(Where there is a right, there is a remedy)

I. Introduction

The maxim “Ubi jus ibi remedium” is one of the most celebrated and foundational principles of jurisprudence. It means “where there is a right, there is a remedy.” The idea is that every legal right must be accompanied by a legal remedy when it is violated. Without an enforceable remedy, the recognition of a right becomes meaningless.

This principle forms the bedrock of the rule of law and the very existence of civil justice systems across the world. It ensures that justice is not merely theoretical but practical and enforceable.

II. Meaning and Origin

The Latin words “Ubi” means where, “jus” means right, and “remedium” means remedy. Thus, Ubi jus ibi remedium literally means that a wrong without a remedy is no wrong at all in the eyes of law.

The maxim is attributed to Roman law, which emphasised that the courts must provide a remedy for every injury suffered. It was later incorporated into English common law, famously applied in Ashby v. White (1703), where Chief Justice Holt declared:

“If the plaintiff has a right, he must of necessity have a means to vindicate and maintain it, and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise of it; for want of a right and want of a remedy are reciprocal.”

This case laid the foundation for modern legal remedies, especially in tort and constitutional law.

III. Essence of the Maxim

The maxim expresses a simple yet powerful principle:
A right without a remedy is a shadow without substance.

It reflects the inseparable connection between rights and remedies. If the law confers a right, it must also provide a mechanism for its enforcement. The courts exist to ensure that rights are not violated without redress.

However, the maxim applies only to legal rights and not moral or political rights. The courts cannot create remedies for rights not recognised by law.

IV. Application in Indian Law

The Indian legal system, rooted in common law, has fully embraced this maxim. The Constitution of India, various statutes, and judicial precedents reflect its spirit in ensuring that individuals have effective remedies when their legal or constitutional rights are infringed.

1. Constitutional Application

The Indian Constitution embodies this principle in several provisions:

• Article 32 — Right to Constitutional Remedies
  Described by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as “the heart and soul of the Constitution,” Article 32 gives citizens the right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
  This reflects ubi jus ibi remedium in its purest form — every fundamental right has a guaranteed remedy.
• Article 226 — Power of High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of Fundamental Rights and other legal rights.
  It provides a broader scope of remedy, ensuring that even ordinary legal rights (not just fundamental rights) can be protected.

Thus, the Constitution transforms this maxim into a living constitutional principle, ensuring that rights are never left remediless.

2. Under the Law of Torts

The maxim is most prominently applied in tort law, which is based on the idea that every civil wrong must have a remedy.

If one person’s legal right is violated — be it through negligence, defamation, trespass, or nuisance — the law offers a remedy, usually in the form of damages or injunction.

Indian courts have often cited this maxim while expanding tortious liability, especially against the State in cases of violation of fundamental rights.

3. Under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)

• Section 9, CPC gives civil courts jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature unless expressly barred.
  This section embodies ubi jus ibi remedium, ensuring that where there is a civil right, a person can seek redress in civil courts unless the law explicitly forbids it.

4. Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)

In criminal law, the State provides remedies through prosecution and punishment. Every offence against a person or the State gives rise to a corresponding remedy under criminal statutes.

V. Important Judicial Pronouncements in India

1. Ashby v. White (1703) 2 Ld. Raym 938 (English case)

Though not Indian, this foundational case is frequently cited in Indian courts. The plaintiff, a qualified voter, was unlawfully prevented from voting. Though his vote would not have changed the result, the court held that his legal right to vote had been violated, and hence he was entitled to damages.
Chief Justice Holt famously said:

“A right must have a remedy; otherwise, it is vain.”

This principle influenced later Indian jurisprudence.

2. Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (AIR 1986 SC 494)

A landmark judgment applying this maxim in Indian constitutional law. Bhim Singh, an MLA, was wrongfully detained by police to prevent him from attending a legislative session. The Supreme Court held that his fundamental rights under Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) and Article 22 were violated.

The Court awarded monetary compensation — an innovative remedy — stating:

“When a person’s right to personal liberty is grossly violated, it would be a travesty of justice to deny him a remedy.”

Thus, the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium was used to create a public law remedy of compensation for constitutional violations.

3. Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (AIR 1983 SC 1086)

Rudul Sah was kept in prison for 14 years even after his acquittal. The Supreme Court held that his illegal detention violated his fundamental rights and awarded compensation.

Justice Chandrachud observed:

“The right to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest.”

This case cemented the idea that no right exists without a remedy, even against the State.

4. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987 AIR SC 1086) — Oleum Gas Leak Case

The Court evolved the doctrine of absolute liability for hazardous industries, ensuring remedies for victims of industrial disasters. The judgment emphasized that recognition of rights without remedies would defeat the object of justice.

5. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993 AIR SC 1960)

In this case, the petitioner’s son died in police custody. The Court held that a violation of Article 21 demands a public law remedy in the form of compensation, distinct from private law remedies under torts.

Justice Anand stated:

“A remedy is part and parcel of the right. A mere declaration of rights without adequate relief would be hollow.”

6. Consumer Protection Act, 2019

This Act is a statutory embodiment of the maxim, ensuring that consumers who suffer from defective goods or deficient services have accessible legal remedies. It operationalises the maxim in modern commercial law.

VI. Limitations of the Maxim

Although ubi jus ibi remedium is a cornerstone of justice, it is not absolute.
The following exceptions exist:

1. Political or moral rights — not enforceable in court (e.g., right to sympathy).
2. Sovereign immunity — certain state acts may still be immune from liability.
3. Lack of procedural law — where no legal framework provides remedy, courts cannot create one beyond their jurisdiction.
4. Barred by limitation or statute — if law prohibits remedy after a time, the right becomes unenforceable.

Thus, the maxim applies only when the law recognises the right and provides a corresponding remedy.

VII. Significance in Indian Jurisprudence

1. Ensures Access to Justice — Embodies the spirit of Articles 32 and 226.
2. Protects Rule of Law — Prevents arbitrary denial of rights.
3. Foundation of Public Law Remedies — The basis for judicial activism and compensation for fundamental rights violations.
4. Encourages Accountability — Ensures that individuals and the State are responsible for unlawful actions.

VIII. Conclusion

The maxim Ubi jus ibi remedium encapsulates the essence of justice — rights must not exist in a vacuum. It guarantees that no wrong shall go unredressed and no right shall remain unenforced.
Indian jurisprudence has expanded its scope from private law to public law, ensuring remedies even for violations by the State.

Cases like Rudul Sah, Bhim Singh, and Nilabati Behera showcase how Indian courts have turned this ancient maxim into a living constitutional doctrine — one that bridges the gap between law and justice.

As long as courts uphold this principle, the promise of the Constitution — that justice shall not be denied to any citizen — continues to live in its truest form.