Justice is a proper, harmonious relationship between the warring parts of the person or city. According to the Hobbes and Rousseau’s Model of Sovereignty, Justice is a process of giving and protecting the rights and liberties of a person. “The aim of justice is, as the Romans used to say, to give each his due, and in order for each to be given what is his….`give`, in this sense, means to protect the right of possession. Each man gets `what belongs to him` in the course of voluntary exchanges that constitute the economic process, and, by virtue of the operation of the market, each receives for his contribution, precisely the amount that will impel him to increase the supply of the most urgently demanded commodities.[1]

Justice is the act by which the Society/Court/Tribunal gives to a man what he is entitled to, as opposed to protecting against injury or wrong. Justice is the rendering of what is right and equitable towards one who has suffered a wrong. Therefore, while tempering the justice with mercy, the Court has to be very conscious that it has to do justice in exact conformity to some
obligatory law for the reason that human actions are found to be just or unjust as they are in conformity with or in opposition to the law. [2]

The word `complete justice` rather than the term `justice`. This is because complete justice travels much beyond the concept of giving justice to a party. Complete justice strives at imparting justice not just for one side alone, but for all. Even if a party has wronged another, the court cannot become an instrument to perpetuate wrong upon him. The expression `complete justice` engrafted in Article 142 is of wide amplitude “couched with elasticity to meet myriad situation”. Complete justice is justice according to law and the Supreme Court would be well within its power to even mould the relief so sought by the parties to ensure that no illegality is perpetuated.

[1] Plato, The Republic, Book-I, 331 BC. Faustino Ballve, Essentials of Economics: A Brief Survey of Principles and Policies, 1963.

[2] Delhi Administration v. Gurudeep Singh Uban AIR 2000 SC 3737

[3] Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 1806

%d bloggers like this: