INTRODUCTION TO UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM
It is a Latin maxim that means where there is a wrong, there is a remedy. If
any wrong is committed then the law gives a remedy for that. The maxim
can be expressed as that any person will not suffer a wrong without a
remedy, it means that once it is proved that the right was breached then
equity will provide a satisfactory remedy. This principle also underscores
the fact that no wrong should be allowed to go without any compensation if
it can be redressed by a court of law. The law expects that there is no right
without a remedy; and if all remedies are gone to impose a right, the right in
point of law come to an end.

MEANING OF UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM
The well-known Latin maxim Ubi jus, ibi remedium – meaning ‘where there
is a right, there is a remedy’, hypothesize that where law has established
a right there should be a corresponding remedy for its breach. The right to
a remedy is one of the fundamental rights recognized in all legal systems.
‘The principle that rights must have remedies is ancient and venerable’.
Remedies, are an institutional guarantee that obligation will be observed
and enforced. The primary function of ‘remedies’ in any legal system is to
redress the illegality and act as a credible threat against potential violators.
The credibility of any legal system thus, depends on the effectiveness of its
remedial mechanisms through which rights and obligations are upheld.

EXPLAINATION TO UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM
Human rights, that belongs to every person, are the basic rights and
privilege. They apply regardless of your place of origin, your beliefs or your
way of life. They based on shared values like decorum, impartiality,
equality, respect, and independence.
As these are rights to nurture the freedom of life. They need to be secured
against their breach. And here the legal maxim, i.e. “Ubi Jus Ibi
Remedium”, comes in a play. It is a Latin maxim, it means that “Wherever
there is a right, there is a remedy.” We can plainly put that remedies are
the life of rights.
The main two constituents of the doctrine are ‘jus’ and ‘remedium’. Where
‘jus’ means legal authority to do or to call something from and ‘remedium’
means right of action. This right to a remedy, includes further more than the
plain meaning of term ‘remedy’ in English law, as it includes a right of
action.
The principle says that wherever there is breach of anyone’s right, the law
gives them the remedy to protect it or to recover the damages for any loss.

DEVELOPMENT OF UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM
The law of tort is said to be the evolution of the maxim Ubi jus ibi
remedium. The word “jus” means legal authority to do something or to
demand for something. The word “remedium\” means that person has the
right of action in the court of law. The actual meaning of the maxim is
where there is a wrong there is a remedy.
The circuit court of appeals of the United States of America in the case
of Leo feist v. young observed that “it is an fundamental maxim of the
equity of jurisprudence and there is no wrong without a remedy”.
This maxim also says that there is no remedy without any wrong and the
persons whose right is being violated has a right to stand in the court of
law. This principle also states that if the rights are available to a person
then it is needed to be maintained by that person only and remedy is
available only when he is injured in the exercise of duty or diversion of it; It
is useless to imagine and think a right without a remedy. It is necessary to
keep in mind that both rights violated and the searched or to be obtained
should be legal. There are many moral and political wrong but are not
applicable or it does not give many adequate reasons to take legal action
as they are not recognized by law. The maxim does not mean that there is
a legal remedy for whole wrong committed.
For example, a contract which was required to be made on stamped paper
may be made orally; in such situation, irrecoverable harm may be caused
to other person and yet no legal remedy is available.
Thus, the maxim does not mean that there is a remedy for each and every
possible wrong. It is accordingly said by Justice Stephen that maxim would
be correctly stated if maxim were to be reversed to say that “where there is
no legal remedy, there is no legal wrong’’.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENT OF DOCTRINES
The Courts have, at times, explained the broad meaning of the Maxim.
Some of these cases, for our better understanding of the principle behind
this maxim.
In a landmark case, Ashby v. White, Holt C.J. noticed that there should be
no wrong without remedy. Wherever the common law gives right, there is
always a remedy for its implementation. It was held that, “ When the law
clothes a man with a right he must have means to acquit and maintain it
and remedy if he is injured in the exercise and enjoyment of it, and it is a
vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy are reciprocal”.
Justice Kerner, described this doctrine as an elementary maxim of the
equity of jurisprudence. As it prepares for, there is no wrong without the
remedy. The principle inspected in the maxim is that, victim will have
equitable remedy under law whenever his/her right is infringed.
With the arrival of a Welfare State, it was realized that ratification creating
liabilities in respect of payment of taxes, obligations after vesting of estates
and conferring rights on a class of citizens should be complete codes by
themselves. With that object in view, forums were created under the Acts
themselves where injustice could be entertained on behalf of the persons
aggrieved.
Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Pramod Gupta,
(2003) 3 SCC 272
In the judgement of this case court bring up about the maxim Ubi jus ibi
remedium, that the court should aim to preserve and protect the rights of
the parties and extend help to enforce them.
State of Nagaland v. Chosayi, 2001 SCC OnLine
Gau 137
In this case court believed that Mandamus must first satisfy that he
possessed a legally enforceable right and that right has been infringed by
the executive authority. One he fails to establish that he has a legally
enforceable right, no writ of Mandamus can be issued. When there is legal
right, there is remedy Ubi jus ibi remedium. It must be clutched that a writ of
Mandamus is always issued to remove injustice and to do justice to the
aggrieved party. Writ of Mandamus imposes right. It cannot create right.
Illegality cannot by legalized by issuing a writ of Mandamus. This would
aggregate to allowing perpetuation of illegality.
RIGHTS THAT ARE PROTECTED
Every right must have a remedy is the teaching of the English law. There
can be sadness without tears but not a right without a remedy. Rights are
may be of economics, social, cultural, civil or political nature. Let’s
understand the appositeness of this doctrine to some of the established
rights through the way of illustrations.
Right to Vote – ‘A’ despite being a registered voter has been
prohibited from casting her vote, by the Returning officer. Here the person
intended by ‘A’ to vote has been elected. But ‘A’ still has a right to get
compensation as her right to vote has been violated by the Returning
officer.
Political Right – ‘A’ is an MLA of the State of Jammu and Kashmir,
has been illegally delayed by Police. Here ‘A’s Right to company the
Legislative Assembly has been breached. ‘A’ is designated to bring a suit
before the Court.
Legal Rights – ‘A’ has adequate funds in his bank account, despite
this, the banker refuses to honor his cheque. ‘A’ has each and every right
to sue the Bank for recovery of damages. The Bank is liable to pay
damages to ‘A’ because his legal right has been violated.
As seen from the above examples, we can say that every right that has its
enforceability by the law can be protected by the use of this Maxim.

