Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium – Overview
The Latin maxim Ubi jus ibi remedium—meaning “where there is a right, there is a remedy”—is a fundamental principle underpinning equity and common law systems globally. It expresses that every legally recognized right, whether arising from tort, contract, constitutional, or statutory law, must be enforceable by an effective remedy.
This ensures rights are not illusory but actionable, preventing them from becoming mere “paper tigers.” The maxim does not apply to moral, political, or social grievances unbacked by law (damnum sine injuria) nor does it override explicit statutory exclusions or trivial harms. Protection requires proof of a wrongful act or omission causing legal injury, often leading courts to award damages, injunctions, or declarations to vindicate the aggrieved party.
Historical Foundations In English Common Law
- Ashby v. White, (1703) 2 Ld. Raym. 938: The Court awarded nominal damages to a qualified voter wrongfully excluded from voting, affirming that infringement of a legal right demands a remedy regardless of actual loss. This case laid early groundwork for protecting voting rights and enforcing legal rights irrespective of financial damage.
- Marbury v. Madison, (1803) 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137: The U.S. Supreme Court embedded the maxim in constitutional jurisprudence, emphasizing every individual’s right to legal protection against injury, thus establishing judicial review as a mechanism to uphold rights with remedies.
- Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] AC 562: Applied the maxim to establish a general legal duty of care, creating the modern tort of negligence and expanding remedies to protect consumer rights even without contract privity.
It would be trite to refer to Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Rigsby, 241 U.S. 33 (1916) & Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (2007), which are landmark precedents on the said Maxim.
Indian Constitutional Law And The Maxim ‘Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium’
The Latin maxim Ubi jus ibi remedium – translating to “where there is a right, there is a remedy” – embodies a foundational principle of justice systems worldwide. In Indian law, it underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring that no wrong goes unaddressed and that individuals are not left remediless when their rights are infringed. Rooted in common law traditions and reinforced by constitutional mandates like Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution, this maxim has been invoked across diverse contexts, from property disputes and administrative actions to labor rights and public interest litigation. It serves as a bulwark against legislative or procedural gaps that might otherwise deny justice.
The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly drawn upon this maxim to mould relief, interpret statutes liberally, and expand access to courts. Below, we explore key judgments where the Court has applied Ubi jus ibi remedium, drawing on case facts, judicial reasoning, and outcomes. These decisions, spanning over five decades, illustrate the maxim’s enduring relevance in promoting equity and accountability. The cases are presented in the order provided in the query for coherence
The Maxim is explicitly aligned with Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, empowering courts to grant remedies when rights are violated.
Article 32 In Constitution Of India
32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part:
- The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
- The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrant and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
- Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction ill or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
- The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.
Article 226 In Constitution Of India
Article 226 in Constitution of India reads as under:
Power Of High Courts To Issue Certain Writs
(1)Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrantor and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.[(1-A) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.”; was inserted after 15th Amendment]
(2)The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the scat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
(3)Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without–(a)furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and(b)giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.
(4)The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of article 32.
Application Of The Maxim “Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium”
The application & acceptability of the ‘Maxim Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium’ is evident by the fact that more than 1 lac Writs are filed annually in the Apex Court and all the High Courts of the country for infringement of Rights and adequate remedy is available under Article 32 & 226 of the Constitution.
The Apex Court has specifically dealt with the Maxim to hold that a Right always has a Remedy and enforceability of Right/Remedy is adjunct to the Right itself. Reflecting the Maxim the Supreme Court treats Articles 32 and 226 as constitutional embodiments of ubi jus ibi remedium, aiming to guarantee accessible, substantive justice rather than mere theoretical rights.
Landmark Judgments:
-
Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1985) 4 SCC 677: The Supreme Court awarded compensation for unlawful detention infringing Article 21, exemplifying the state’s liability when fundamental rights are breached and the need for effective judicial remedies.
-
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416: The Court issued guidelines for arrest and detention accompanied by compensatory measures, underlining the principle that recognition of fundamental rights without corresponding remedies renders those rights ineffective.
-
Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Pramod Gupta, (2003) 5 SCC 397: The Supreme Court reiterated the maxim’s foundational status, emphasizing procedural fairness and ensuring remedies remain available despite technical hindrances like death or delay in appeals.
-
Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1993) 3 SCC 499: Affirmed that courts can fill statutory gaps where rights exist without explicit remedies, underscoring the judiciary’s proactive role in ensuring effective legal redress.
-
Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan, (2016) 8 SCC 509: the Court stressed access to justice as a fundamental aspect of equality and life, explicitly endorsing the maxim as essential to democratic legal order.
-
Dhanraj Aswani v. Amar S. Mulchandani (2024)SCC OnLine SC 2055 Or reaffirmed the maxim as a core jurisprudential principle, emphasizing courts’ duty to ensure remedy availability and thwart denials of justice.The Court’s evolving approach to public law compensation treats remedies for constitutional violations under Article 21 as specialized remedies distinct from ordinary tort damages, enhancing rights protection in cases of police excess and wrongful detention.
-
Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India and Others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1823, Decided on 25 August 2025)
In this recent ruling, the Supreme Court addressed a challenge to administrative actions affecting property rights, emphasizing the need to mould relief where statutory remedies fall short. The respondent had filed a suit to recover possession from a benamidar (nominal holder), invoking the maxim to argue that the real owner’s right to resist unlawful dispossession must be enforceable. The Court elaborated on the maxim’s meaning: “When there is a right, there is a remedy. Where the remedy is barred, the right is rendered unenforceable.” It held that procedural lapses could not extinguish substantive rights, directing the authorities to provide compensatory relief. This decision reinforces the maxim’s role in constitutional remedies, ensuring ubi jus translates to tangible remedium. -
Mithilesh Kumari & Anr. v. Prem Behari Khare (1989) 2 SCC 95
This seminal case examined the retrospective effect of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, in a suit for declaration of title and possession. The appellants sought to recover property held benami by the respondent. The Court, applying ubi jus ibi remedium, ruled that the Act did not bar suits filed before its enactment, as denying remedy would render pre-existing rights nugatory. Justice S. Ranganathan observed that the maxim demands courts to interpret laws to avoid injustice, allowing the suit to proceed. The judgment balanced statutory intent with equity, affirming that benami transactions remain challengeable unless expressly barred. -
Shiv Shanker Dal Mills Etc. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (9 November 1979)1980 SCC (3) 437
Challenging increased market fees under the Haryana Act, 1977, the petitioners argued arbitrary taxation violated Article 19(1)(g). The Court struck down the fee hike from 2% to 3%, invoking the maxim as the “root principle of law married to justice.” Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer emphasized social justice’s “pervasive presence,” stating that ubi jus ibi remedium obliges courts to intervene where public bodies act under color of law but cause undue hardship. The ruling quashed the levy, ordering refunds, and highlighted the maxim’s evolution from Dicey’s formulation into a tool for economic equity. -
Rajender Bansal & Ors. v. Bhuru (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. (2016) AIR(SCW) 4919
In a rent control dispute under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, the Court examined whether eviction petitions could be filed post-limitation. Applying ubi jus ibi remedium, it held that the maxim could only be excluded by express substantive legislation extinguishing the right, not procedural bars. The bench, influenced by prior precedents, ruled that tenants retain remedies against arbitrary eviction, dismissing the landlord’s plea. This 2016 decision (Civil Appeal No. 44251 of 2016) underscores the maxim’s protective shield in housing laws. -
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India and Others (1981) 1 SCC 568
Workers challenged the transfer of a public sector unit without safeguards. The Court, liberalizing locus standi, held that ubi jus ibi remedium must embrace public-minded citizens’ interests, allowing unions to seek judicial review. Justice P.N. Bhagwati noted the maxim’s need to meet modern challenges, directing fair wage protections during privatization. This judgment pioneered public interest litigation, embedding the maxim in socio-economic rights. -
Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65
Addressing delays in flat allotments by public authorities, the Court awarded compensation under consumer protection laws. It invoked ubi jus ibi remedium extending it to allottees suffering from deficient services. The ruling directed interest and damages, holding that statutory silence on remedies cannot deny relief. This benchmark expanded accountability in development authorities, blending the maxim with tortious liability. -
Arunima Baruah v. Union of India & Ors. (2007) 6 SCC 120
Challenging service termination on grounds of suppression, the petitioner sought mandamus. The Court, applying the maxim, held that refusal of relief cannot leave parties remediless if rights exist, but misconduct may bar it. In it dismissed the petition on merits but reiterated the maxim’s conceptual weight, influencing administrative law on ex-parte terminations. -
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. & Anr. v. Bal Mukund Bairwa (2009) 4 SCC 299
Bus conductor dismissal for absenteeism was contested as violative of natural justice. The Court, invoking ubi jus ibi remedium, ordered reinstatement without back wages, stressing that civil grievances merit civil remedies. The judgment clarified non-recovery of paid wages, promoting leniency in public employment disputes. -
Kirpa Ram (D) Tr. Lrs. v. Surender Deo Gaur 2020 SCC OnLine SC 935
In a property partition suit, affected parties approached civil courts post-statutory bar. The Court held that ubi jus ibi remedium permits civil jurisdiction where rights are infringed, overriding procedural exclusions. The ruling affirmed remedies for co-owners, expanding access in family law. -
Dhruv Green Field Ltd. v. Hukam Singh and Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 416
Challenging cognizance under the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court ruled that ubi jus ibi remedium mandates jurisdiction for specified suits unless barred. The decision allowed proceedings, emphasizing the maxim’s role in procedural inclusivity. -
Bhagubhai Dhanabhai Khalasi & Anr. v. The State of Gujarat & Ors.(2007) 3 SCC 685
Detention under COFEPOSA was contested for vagueness. The Court, citing Dwarka Prasad Agarwal, held that disputants deserve remedies per the maxim. In it quashed the order, reinforcing judicial review as remedium for arbitrary executive action. -
Atma Linga Reddy and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2008) 7 SCC 788
Alleging Rule of Law violations, petitioners sought writs. The Court linked the maxim to Article 32, holding that rights without remedies undermine justice. The ruling expanded standing, embodying the maxim in constitutional enforcement. -
Banwari Dass v. Summer Chand and Ors. 1974 AIR 2013
Election petition delays were scrutinized under Representation of the People Act. The Court invoked ubi jus ibi remedium to fill casus omissus via the Mischief Rule, allowing proceedings. This decision affirmed courts’ interpretive powers for remedial equity. -
R. Rajagopal Reddy and Ors. v. Padmini Chandrasekharan (1995) 2 SCC 630
On Benami Act retrospectivity, the Court held that barred remedies extinguish rights, per the maxim. The ruling clarified unenforceability, balancing statutory finality with historical claims. -
Straw Board Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen (1977) 2 SCC 329
Challenging retrenchment, the Court cited Dicey to elevate ubi jus ibi remedium beyond mere saws, mandating industrial remedies. The judgment ordered compensation, influencing labor jurisprudence. -
Tulsi Ram & Ors. v. Mathura Sagar Pan Tatha Krishi & Anr 2002 AIR 4228.
