limitation periods have expired?<\/strong><\/h3>\n<div class=\"rank-math-answer \">\n\n<p>The underlying right survives even after ordinary remedies are time-barred under the Limitation Act, 1963 or 1908, allowing writs under Articles 32 or 226 where rights persist.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"faq-question-1788936575864\" class=\"rank-math-list-item\">\n<h3 class=\"rank-math-question \"><strong>Can courts refuse relief despite the maxim?<\/strong><\/h3>\n<div class=\"rank-math-answer \">\n\n<p>Yes, courts may refuse on grounds of sovereign immunity, political questions, delay, or when alternative remedies exist.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"faq-question-1788936589161\" class=\"rank-math-list-item\">\n<h3 class=\"rank-math-question \"><strong>How does it relate to Article 32 and Article 226?<\/strong><\/h3>\n<div class=\"rank-math-answer \">\n\n<p>These provisions operationalize the maxim by empowering the Supreme Court and High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of rights.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"faq-question-1788936607366\" class=\"rank-math-list-item\">\n<h3 class=\"rank-math-question \"><strong>Is the principle limited to constitutional cases?<\/strong><\/h3>\n<div class=\"rank-math-answer \">\n\n<p>No, it applies in civil suits, criminal proceedings, and administrative matters whenever a right lacks an effective remedy.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The fundamental legal maxim Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium establishes that where there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy. Rooted in the Law of Torts and operationalized under Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution, this core doctrine guarantees access to justice across civil, criminal, and constitutional law, subject to key statutory exceptions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":35,"featured_media":14562,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[49],"tags":[4075,4068,4077,4073,4076,4070,4072,4074,4069,4071],"class_list":["post-1573","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-law-torts","tag-access-to-justice-principles","tag-article-32-and-article-226","tag-bandhua-mukti-morcha-case","tag-constitutional-doctrines","tag-exceptions-to-legal-remedies","tag-legal-maxims-in-indian-law","tag-limitation-act-1963","tag-supreme-court-judgments","tag-ubi-jus-ibi-remedium","tag-writ-jurisdiction-india"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.infipark.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1573","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.infipark.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.infipark.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.infipark.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/35"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.infipark.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1573"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/www.infipark.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1573\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14575,"href":"https:\/\/www.infipark.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1573\/revisions\/14575"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.infipark.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/14562"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.infipark.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1573"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.infipark.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1573"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.infipark.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1573"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}