LIMITATIONS TO USE THE DOCTRINE
“Nature provides exceptions to every rule.” Hence there are certain
limitations in which this doctrine cannot work.
Matter of Right – It should be a matter of right and not of any
moral or any other right which cannot be imposed by the law. Justice
Rohinton Fali Nariman, while differentiating the right of suit from the right of
appeal, observed that “The right of appeal repose in no one and therefore
an appeal for its maintainability must have the clear authority of law. That
describes why the right of appeal is described as a creature of statute.” An
appeal is a specific creation of statute and cannot be asserted as a matter
of right.
When the law specifically bars the remedy – The
Benami Transactions (Prohibition Act), 1988 had put a complete bar to the
respondent’s suit against the appellants in respect of the suit of the house.
The Supreme Court held that, ‘where the remedy is barred, the right is
rendered unenforceable.
Breach of marriage vows or any personal promises – The promise made by the husband to his wife is not imposable in the court of law. Because it was not made with the intention of
producing a legal binding.
Public nuisance – This maxim is also not relevant in case of public nuisance unless a plaintiff shows that he tolerated more injury than other members or peoples of the society.
Plaintiff negligence – This maxim is not pertinent where the plaintiff is negligent or there is negligence on the part of the plaintiff.
Moral/political wrong – The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium does not apply to moral and political wrong which are also not relevant. We can clearly take away the meaning inferred by the doctrine, when we slightly modify it to give a better outlook by observing, “Where there is no
legal remedy, there is no legal wrong”.
CONCLUSION
Human rights are the rise of the democratization of the decision-making
process by the people themselves.
A wrongful act must have been done which contravene the legal rights of a
person clearly. This maxim can be used at most when enough relief has
not been provided by the court to the person who sustained the injury. This
maxim is appropriate if any legal injury had been caused to any person, if
no legal injury has been caused then the maxim damnum sine injuria will
be used which means damage without any legal injury.

Hence to ensure the ongoing enjoyment of these rights by the people or to
make this enjoyment hurdle-free the right to sue in a civil court for imposing
the remedy in case of its violation is the fundamental thing. It is this
accessibility of a right to sue that turns the field of law into law of liberty.

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.

We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge