Third World remedial jurisprudence transforms the court’s power into the affirmative structuring of redress so as to make it personally meaningful and socially relevant. The frustration of invalidity is part of the judicial duty; fulfillment of legality is complimentary.
- We have spent some time in ascertaining the English law on the subject by reason of the absence of any authority of any Indian court on this point and because the learned Single Judge has based his decision on the Miliangos case while the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has based its on the Jugoslavenska case. Further, the English decisions referred to by us are of courts of a country from which we have derived our jurisprudence and a large part of our laws and in which the judgments were dilivered by judges held in high repute. Undoubtedly, none of these decisions are binding upon this Court but they are authorities of high persuasive value to which we may legitimately turn for assistance. Whether the rule laid down in any of these cases can be applied by our courts must, however, be judged in the context of our own law and legal procedure and the practical realities of litigation in India.[ SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FORASOL — Vs. OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION (1984) AIR(SC) 241 ]
- In Kailash v. Nanhku and Others, III (2005) SLT 634=II (2005) CLT 182 (SC)=AIR 2005 SC 2441 wherein it was held-
“The mortality of justice at the hands of law troubles a Judge’s conscience and points an angry interrogation at the law reformer.
The processual law so dominates in certain systems as to overpower substantive rights and substantial justice. The humanist rule that procedure should be the handmaid, not the mistress, of legal justice compels consideration of vesting a residuary power in Judges to act ex debito justitiae where the tragic sequel otherwise would be wholly inequitable. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence-processual, as such as substantive.”
- It is now almost well settled by this Court starting from Time Incorporated v. Lokesh Srivastava and Anr. 2005 (30) PTC 3 that the court should make its endeavours to deprecate the dishonesty especially to discourage the law breakers who have also willfully absent themselves from the court. This has been done by the courts by awarding punitive damages which has its genesis from American concept of punitive damages which is akin to the penalty or having penal effect in the damage jurisprudence. The said damages are discretionary but are awarded in the cases where the court find that the Defendants conduct are ex facie dishonest.
- All systems of jurisprudence as an over-riding power of the State for protection of social security and other public interests,–the said power, however, being controlled or regulated by law.
- The jurisprudence of Humpty Dumpty– SUPREME COURT OF INDIA P.D. JAMBEKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT 1973) AIR(SC) 309
- The jurisprudence of genuflexion [ SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SUBHASH HANDER Vs.STATE (CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION) AND OTHERS (1980) AIR(SC) 423]
- Civil Jurisprudence
- Company law jurisprudence
- Constitutional jurisprudence
- Damage Jurisprudence
- Human rights jurisprudence [Case-1]
- Industrial jurisprudence – [Case-1 Strike] [Case-2 DA]
- jurisprudence of precedents
- Labour jurisprudence
- Medical Jurisprudence
- Motor vehicle jurisprudence
- Nolle prosequi jurisprudence
- Procedural jusisprudence
- Remedial jurisprudence
- Rent control jurisprudence- [Case-1 accomodation]
- Service jurisprudence -[CASE-1 Equal opportunity ]
- Trademark jurisprudence