1

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. The concept of justice is of
imponderable import and has been the watchdog of all major social and political reforms
movement since time immemorial . All social thinkers from Plato to Gandhiji and others have
been making supreme endless efforts in quest of justice in order to abolish injustice , tyranny and
exploitation . All their energies whether material , mental or moral have been devoted to the sole
cause of justice1.

States whether ancient or modern , capitalists or socialists , democratic or authoritarian have

been self proclaiming to be guided and governed by the yard scales of justice and takes pride in
being styled as a just state and just law and just social order . However what is justice is an
imponderable problem . Justice is generally equated with truthfulness , righteousness ,
goodness , equality , mercy , charity etc. and all these expressions being relative and vague
have been eulogised universally as unworthy of emulation and application in the ordering of
human relations . However what constitutes ' justice ' at a particular time and place is not
definite . The standard of reasonableness , truth , and justice has to be measured necessarily on
the basis of such shared values which are common to mankind 2.

The notion of justice varies with time and place . What is just at a particular time has not
been generally considered at another . What should be good or right or just at a particular
epoch is conditioned by social milieu and moral ethos of each community. Hence search for
justice is an eternal quest and no attempt to delineate its contour can succeed. Nevertheless
this concept continues to be of abiding interest of thinkers and philosophers , jurists and judges.
At every interval of human history we find competing formulations and enunciations of theories
of justice.

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

1
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/c45/c45.pdf
2
DHYANI , FUNDAMENTALS O F JUSTICE 129 ( Central Law Agency , 2nd edn..,1997)
 2

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 tie in an empirical
context, it has its relation with the concept of positive law with the result that law and justice
becomes sister concepts.

It is owing to this affirmation that the fundamental purpose of law is said to be the quest for
justice which is to be administered without passion as when it (passion) comes at the door,
justice flies out of the window.

However, notwithstanding the problem of defining the term Justice, precisely, scientifically and
exhaustively, it is submitted that "Jurisprudence can not escape considering justice since justice
is ideally – the matter of law. But what if justice can not be known? Justice appears to be
overburdened idea. Sometimes it is reduced to a question of technique: it is thereby posed as the
problem of what will guide the techniques of constructing social order.

At other times it appears as a problem of legitimacy or put another way as an answer to the
question of what will provide a rational framework. for judging the adequacy of the regulation of
human relations.

Therefore Hans Kelsen similarly points the difficulty in defining the eternal question : What
justice is ? He says :

' No other question has been discussed so passionately , no other question has caused so
much precious blood and so many bitter tears to be shed , no other question has been the
object of so much intensive thinking by the most illustrious from Plato to Kant yet this
question is today unanswered as it ever was . It seems that it is one of those questions to
which the resigned wisdom applies that man cannot find a definite answer , but only try to
improve the question3.

To sum up like the story of God the story of justice is a continuous and a never ending exercise
for it being the foundation moral cum legal and social ordering . For what is law but the
3
https://books.google.co.in/books/Amartya+Sen+-+The+idea+of+justice
 3

enforcement of justice amongst men . Therefore an attempt is made herein to unveil some of the
major strands of justice as conceived by different philosophers and thinkers in different
periods cultures and civilisations .

JUSTICE - LEGAL MEANING :-

The notion of justice is comparatively more ancient than that of law. The latin form of term
justice is justus or justia and it is from the term that the word jus is derived having varying
meanings such as truth, morality, righteousness, equality, fairness, mercy, impartiality, rightness,
law, etc. the expression is again cognate with justum - meaning what is ordered.
In Roman Law it means right , justice or law . In ancient India law and dharma ( justice ) were
not distinct concepts . In Dharmashastras, Smritis and Arthasastra the concept of justice , law and
religion were not distinguished and invariably justice was equated to dharma and vice versa,
likewise in mosaic law of Israel the idea of justice and law were inextricably interwoven. the
classical legal definition of justice mean rendering everyone his own-summ cuique tribuere4 .

As justice involves manifold ideals and principals its forms are also chaotic such as legal justice,
natural justice, moral justice, social justice, political justice, democratic justice, totalitarian
justice, racial justice, distributive justice, commulative justice, personal justice and public
justice. These divisions are not exhaustive but merely illustrative and are mentioned only to
emphasise the problem in understanding the nature and content of justice5 . Similarly various
theories have been propounded to explain the genesis or nature of justice which are as follows :-

GREEK VIEW OF JUSTICE

PLATO :-
Plato's philosopher king as guardian of citizens , liberty , freedom and moral order is an exercise
in justice . In fact Plato's Republic is generally believed to be a discussion on justice . He
rejects the legalistic view that ' justice is the giving to each man what is proper to him ' . Plato is

4
DHYANI , FUNDAMENTALS O F JUSTICE 133 ( Central Law Agency , 2nd edn..,1997)
5
DHYANI , FUNDAMENTALS O F JUSTICE 134 ( Central Law Agency , 2nd edn..,1997)
 4

convinced of the inequality of man by nature. God has made each of us different from others
both physically and mentally. Socrates explains that knowledge makes us aware of the good, so
knowledge itself is the good. Therefore, it is concluded that knowledge is virtue and ignorance is
an evil.
Here a point to be noted is which Plato considers that lack of knowledge of justice was the
reason of unjust decision of Socrates’ death penalty. Keeping in view the importance of
knowledge, he suggests four virtues which are: temperance, courage, wisdom and justice. Plato
insists that one should perform the duty which has been assigned to him. Only then we can attain
harmony among us and this harmony leads towards justice6. Therefore, justice according to
Plato is:
1. Justice is doing one’s own job which one has been assigned
2. Justice is harmony
Plato uses two analogies in order to make the above phrases easily understandable. First one is
the division of the parts of soul and second one is division of parts of the state. Plato divides soul
into three parts, reason, spirit and appetite7.

ARISTOTLE :-
A more realistic analysis and interpretation of justice is found in Aristotle which has been
subsequently followed by St. Thomas Aquinas and Del Veechio in his work on justice .

Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics divides justice according to law into kinds -distributive
justice deals with distribution of honour or money or other things and corrective justice is that
which deals with maintenance of status quo by protecting the things wrongfully taken and
restoring the goods to individual so wronged .

Thus what he calls distributive justice is ' equal things should be given to equal persons and
unequal things to unequal persons ' .This as such is based on worth , merit or ability. The other

6
DHYANI , FUNDAMENTALS O F JUSTICE 138 ( Central Law Agency , 2nd edn..,1997)
7
John, P. Note on Plato’s Republic, Retrieved from http://www.protevi.com/john/FH/Republic_complete.pdf
 5

type of justice is corrective justice which requires the restoration of things of one person owes to
another , the reparation of loss caused to another and restitution in cases of unjust enrichment8.

ROMAN CONCEPT OF JUSTICE

The Roman concept of justice is at variance with Greek - the former being legalistic than
philosophical . Romans identified law and justice and viewed justice as the goal of law and
society . The Roman notion of justice as set forth in justinian's Corpus Juris is based on
Ulpian's definition who in turn derived the meaning of justice from Cicero.
According to Ulpain
' Justice is the constant and perpetual will , to render everyone his due '.
That is justice is giving to each man what is proper to him . In fact , ' what is due ' to each person
was not laid down in fixed terms and being relative was to change from time to time according to
requirements of different states9.

CHRISTIAN ERA : NOTION OF JUSTICE

Ulpain's definition of justice was followed in the christian era during the middle ages . Justice
was regarded at all times as a quality of will and purpose . But it was not until the rise of the
church fathers that justice became to be identified with the will of God . St. Augustine thought
that there can be no justice if it is not based upon Christian law of God as well as the law of
nature . It was this absolute standard which St. Augustine provided for measuring justice or
injustice .
However , it was St. Thomas Aquinas who modified the medival concept of justice and once
again founded justice both on Aristotelian and Ciceroian principles by emphasising that law is
an expression of human reason for the purpose of achieving justice. All human laws which
are contrary to reason are unjust and have no force .

UTILITARIAN CONCEPT OF JUSTICE

8
DHYANI , FUNDAMENTALS O F JUSTICE 139 ( Central Law Agency , 2nd edn..,1997)
9
DHYANI , FUNDAMENTALS O F JUSTICE 139 ( Central Law Agency , 2nd edn..,1997)
 6

Utilitarianism as an ethical political and legal theory is essentially a product of the English mind.
It is essentially associated with Jermy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. According to Utilitarian
thinkers like Hume , Bentham and James Mill the problem of common good and general interest
is also an important aspect of justice . Justice is defined by them with reference to the principle
of ' the greatest good of greatest number '. The theory believes that man is social by nature and
is always motivated in life chiefly by the desire to obtain happiness and avoid pain and that the
happiness of each individual involves relations with other individuals which necessitates state
regulation of mutual relations of men by legislation.

Utilitarian philosophy is thus closely associated with practical ethics and practical politics. The
object of legislation of the state is to promote and secure the greatest happiness of the greatest
number. The criterion of right and wrong of good and bad which the state should apply is found
in happiness and not in divine revelation, dictates of conscience or in the abstract principles of
reason. It insisted that all political institutions and public offices must be judged by their
fruits and not by their ideality, i.e., by their actual effects on the happiness of the people
and not by their conformity to the theories of natural rights or absolute justice.

Thus this theory is based on the psychological doctrine of hedonism which proceeds on the
assumption that man is a sentient being, a creature of feeling and sensibility. The principle
of utility or the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the measuring rod by which
utilitarian measure and evaluate the public policies and legislative enactments of governments.
The state is a necessity for the promotion of the greatest happiness of the greatest number and it
is a means, not an end in itself10 .

CONTRACTUAL THEORY OF JUSTICE

In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries because of religious wars and political uncertainty led to
resurgence of Reformation and Renaissance culminating in the natural rights and freedoms of
individuals as well as of states. This new political philosophy was ushered by Jean Bodin and

10
http://www.worldcat.org/title/idea-of-justice/oclc/318421063
 7

Thomas Hobbes who in their search for justice enunciated the doctrine that ' Justice is the
keeping of covenants '.

Rousseau declared that justice could be found only in the state in which political authority rests
upon the force of opinion which is really public and general.

HUMAN LIBERTY - AN ASPECT OF JUSTICE

Herbet Spencer and Immanuel Kant linked the idea of justice with human freedom and liberty

Spencer described the essence of justice in his celeberated doctrine ' every man is free to do that
which he wills provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man '. To him expansion
of individual liberty and sanctity of contract were necessary concomitants of justice

Kant also preferred liberty in place of equality for determining the matrix of justice. He
interpreted justice in terms conformity with Categorical Imperative -i.e. Act in such a way that
the maxim of your action can be made the maxim of an universal law general action.

Rudolf Stammler carried further the Kantian idea of justice which according to him is possible
within a community of free willing individuals conditioned by place and time.

EGALITARIAN JUSTICE - SOCIOLOGICAL ASPECT

Justice Holmes observed that law must be interepreted in terms of ' felt necessities of people' in
order to achieve justice Other realists focus on the importance of functional approach of law to
realise social justice11.

COMMUNIST JUSTICE

The basic proposition of communist theory is that economic forces determine the character of
law and that it is not the result of free activity of legislators , judges , and jurists. The

11
DHYANI , FUNDAMENTALS O F JUSTICE 141 ( Central Law Agency , 2nd edn..,1997)
 8

material conditions of production determine the social conditions which find expression in laws ,
religion , justice , metaphysics , etc. of the people.

Hence the conception of justice in the communist society is conditioned by forces which bring
about equality ' from each according to his ability , to each according to his needs' .

NOTION OF JUSTICE AND MODERN APPROACHES

According to Kelsen the longing for justice is men's eternal longing for happiness. It is
happiness that man can not find alone, as an isolated individual and hence seeks in society.
Justice is social happiness guaranteed by social order.

The idea of attaining the just society is deeply problematic in modernity. In Nietzschean terms a
settled conception of justice is difficult for the modern because the modern knows too much as a
result finds pluralism and perspectivism in short, pragmatism towards truth12.

John Rawls Theories of Justice and Utilitarianism

One of the earliest thinking about justice is found in Aristotle. It was he who
distinguished "Corrective Justice" and "Distributive Justice". However, the most contemporary
writing about justice is about absolute justice, about the appropriate distribution of goods, which
may be distributed according to needs or desert or moral virtue. One of the most interesting
modern attempts to defend principles of justice are found in John Rawls: A Theory of
Justice as now reformulated in political liberalism. John Rawls sets out two basic moral
principles of justice which a constitutional democracy should satisfy:

the maximization of liberty are essential for the protection of liberty itself;
equality for all, both in the basic liberties of social life and also in distribution of all other
forms of social goods, subject only to the exception that inequalities may be permitted if
they produce the greatest possible benefit for those least well off in a given scheme of
inequality (the difference principle); and
fair equality of opportunity and the elimination of all inequalities of opportunity based on
birth or wealth.

12
Keller, H. (2001). Justice Quotes. Retrieved from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/justice.html
 9

Rawls theory differs from utilitarianism in three significant ways:

First, utilitarians can accept inequalities, social arrangements in which some benefits at
the expense of others provided the benefits (or pleasures) exceed the costs (or pains) so that the
outcome is the maximization of overall welfare level (the greatest happiness of the greatest
number), secondly, while utilitarians defend liberty and political rights, they have no objection to
limiting liberty or restricting political rights, provided doing so would promote greater well
being. Rawls first principle (the equal maximization liberty principle) means that there are
some rights freedom of speech & association the right to vote and stand for public office liberty
of conscience & freedom of thought, freedom of the person and the right to hold personal
property, freedom from arbitrary arrest, which every system must respect. These are rights that
may not be sacrificed to increase the aggregate welfare level.

Thirdly, Rawls conception of benefits is different from utilitarianism which is concerned

with welfare. Rawls by contrast defines benefits in terms of "primary goods": liberty and
opportunity, income and wealth and the bases of self respect. These need not be considered
desirable in themselves but they give persons the opportunities rationally to further their own
autonomy.

The above discussion has revealed that Rawls seems to lay down a contractarian
theory of justice in which participation in the understanding of justice as fairness makes a
type of government called constitutional democracy.

The idea of distributive justice in Rawls theory in simple terms requires that the courts
should take a liberal view of the premises of law and so interpret them as to distribute benefits to
the largest number of people so that the harsh effects of the technicalities of law are contained
within the narrowest limits. In nutshell, Rawls is trying to balance the need for growth in wealth,
with respect for the least well off in the society. Whilst the general aim of utilitarian justice is to
maximize social wealth. Rawls holds his basic principles of justice based also upon a
deontological respect for autonomy as checks upon such maximization13.

13
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Concept-of-Law-and-Justice-as-it-was-and-Understood-By-
various-Jurists-3306.asp#.VRAJH_mUfvY
 10

Robert Nozick’s Concept of Justice :-

As opposed to utilitarian thinkers, libertarian thinker like Nozick share, a profound

distaste for all theories which promote any idea of a social group which legitimates centralized
social administration. The political jurisprudence of Robert Nozick, characterized by his book
‘Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974)’ is the best known of the libertarian theories of justice.
Nozick’s writings develop a theory of justice which reinforces a radical free market approach
and fits a so-called minimal or night watchman state.

It is no surprise that he concludes: “The minimal state is the most extensive state than can be
justified. Any state more extensive violates peoples rights. Nozick develops an entitlement
theory of justice, whereby economic goods arise in society already encumbered with rightful
claims to their ownership. The minimal state is limited in its legitimation of force to the
protection of certain basic rights. It is the night watchman state of classical liberalism. Under
utilitarianism, or the later theory of Rawls, we could have redistribution policies but no
redistribution is legitimate in the minimal state.

Ronald Dworkin’s Notion of Justice :-

For both Rawls and Nozick, there is clear relationship between justice and rights, but it is
Ronald Dworkin who can be said most clearly to ground justice in rights. To Dworkin rights
are “trumps”. They are grounded in a principle of equal concern and respect, so for a Judge to
make a mistake about a legal right is “a matter of injustice.” Further, the whole institution of
rights rests on the conviction that “the invasion of relatively important right is a grave injustice.

JUSTICE- INDIAN HERITAGE :-

Law and morality are mutually helpful instruments for sensitizing and promoting justice . In
India justice has been extolled as the very embodiment of God itself whose sole mission is to
uphold justice , truth and righteousness14.

