The Sense of Justice

2018

The idea of the concept of justice varies from man to man, family to family, locality to locality, state to state, country to country and even continent to continent. The inquiry about justice goes from the crudest to the most refined interpretation of it. The basis of justice can be traced to conscience and morals. Philosophers have different theories of justice. This contributes to the assertion that a definite meaning of justice is hard to come by. Some see it as a shield to the weaker people in the society; others envision a society of equal citizens with equal rights. The ‘rights of citizens’ is one of the basic features of justice. In claiming these rights by citizens, arguments build up as to unjust actions. An example is the nature of secularism in Turkey, the ban placed on the hijab and the violation of the right to freedom of religion of women. Also, an intimate look at current issues in the world brings one to the conclusion that it is not possible for everyone to be just...

Prizren Social Science Journal, 2020

From the views and changes that have followed the dynamism of our society, undoubtedly, law and justice have played a crucial role as a very abstract term that has been consumed almost from the first beginnings of human society to our modern days. Beyond the events and circumstances that societies in the past have had and organized by defining and choosing the way of life, and often times the right has been personalized by a certain group of people, or by a military division that has given rights and has created justice, in certain interests and for personal and charismatic purposes it has been denied a certain part of society, and has often been deformed in scandalous ways by reflecting, on the fact that the giver of this right has often been pointed out to be the man, but this convulsion in no case has lasted long, and often this theory has remained unrealized, reflecting that right is something natural and that the individual gains at the moment of birth and enjoys it to death, this divergence and complexity of the way of perceiving the law has often resulted in wars and the acquisition of this vital right. Through this paper we will draw philosophical and legal paradigms, analyzing from a retrospective way of the application of law and the applicability of justice, as an important mechanism of regulation of social relations. Law and justice have a common path of development, one by regulating the way of life of the people, that is, by issuing norms and the other by giving justice to the relative complexity and cohesion of interpersonal relations.

There has always been a great debate on what role law should fulfill in every society –while believers of the Natural Law on the one hand, insist that every law must appeal to good conscience in order to be recognizable, the Marxists are of the view that law is nothing but an instrument of oppression in the hands of the sovereign. The bottom-line of these arguments is that of a deep-seated yearn for justice. For instance, believers of the Marxist School of thought would have been more at peace if they have seen law as going to the greater extent of achieving and guaranteeing certain freedoms. While this is important, it is acutely imperative to draw out a benchmark –justice. Therefore using justice as the index of every law, has law served any purpose, at all, for every Tom, Dick and Harry of every society? This research sets out on a particular mission: that of first, understanding what law actually is, then attaching to it the value of justice in order to create out a phenomenon, and then proceeding to critically examine, compare and analyze the laws of some select societies (both indigenous and modern) using the index of justice as a guide. In the end, it is the hope of this researcher that, notwithstanding the variety in the laws that have existed and still exist during the different evolutionary stages of human societies, the common, universal language which they all reflect –that of justice – has been deduced.

The aim of this research paper is to clarify the concept and the doctrine of Natural Justice and its apparatus in the judicial, quasi-judicial, and regulatory frameworks is not new. It appears to be as matured as the framework of the dispensation of equity itself. It has by presently accepted the significance of being, so to say, "an essential inbuilt component" of the component, through which the decision-making process passes, within the things touching the rights and freedom of the individuals. It is no question, a procedural requirement but it guarantees a solid safeguard against any Legal or authoritative; arrange or action, antagonistically influencing the substantive rights of the people. 'Natural Justice' is an expression of English common law. This hypothesis has also been created with the significant help of a few logicians. Afterward, when the equitable circumstance has kept up there in various nations, such standards ought to be overseen to back this democracy. In this paper, I attempt to investigate the concept of characteristic equity, the root of common.

(A) Introduction Since the dawn of human civilization, in the whole range of our legal, political and moral theory, the notion of justice has always occupied a central place. Although any attempt to define the term precisely, scientifically and exhaustively has presented a baffling problem to scholars of all hues. Consequently on account of its multidimensionality, its nature and meaning has always been a dynamic affair. Besides, the problem of definition of justice is beset with the problem of its normative as well as empirical connotations. While in the normative sense it implies the idea of joining or fitting the idea of a bond or tie1 , in an empirical context, it has its relation with the concept of positive law with the result that law and justice becomes sister concepts.

Man is a rational animal, what is just and unjust is written in him by nature itself. With the growth of civilization, the problem of harmonizing the social, associational, economic and political relations between governed and government and individuals inter se became more complex. The want of establishing orderly and peaceful society continuously constrained men to be in search of higher norms, which can effectively regulate the human behaviour and ensure justice to the deserved. Though nature has its own law to govern all animate and inanimate life forms, yet its rules are subtle and un-manifest, subtle norms of natural laws were construed differently by individuals according to their own perceptions, self-interests and ideologies. Consequently, time and again, laws were made by the might (ruler) to the disadvantage of the weak (subjects).To protect himself against the excesses of organized power men always appealed to the omnipotent or someone beyond his own creation. Wise men from time to time argued that there are certain principles of justice regarded as fundamental and foundational to almost all legal systems which are called ‘principles of natural justice’. In this sense, natural justice implies fairness, reasonableness, equity and equality. It represents higher procedural principles developed by judges, which shall be followed by the judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative bodies in making a decision affecting the rights or status of an individual. In this milieu, the first segment of the Module is designed to study the meaning of ‘justice’ and ‘natural justice’ in the first place and followed by a brief discussion on the history of the principles of natural justice, both in India and England. The Second part focuses on the fundamental components of natural justice namely, the rule against bias, fair hearing and reasoned decisions. Thereafter, the third segment includes a brief discussion on principles of natural justice in Indian Constitution, followed by exclusion of natural justice and concluding remarks. To make content more comprehensible to the readers wherever required illustrations are used, read them carefully.

What is law? What is its purpose? Does it consist merely of rules? Can anything be law? What has law to do with justice? Or morality? Democracy? What makes a law valid? Do we have a duty to obey the law? Th ese, and many other, 'theoretical' questions suffuse the fabric of jurisprudence and legal theory. 1 Jurisprudence is consequently ubiquitous. Its concerns are an inescapable feature of the law and legal system. But it is more. As will soon be evident, it is both informed by, and has significant implications for, economic, political, and social theory. Drawing the boundaries of this vast terrain is therefore a challenging exercise. Studying jurisprudence means stepping back and reflecting on the ideas and assumptions that underlie and thereby define legal practices and institutions. Whereas in other law courses one studies areas of substantive law, jurisprudence studies law in a much more general way, and asks much more abstract and theoretical questions about law as such. Jurisprudence has been there from the times of Socrates 2. Jurisprudence considers general philosophical and theoretical questions about the nature, purpose and operation of law.

Michigan Law Review, 1988