It is the basic principle of Jurisprudence that every Right has a correlative Duty and every Duty has a correlative Right. But the rule is not absolute. It is subject to certain exceptions in the sense that a person may have a Right but there may not be correlative Duty. The instant case, as we shall presently see, falls within the exceptions.
“RIGHT” is an interest recognised and protected by moral or legal rules. It is an interest the violation of which would be a legal wrong. Respect for such interest would be a legal duty. That is how Salmond has defined the “Right”. In order, therefore, that an interest becomes the subject of a legal right, it has to have not merely legal protection but also legal recognition. The elements of a “LEGAL RIGHT” are that the “right” is vested in a person and is available against a person who is under a corresponding obligation and duty to respect that right and has to act or forbear from acting in a manner so as to prevent the violation of the right. If, therefore, there is a legal right vested in a person, the latter can seek its protection against a person who is bound by a corresponding duty not to violate that right.