14
SAXENA , LAW , J USTICE AND SOCIAL CHANGE 157 ( Deep & Deep Publication , New Delhi .,1996)
 11

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND PENUMBRAS OF JUSTICE

Justice is a generic term which includes both procedural and substantive justice-the former
embodying the basic procedure and spirit what is generally known as natural justice and the
latter containing provisions concerning social aid , assistance , benefits , facilities concessions
extra privileges and rights for the welfare of those who need or deserve such help described by
omnibus term social justice .

The constitution of India abounds with natural and social justice as is evident from the
Preamble and Parts 3 and 4 of the Constitution . If the Constitution is the cornerstone of
the Nation , Justice is its signature tune and Supreme Court is the living voice of the
Constitution. This is the will of the people expressed in the Preamble , Parts 3 and 4 of the
Constitution which holds the value of justice , rule of law and supremacy of the Constitution
aloft. Likewise in the Preamble ' justice , social economic and political' is given the first place
which the courts ensure executive free from discrimination and tyranny15.

Justice in 21st Century :-

Conventional accounts of justice suppose the presence of a stable political society, stable
identities, and a Westphalian cartography of clear lines of authority--usually a state--where
justice can be realised. They also assume a stable social bond.
But what if, in an age of globalisation, the territorial boundaries of politics unbundle and a
stable social bond deteriorates? How then are we to think about justice?
Can there be justice in a world where that bond is constantly being disrupted or transformed by
globalization. Thanks to heightened awareness of globalization, and to post-Cold War
geopolitical instabilities, many observe that the social processes shaping their lives routinely
overflow territorial borders. They note, for example, that decisions taken in one territorial
state often have an impact on the lives of those outside it, as do the actions of transnational
corporations, international currency speculators, and large institutional investors. Many also note

15
S.N D HYANI ,JURISPRUDENCE AND I NDIAN LEGAL THEORY 156 ( Central Law Agency , Allahabad
3rd edn.,1999 )
 12

the growing salience of supranational and international organizations, both governmental and
nongovernmental, and of transnational public opinion, which flows with supreme disregard for
borders through global mass media and cyber technology. The result is a new sense of
vulnerability to transnational forces.
For many, it has ceased to be axiomatic that the modern territorial state is the appropriate unit for
thinking about issues of justice, and that the citizens of such states are the pertinent subjects
of reference. The effect is to destabilize the previous structure of political claims-making—and
therefore to change the way we argue about social justice.
Finally, WTO protestors directly target the new governance structures of the global
economy, which have vastly strengthened the ability of large corporations and investors to
escape the regulatory and taxation powers of territorial states. In the same way, movements
struggling for recognition increasingly look beyond the territorial state. Under the umbrella
slogan ‘women’s rights are human rights’, for example, feminists throughout the world are
linking struggles against local patriarchal practices to campaigns to reform international law.
Meanwhile, religious and ethnic minorities, who face discrimination within territorial states,
are reconstituting themselves as diasporas and building transnational publics from which to
mobilize international opinion. Finally, transnational coalitions of human-rights activists are
seeking to build new cosmopolitan institutions, such as the International Criminal Court,
which can punish state violations of human dignity16.
In such cases, disputes about justice are exploding the Keynesian- Westphalian frame. No longer
addressed exclusively to national states or debated exclusively by national publics, claimants no
longer focus solely on relations among fellow citizens. Thus, the grammar of argument has
altered. Whether the issue is distribution or recognition, disputes that used to focus
exclusively on the question of what is owed as a matter of justice to community members
now turn quickly into disputes about who should count as a member and which is the
relevant community.
Not just ‘the what’ but also ‘the who’ is up for grabs. Today, in other words, arguments
about justice assume a double guise. On the one hand, they concern first-order questions of

16
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/the-meaning-of-justice
 13

substance, just as before. How much economic inequality does justice permit, how much
redistribution is required, and according to which principle of distributive justice? What
constitutes equal respect, which kinds of differences merit public recognition, and by which
means? But above and beyond such first-order questions, arguments about justice today also
concern second- order, meta-level questions. What is the proper frame within which to consider
first-order questions of justice? Who are the relevant subjects entitled to a just distribution or
reciprocal recognition in the given case? Thus, it is not only the substance of justice, but also the
frame, which is in dispute. The result is a major challenge to our theories of social justice.
Preoccupied largely with first-order issues of distribution and/ or recognition, these theories have
so far failed to develop conceptual resources for reflecting on the meta-issue of the frame. As
things stand, therefore, it is by no means clear that they are capable of addressing the
double character of problems of justice in a globalizing age.