Limitation expiry in suits was held to extinguish rights via the maxim. The ruling protected vested interests post-bar, promoting reliance on finality. -
South Delhi Municipal Corporation v. M/S. Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 2019 (10) SCC 495
Sealing powers under municipal laws were challenged. The Court affirmed civil court access per ubi jus ibi remedium, quashing overreach. The decision curbed executive excess in urban planning. -
Ratul Mahanta v. Nirmalendu Saha 2021 (9) SCC 465
Wakf property disputes invoked the maxim for internal remedies’ absence. The Court held concurrent jurisdictions viable, per Ramesh Gobindram. The ruling ensured multi-forum access. -
Pazhassi Raja Charitable Trust & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. (2 December 2009)
Challenging tax exemptions, the Court reiterated the maxim: “There is no wrong without a remedy.” The 2009 ruling directed refunds, embedding it in fiscal justice. -
Dhanraj Aswani v. Amar S. Mulchandani (9 September 2024 2024 INSC 678)
In a bail matter, the Court emphasized anticipatory bail as remedium under Section 438 CrPC. The judgment clarified formal arrest norms, upholding Article 21 rights. -
M/S Natesan Agencies (Plantations) v. State Rep. by the Secretary (20 August 2019)
Land use restrictions were contested. The Court applied the maxim to grant utilization rights, holding remedies must match rights. The 2019 ruling balanced conservation with property interests. -
Suresh Chandra (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. v. Parasram (18 July 2025, (Civil Appeal No. 26215/2022) )
Impleadment in appeals was allowed under Order XLI, per the maxim, to avoid otiose rights. The decision prioritized substantive justice over technicalities. -
Dr. Poornima Advani v. Government of NCT (18 February 2025)
Stamp duty refunds on lost e-stamps were mandated, rejecting remediless denials. The 2025 INSC 262 ruling affirmed the maxim’s application in revenue matters, ensuring fiscal equity. -
Bhagwati Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. 2013 (15) SCC 445
Corporate oppression under Companies Act invoked the maxim against shareholding dilutions. The Court held remedies must prevent right erosion. The ruling ordered buybacks, safeguarding minority interests.
High Courts And The Maxim In Practice
High Courts regularly invoke ubi jus ibi remedium in adjudicating writ petitions under Article 226, extending remedies to violations of legal and statutory rights. However, judicial restraint is exercised where alternative remedies exist, delays are excessive, or facts are disputed, reflecting the maxim’s practical boundaries. This balance preserves efficient adjudication while ensuring no right remains without meaningful relief.
Limitations And Judicial Cautions
The maxim does not authorize judicial overreach to create remedies where statutes explicitly exclude them or exceed legislative mandates. Indian courts distinguish between filling genuine statutory gaps and appropriating the legislative role, cautioning against unwarranted expansion of judicial remedies. Remedies must align with the nature of the right and constitutional scheme.
Expanding Domains And Modern Challenges
The maxim continues to evolve, influencing emerging areas such as environmental rights and intergenerational justice. Recent litigation concerning climate change and the right to a clean environment demonstrates courts applying ubi jus ibi remedium to novel constitutional rights, often through injunctions and protective orders. Similarly, administrative law and public interest litigation harness the maxim to ensure government accountability and public welfare.
Conclusion
These judgments collectively demonstrate ubi jus ibi remedium’s transformative power in Indian law – from filling legislative voids to enforcing constitutional rights. As Justice Krishna Iyer noted in Shiv Shanker Dal Mills (supra) it is not a mere axiom but a marital bond between law and justice. In an era of complex statutes, the maxim ensures the judiciary remains the ultimate sentinel of remedies, fostering a rights-centric legal ecosystem.
