UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM
BY NISHIL KAUSHAL
We all masses be some basic rights and freedom to measure in neighbourhood that is understood to North American nation as basic human rights .They apply to any or all no matter your home of origin or your beliefs or your approach of living. they’re supported shared values like dignity, equality, fairness, independence and respect.
These rights maintain our freedom of life. they’re required to be protected just in case of any breach against them would happen and here the legal maxim, i.e. Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium, comes into play. there’s forever a remedy in life just in case of any breach in our rights living underneath article 21of the constitution of Asian nation. In English law the word remedy means that a right of action.
Ubi jus ibi remedium may be a Latin maxim that meanAs that ‘wherever there’s a right, there’s remedy’. It consists of 2 main ingredients of the ism jus and remedium. wherever jus means that legal authority to try to to or demand one thing from and ‘remedium’ means that rights of action. It merely provides North American nation a which means that if there’s any violation of the right, then the law provides a remedy to the affected person.
‘Everyone within the neighbourhood has the correct to possess a decent legal remedy by the competent national tribunals for the acts that violate your elementary rights and human rights that ar granted to him by the constitution or by any law within the neighbourhood.’
Case I: Donoghue v Stevenson
This case is additionally referred to as the snail within the bottle case. This event occurred in textile, European country in 1928, where Ms. might Donoghue was given a bottle of drinkable that had bought by her friend. Since, the bottle was opaque in color from outside nothing is visible within. Donoghue consumed most of its contents before she became conscious of the snail had been there within the bottle and she or he later fell unwell.
Donoghue then took a proceedings against the manufacture of the drinkable, Mr. David Stevenson. The house of lord command that the manufacture owed a obligation of care to her, that was broken as a result of it had been fairly predictable that failure to confirm the product’s safety would cause her to customers. There was conjointly a sufficiently proximate relationship between customers and merchandise makers.
Development Of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium:
The law of wrongful conduct is claimed to be the event of the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium. The word jus means that legal authority to try to to one thing .the word remedium implies that the person has the correct of action within the court of law. The literal which means of the maxim is that wherever there’s right there’s remedy.
The maxim conjointly says that there’s no remedy with none wrong and therefore the persons whose right is being profaned incorporates a right to square before the court of law. This principle conjointly states that if the rights ar accessible to an individual then it’s needed to be maintained by that person solely and remedy is on the market only he’s bruised within the exercise of duty or enjoyment of it; it’s useless to imagine and suppose a right while not a remedy wanted or to be obtained ought to be legal. There ar several ethical and political wrong however ar out unjust or it doesn’t offer several comfortable reasons to require legal actions as they’re not recognised by law. The maxim doesn’t mean that there’s a legal remedy for each wrong committed.
This doesn’t mean that for each wrong there’s a remedy. it’s suitably aforementioned by justice Sir Leslie Stephen that maxim would be properly declared if maxim were to be reversed to mention that ‘where there’s no legal remedy, there’s no legal wrong’.
Essentials Of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium:
This legal maxim is applicable only any wrong has occurred to anyone, if no wrong is caused then the legal maxim damnum sin injuria is employed which suggests that any damage with none wrong
Any unlawful of wrongful act should are done that violates the legal rights of an individual.
This maxim will be used only comfortable relief has not been provided by the court to the one that sustained the injury.
This maxim will solely be applied where this right exists and might be recognized by the court of law.
Limitations Of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium:
We cannot apply this maxim if any correct remedy is given just in case of any breach of rights underneath law.
This maxim can’t be applied to ethical and political wrong that aren’t unjust.
If litigator is negligent or there’s negligence by the facet of the litigator then this maxim won’t be applicable.
In case of common nuisance unless a litigator shows that he suffered a lot of bruised then alternative members of the society , this maxim won’t be applicable.
Case II:- Bhim Singh V. State Of Jammu And Kashmir
In this case, there’s associate degree individual WHO is that the MLA of the Jammu and Kashmir parliamentary gathering. whereas he was on his thanks to the parliamentary meeting, he was unsuitably captured by a cop and he wasn’t ready to be introduced before the decide on time and he had a lawful right to travel to the gathering.
His elementary right underneath article twenty one underneath the Indian constitution has been profaned. The Supreme Court thought-about that the respondent was responsible for violating the applicant’s rights and it granted him a injury of rupees 50000 to the candidate for encroachment of his elementary right.
The nature of this act is completely different in numerous things
The remedy is there just for the damages.
There should be a right that has to be recognised by law.
There ought to a violation of such right that caused injury or some loss to the litigator.
Breach of trusts like personal commitments or wedding or guarantees vows inconsiderately.
If litigator itself is that the wrong soul.
If there’s no legal harm then this maxim won’t be liable.
Case III: Ashby V. White
This is primarily a case of English wrongful conduct law that is expounded to the violation of right and remedy provided by law. litigator mister. Ashby may be a registered citizen however he was interrupted from pick within the elections. thus there’s a violation of elementary right that is ‘Right to vote’, by the officer mister. white. The candidate, whom he wished to vote, won the election. Now, he desires the compensation of the violation of his right. The court command that but, the litigator has suffered any harm as a result of he needed to select the election, his right has been infringed and he was interrupted from physical exertion his right. so the litigator was awarded compensation within the sort of damages.