Reforms in Justice Delivery System in India :-

From the dawn of human civilization to the present day , legal systems have been experimenting
in refining the justice delivery system to make it more popularly accessible , prompt and
effective . The institutions of nyaya panchayat , guild courts and people's courts are some of their
manifestations in the past . In the rule of law system , adjudication of disputes by courts
constitutes the principal method of resolving the conflicts .

Growth of the legal system through the judge made law and legislative reforms has witnessed
emergence of new principles , mechanisms and rights . That the "top down " model of justice
administration through modernized techniques does not yield satisfactory result was realised in
the post - internal emergency period with the experience of gross human rights violations by the
system itself because of delay , formalism , expenses and lack of communitarian participation .

In reaction to this state of affairs , serious attempts were put to enhance the quality of procedural
framework of the legal system17 .

17
P. ISHWAR BHAT, LAW AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION 820 ( Eastern Book Company , Lucknow
..1st edn.,2009 )
 14

A breakthrough development is incorporation of Article 39-A into Part IV of the Constitution

for promoting equal justice for all . Article 39-A states that the State shall secure that the
operation of legal system promotes justice , on a basis of equal opportunity , and shall , in
particular provide free legal aid by a suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way , to
ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic
or other disabilities .

Rights of the accused , of the victim and of the parties to civil suits are getting streamlined as a
feature of justice delivery system . The system of Plea-Bargaining is introduced by an
amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code . The process whereby a criminal defendant and
prosecutor reach a mutually satisfactory disposition of a criminal case, subject to court approval.
A new chapter, that is chapter XXIA on ‘Plea Bargaining’, has been introduced in the Criminal
Procedure Code. This has certainly changed the face of the Indian Criminal Justice System.
Some of the salient features of ‘Plea Bargaining’ are that it is applicable in respect of those
offences for which punishment is up to a period of 7 years. Moreover it does not apply to cases
where the offence committed is a socio-economic offence or where the offence is committed is
committed against a woman or a child below the age of 14 years. Also once the court passes an
order in the case of ‘Plea Bargaining’ no appeal shall lie to any court against that order. Prison
reform is also attempted .

There are proposals for strengthening the rights of victim . As a result , victim's right to
compensation has been recognized .Our criminal justice system adopted to some extent , a
compensatory criminal jurisprudence; but in actual practice the attitude of lower judiciary is
still haunted by the ghost of macabre and much concerned with the accused. So need is the
change in the attitude of judiciary.As per the recommendation made by the Law Commission
amendment was made in CrPC and a new section 357A18 was inserted which is as follows:-

Victim compensation scheme (357A): -

18
Inserted by Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, 2008 (5 of 2009)
 15

(1) Every State Government in co-ordination with the Central Government shall prepare a
scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependents who
have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation.
(2) Whenever a recommendation is made by the Court for compensation, the District Legal
Service Authority or the State Legal Service Authority, as the case may be, shall decide the
quantum of compensation to be awarded under the scheme referred to in sub-section (1).
(3) If the trial Court, at the conclusion of the trial, is satisfied, that the compensation awarded under
section 357 is not adequate for such rehabilitation, or where the cases end in acquittal or
discharge and the victim has to be rehabilitated, it may make recommendation for compensation.
(4) Where the offender is not traced or identified, but the victim is identified, and where no trial
takes place, the victim or his dependents may make an application to the State or the District Legal
Services Authority for award of compensation.
(5) On receipt of such recommendations or on the application under sub-section (4), the State or the
District Legal Services Authority shall, after due enquiry award adequate compensation by
completing the enquiry within two months.
(6) The State or the District Legal Services Authority, as the case may be, to alleviate the suffering
of the victim, may order for immediate first-aid facility or medical benefits to be made available
free of cost on the certificate of the police officer not below the rank of the officer in charge of the
police station or a Magistrate of the area concerned, or any other interim relief as the appropriate
authority deems fit.

