Of late, in this very direction, it is emphasized that the Courts have to adopt different approaches in “social justice adjudication”, which is also known as “social context adjudication” as mere “adversarial approach” may not be very appropriate. There are number of social justice legislations giving special protection and benefits to vulnerable groups in the society.
The principle that the costs of administration of justice should be met entirely through court fees levied on users is termed as `full cost recovery’. In this chapter it is proposed to examine the practice in some of the commonwealth countries where this principle which was applied long ago, has now been either modified or given up altogether. In fact, a survey of the available literature reveals that the full cost recovery principle has been found to be wholly unsupportable and is not accepted in any country in the Commonwealth or in Europe.
In India, there can be no doubt that the citizens had always access to the King, right from the time of Ramayana according to our history. When the Indian Courts later absorbed the common law of England, the right to access to courts became part of our constitutional law, even long before the coming into force of our Constitution. That continued even after the Constitution because of Article 372. We wish to refer to two interesting cases that arose in the pre-independence era which would indicate that concept of a non-derogable right of access to justice was recognised and enforced by the courts in this country.
Justice is a principle which regulates the distribution of things, valued by men awarding them to some, denying them to others. It is, at the same time, a principle whereby each man’s worth is appraised. Justice gives to “every one that which is his.” It is not a free gift from the Court.
Justice may be defined in various ways and has been so diversely defined through centuries of legal evolution. Leaving aside Plato’s idea of justice as based on the differentiation of citizens according to status and capacities.
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.
Social justice (Civil Justice) Social justice, sometimes called civil justice, is a concept largely based on various social contract theories. Most variations on the concept hold that as governments are instituted among populations for the […]
Distinction between illegality and irregularity vs express prohibition and express provision in Cr.P.C
What is Justice – The essence of the matter does not lie there. It is embedded in broader considerations of justice that cannot be reduced to a set formula of words or […]
Judicial justice Supreme Court pointed out in M. H. Hoskot. v. State of Maharashtra, (1978) 3 SCC 544): “Judicial justice, with procedural intricacies, legal submissions and critical examination of evidence, leans upon […]
The word injustice relates to some Law: Injury to some Person, as well as some Law. For what’s unjust, is unjust to all; but there may an injury be done, and yet not against me, nor thee, but some other; and sometimes against no private Person, but the Magistrate only; sometimes also neither against the Magistrate, nor any private man, but onely against God; for through Contract, and conveighance of Right, we say, that an injury is done against this, or that man.
Article 142 Constitution of India- Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc. (1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such […]