Ubi jus ibi remedium: An Overview

Author: Samay Jain, Institute of Law, Nirma University


It is a Latin proverb that implies that where there is a wrong, there is a cure. Assuming any wrong has been committed by an individual, the law will give a solution in the form of remedy for that. The adage can be stated as that any individual won’t endure wrong without a cure, it implies that whenever it is demonstrated that the right was violated then a reasonable remedy would be provided by equity to the individual whose right was violated. This rule additionally underlines the way that no off-base ought to be permitted to abandon any remuneration if it tends to be changed by an official courtroom.

The law assumes that there is no right without a cure; and if all cures are gone to authorize a right, the right becomes non-existent. It was said by Pollock that rights and wrongs lie in the opposite direction to one another. Right activities are those which are recommended by moral principles, wrong activities are those which are not endorsed by moral guidelines or which are precluded by law. Subsequently, if there lies a legal duty, then there will be a right as well, and if there is a right, then the chances increase of it being violated. A legal duty, good and bad is not discrete however they are the distinctive legitimate parts of similar principles and occasions. Now and then it happens that there may exist both legal duties and wrongs, and some violation doesn’t occur just when that particular legal duty exists. On the off chance that there exists a legal duty to accomplish something and assuming it is appropriately done, it is said that the duty is done and the one who was lawfully bound is presently liberated.

Evolution of Ubi jus ibi remedium

We can say that the law of tort is the improved version of the maxim Ubi jus ibi remedium. “Jus” signifies legitimate power to do something or to request something. “Remedium” implies that the individual has the right of getting a remedy/compensation in case his/her right is violated. The exacting significance of the adage is the place where there is a wrong there is a cure. The circuit court of appeals of the United States of America on account of Leo feist v. young saw that “it is a rudimentary proverb of the value of law and there is no off-base without a cure”.

This proverb additionally says that there is no cure with no off-base and the people whose privilege is being disregarded have an option to remain under the watchful eye of the official courtroom. This standard likewise expresses that assuming the rights are accessible to an individual, it is needed to be kept up by that individual just and cure is accessible just when he is harmed in the activity of obligation or pleasure in it. It is absurd to envision and think of a right that doesn’t have a remedy in case its violation takes place. It is important to remember that the two rights abused and the cure looked for the need to be just and fair. There is numerous good and political wrong however are not significant or it doesn’t give numerous adequate motivations to make a lawful move as they are not perceived by law.

For instance, an agreement that was needed to be made on q paper might be made orally; in such conditions, the damage might be caused to someone else but then no legitimate cure is accessible as there is no evidence in writing. Consequently, the proverb doesn’t imply that there is a solution for each conceivable wrong. It is suitably said by Justice Stephen that proverb would be effectively expressed if saying somehow happened to be turned around to say that “where there is no lawful cure, there is no legitimate wrong.

Fundamentals of Ubi jus ibi remedium

  • The saying ubi jus ibi remedium can be applied just where the right is in existence and that privilege ought to be perceived by the official courtroom.
  • An unfair demonstration more likely than not has been done which abuses the lawful privileges of an individual unmistakably.
  • This proverb can be utilized just when adequate help has not been given by the court to the individual who supported the injury.
  • This proverb only comes into the picture if any legitimate injury had been caused to any individual, on the off chance that no lawful injury has been caused.
  • The saying damnum sine injuria will come into the picture which means damage has been caused to a person without any violation of any legal right.

Disadvantages of Ubi jus ibi remedium

  • The adage Ubi jus ibi remedium doesn’t have any significant bearing on good and political wrong which are not noteworthy.
  • This proverb isn’t applied to those cases wherein an appropriate cure is given in the event of abuse of right under customary law.
  • If there is no legitimate harm that has been caused to any individual then this adage won’t be pertinent.
  • No cures are accessible if there should arise an occurrence of penetration of marriage pledges or individual responsibility as these all are the guarantees made without thought and depend on trust.
  • This proverb is likewise not appropriate in the event of public disturbance except if and until an offended party shows that he endured more injury than different individuals or people groups of the general public.
  • This saying isn’t material where the offended party is careless or there is carelessness concerning the offended party.

Case laws on ubi jus ibi remedium

In Ashby v. White, the offended party was a certified elector and he was kept from giving a vote in a parliamentary political race by the respondent who was a cop. The party to whom he needed to cast a ballot had won and the offended party documented a suit against the litigant expressing that he was kept from giving a vote and his entitlement to cast a ballot was encroached and asserted a specific measure of pay for the harm caused to him.[1] The respondent with all due respect said that the party to whom he needed to cast a ballot had won and subsequently no harm and injury was caused to him. To limit an individual from giving a vote is a common wrong and hence the offended party reserved the option to look for a cure from the official courtroom.

In D.K. Basu v. Territory of West Bengal, Mr. D.K. Basu who was filling in as the chief administrator in legitimate guide administrations, West Bengal, a non-political association enlisted on 26-08-1986 under the Societies Registration Act. He composed a letter tending to the CJI of India making him aware of certain news that was distributed in papers in particular the Indian Express and The Telegraph in regards to the demise of an individual in police lockups and guardianship. [2]

In the wake of hearing this case, Supreme Court gave a few rules which they said should be followed while a person was being captured. The court additionally said that a simple presentation of brutality in police authority or legal care is a lawful wrong and doesn’t give any solution for the person in question or group of casualties on the demise of the person in question. Just offering discipline to the casualty isn’t adequate. To record a common suit for pay is a long interaction and remuneration ought to be given to the individual who supported injury. The quantum of remuneration ought to be chosen thinking about the conditions of the case.

In Bhim Singh v. Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, the applicant was MLA of Jammu and Kashmir parliamentary get-together. While he was headed to go to the parliamentary meeting he was improperly captured by a cop and he was controlled from going to the parliamentary meeting. He was not introduced before the judge on schedule and he had a legitimate option to go to the gathering. His principal directly under Article 21 of the Constitution was likewise abused. Finally, Supreme Court considered that the respondents were mindful and granted Rs.50,000 as remuneration to the solicitor for the encroachment of his basic right.[3]


Courts of equity are the official courtroom. The individual whose rights are abused has an option to remain under the steady gaze of the official courtroom. This proverb doesn’t say that there is a solution for each off-base. Numerous political and good rights are perceived by law and the law doesn’t give a solution for that. The fundamental thought behind ubi jus ibi remedium is that no off-base will be unredressed if it very well may be cured by the court. The adage is by and large evident as no correct exists without a cure. The adage is acknowledged by the law of misdeeds and gives a cure in every single case as this principle of precedent-based law in England gives a solution for every single wrong.

[1] (1703) 92 ER 126

[2] 1997 1 SCC 416

[3] AIR 1986 SC 494

One Comment