We all human beings deserve some basic rights and freedom to live in vicinity which is known to us as basic human rights .They apply to all regardless of your place of origin or your beliefs or your way of living. They are based on shared values like dignity, equality, fairness, independence and respect.

These rights maintain our freedom of life. They are needed to be protected in case of any breach against them would happen and here the legal maxim, i.e. Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium, comes into play. There is always a remedy in life in case of any breach in our rights living under article 21of the constitution of India. In English law the word remedy means a right of action.

Ubi jus ibi remedium is a Latin maxim which meanAs that ‘wherever there is a right, there is remedy’. It consists of two main ingredients of the doctrine jus and remedium. Where jus means legal authority to do or demand something from and ‘remedium’ means rights of action. It simply gives us a meaning that if there is any violation of the legal right, then the law provides a remedy to the affected person.

‘Everyone in the vicinity has the right to have a good legal remedy by the competent national tribunals for the acts which violate your fundamental rights and human rights which are granted to him by the constitution or by any law in the vicinity.’

Case I: Donoghue v Stevenson

This case is also known as the snail in the beer bottle case. This event took place in Paisley, Scotland in 1928, where Ms. May Donoghue was given a bottle of ginger beer which had bought by her friend. Since, the bottle was opaque in colour from outside nothing is visible inside. Donoghue consumed most of its contents before she became aware of the snail had been there inside the bottle and she later fell ill.

Donoghue then took a legal action against the manufacture of the ginger beer, Mr. David Stevenson. The house of lord held that the manufacture owed a duty of care to her, which was breached because it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to ensure the product’s safety would lead to her to consumers. There was also a sufficiently proximate relationship between consumers and product manufacturers.

Development Of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium:

The law of tort is said to be the development of the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium. The word jus means legal authority to do something .the word remedium means that the person has the right of action in the court of law. The literal meaning of the maxim is that where there is right there is remedy.

The maxim also says that there is no remedy without any wrong and the persons whose right is being violated has a right to stand before the court of law. This principle also states that if the rights are available to a person then it is required to be maintained by that person only and remedy is available only when he is injured in the exercise of duty or enjoyment of it; it is useless to imagine and think a right without a remedy sought or to be obtained should be legal. There are many moral and political wrong but are out actionable or it does not give many sufficient reasons to take legal actions as they are not recognised by law. The maxim does not mean that there is a legal remedy for every wrong committed.

This doesn’t mean that for every wrong there is a remedy. it is appropriately 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’.

Essentials Of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium:

• This legal maxim is applicable only when any legal injury has occurred to any person, if no legal injury is caused then the legal maxim damnum sine injuria is used which implies that any harm without any legal injury
• Any unlawful of wrongful act must have been done which violates the legal rights of a person.
• This maxim can be used only when sufficient relief has not been provided by the court to the person who sustained the injury.
• This maxim can only be applied wherever this right exists and can be recognized by the court of law.

Limitations Of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium:

• We cannot apply this maxim if any proper remedy is given in case of any breach of rights under law.
• This maxim cannot be applied to moral and political wrong which are not actionable.
• If plaintiff is negligent or there is negligence by the side of the plaintiff then this maxim will not be applicable.
• In case of public nuisance unless a plaintiff shows that he suffered more injured then other members of the society , this maxim will not be applicable.

Case II:- Bhim Singh V. State Of Jammu And Kashmir

In this case, there is an applicant who is the MLA of the Jammu and Kashmir parliamentary gathering. While he was on his way to the parliamentary meeting, he was inappropriately captured by a cop and he was not able to be introduced before the judge on time and he had a lawful right to go to the gathering.

His fundamental right under article 21 under the Indian constitution has been violated. The Supreme Court considered that the respondent was liable for violating the applicant’s rights and it granted him a damage of rupees 50000 to the candidate for encroachment of his fundamental right.

Ingredients:

• The nature of this act is different in various situations
• The remedy is there only for the damages.
• There must be a legal right that must be recognised by law.
• There should a violation of such right which caused damage or some loss to the plaintiff.

Exceptions

• Breach of trusts like personal commitments or marriage or promises vows without consideration.
• If plaintiff itself is the wrong doer.
• If there is no legal damage then this maxim will not be liable.

Case III: Ashby V. White

This is basically a case of English tort law which is related to the violation of right and remedy provided by law. Plaintiff Mr. Ashby is a registered voter but he was interrupted from voting in the elections. So there is a violation of fundamental right which is ‘Right to vote’, by the officer Mr. white. The candidate, whom he wanted to vote, won the election. Now, he wants the compensation of the violation of his legal right. The court held that however, the plaintiff has suffered any damage because he wished to vote in the election, his right has been infringed and he was interrupted from exercising his legal right. Therefore the plaintiff was awarded compensation in the form of damages.

Case IV: Maretti V. William:

In the case of maretti v. william, the plaintiff has deposited his fund in defendant’s bank and the accused refused to honour cheque to the plaintiff although he has sufficient balance in his account. So the court in this case held that the defendant is liable for all the loss incurred by the plaintiff. There is legal violation of this legal maxim too, so this maxim was invoked to render justice to the plaintiff stating that the legal right of the plaintiff has been revoked.

Conclusion:
So, here we conclude that if any right of any human being is being infringed then there is always the law that provides and make sure that no rights of people will be infringed. If there is any violation of legal or fundamental right then it ensures the proper damage and compensations by invoking the maxim ‘UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM’. Under this maxim no off-base will be unredeemable on the off chance that it very well may be cured by the court. No rights exist without a remedy.

References:

1. https://lawlex.org/lex-pedia/ubi-jus-ibi-remedium-in-india/25525
2. https://www.ourlegalworld.com/ubi-jus-ibi- remedium-legal-maxim/