G.L.N. Prasad (Retired employee.) 10 May 2020
I have searched in google and found hundreds of pages of such discussion with case citation and facts. Search in google with keywords: ubi jus ibi remedium
Karishma Yadav 10 May 2020
The maxim Ubi jus ibi remedium means that where there is a right, there is a remedy. It means that a person will not suffer a wrong without getting remedy, once the rights of a person are infringed, the law will provide a suitable remedy. If a wrong can be addressed by the court, no wrong can go without any compensation.
Whenever a wrong is committed by someone, they have ceased to perform their legal duty, which means rights of other party has been infringed, as duty, right and wrong are different aspects of the same rules and events. However, it does not say that there’s a remedy for every possible wrong.
In the case of Ashby v. White, the plaintiff was a qualified voter but was not allowed to cast his vote in a parliamentarian election by a police officer, though the party to whom he wanted to vote won, he filed a suit against the police officer for breach of his right to vote. Here the maxim applies as he had the right to vote and it was breach, hence, the plaintiff was awarded with compensation.
In the case of Maretti v. William, the defendant was the owner of a bank where plaintiff had deposited his funds. The plaintiff went to deposit a check, but the defendant refused to honor the cheque, enough though he had enough balance in his account. The defendant was made liable to pay the losses suffered by the plaintiff.
The basic idea behind the maxim is that every wrong should be redressed by the court, if there is a remedy available with the courts.
Hope this answers your question.
Dr J C Vashista (Advocate) 10 May 2020
There is a maxim known as ubi jus ibi remedium. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions has held that judicial review of administrative action is permissible in such cases under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, including State of Rajasthan vs Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 592, where there was a broad consensus among five of the seven Judges that the Court can interfere if it is satisfied that the power has been exercised mala fide or on "wholly extraneous or irrelevant grounds". Some Hon'ble Judges have stated the rule in narrow terms and some others in little less narrow terms, but not a single Hon'ble Judge held that the proclamation is immune from judicial scrutiny. It must be remembered that at that time clause (5) was there barring judicial review of the proclamation and yet they said that the Court can interfere on the ground of mala fides. Surely, the deletion of clause (5) has not restricted the scope of judicial review but has widened it.
28) 'Where ever there is a wrong, there is a remedy', this maxim is known to everybody in jurisprudence. In English law, it is known as ubi jus ibi remedium. Whereas learned senior counsel for the respondents made an attempt to bring home the point that any relief cannot be granted to the petitioner at this stage, learned senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued, on the strength of various decisions of the Apex Court, that interim relief can be granted to the petitioner. It is not necessary for this Court to mention the paragraphs once again, on which learned Senior Counsel for the parties laid emphasis. This Court has carefully considered those decisions during the course of arguments. Suffice will it be to say, at present, that interim relief is possible in such set of facts and circumstances. Scope of judicial review may be limited, as contented, but the fact remains that judicial review is permissible at this stage. This Court, therefore, need not deal with this matter any further, for the same has already been highlighted in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, duly fortified by the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court.