This provision was inserted by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 200819 to
obligate the State Government to prepare, in coordination with the Central Government, a
scheme called “victim compensation” for the purpose of providing compensation to the victim or
his dependent, as defined under Section 2(wa) of this Code, who have suffered loss or injury as a
result of the crime and who require rehabilitation.20

Section 357-B and 357-C

19
[5 of 2009], Section 28.
20
Supra Note 9.
 16

Protection of victims has now been enhanced by the incorporation of Sections 357-B and 357-C
which runs as follows:21

Section 357-B provides that

Compensation to be in addition to fine under Section 326-A or Section

376-D of the Indian Penal Code: the compensation payable by the State
Government under Section 357-A shall be in addition to the payment of
fine to the victim under Section 326-A or Section 376-D of the Indian
Penal Code 945 of 1860).

Section 357-C deals with the treatment of victims. It provides that

All hospitals, public or private, whether run by the Central Government,

the State Government, local bodies or any other person, shall immediately
provide the first-aid or medical treatment, free of cost, to the victims of
any offence covered under Section 326-A, 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C,
376-D or Section 376-E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and shall
immediately inform the police of such incident.

With this amendment the legislature has tried to benefit the victims of crime with
compensation but the process is to be speeded up by the respective states in framing a
comprehensive scheme on providing compensation to the victims22.

Emergence of Public Interest Litigation as a phenomenon and an effective tool has heralded
new era of human rights activism , constitutionalism and environmentalism . Social change is the
necessity of any society. In India it is done through Public Interest Litigation. The Indian PIL is
the improved version of PIL of U.S.A. According to “Ford Foundation” of U.S.A., “Public
interest law is the name that has recently been given to efforts that provide legal representation to
previously unrepresented groups and interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the
21
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. Came into force from 3-2-2013.
22
SUNAINA, VICTIMOLOGY AND C OMPENSATION TO V ICTIMS OF CRIME128( Arun Publishing House Ltd Chd.,2012)
 17

recognition that ordinary marketplace for legal services fails to provide such services to
significant segments of the population and to significant interests. Such groups and interests
include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others”.

The jurisprudence of PIL is necessary to understand the nature of PIL in India. Such is the
disillusionment with the state formal legal system that it is no longer demanded by law to do
justice, if justice perchance is done, we congratulate ourselves for being fortunate. In these
circumstances one of the best things that have happened in the country in recent years is the
process of social reform through Public Interest Litigation or Social Action Litigation.

Late 1970s marked discernible shift from legal centralism. Legal pluralism was very apparent
now. It was realized that social conduct was regulated by the interaction of normative orders,
notion of popular justice, community justice, and distributive justice were sought to be
institutionalized, though outside the sphere of the formal legal system and in opposition to it.

The enactment of Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 , amendment to Civil Procedure Code
(2002) incorporating compulsory resort to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) , and
implementation of the Legal Service Authority Act , 1987 by constituting Lok Adalat have opened
up new opportunities for resorting people's confidence in the justice delivery system . As a
mechanism of rendering to each person his or her due , the system had to evolve just and fair
procedure to protect life , personal liberty and other interests . In spite of its best efforts , legal
system could not mould litigation as a satisfactory method of resolving the disputes nor has its
search for appropriate model reached final destination .
 18

CONCLUSION
Thus to conclude , justice is a complex and dynamic concept which was well known to Plato
and Aristotic and evidently remains the goal of contemporary and even of future communities –a
‘just man’ a ‘just law’ a ‘just government. it would be unwise to structure social ordering
backed by coercive legal action and that would be unfair, arbitrary and unjust. Harmony
therefore, is quality of justice which can be achieved by reason and wisdom by giving equal
access to all to seek as of right without delay or denial in conformity to the laws.

Krishna Iyer J. observes :

‘ law is a means to end and justice is the end. Law and justice are distant neighbours,
sometimes even strange hostiles. If law shoots justice the people shoots down law and
lawlessness paralyses development , disrupts order and retards progress’.

Justice is not legal alone but also social, political and economic. Justice throbs today in the larger
human values promising to supply, in the dignity of man, that age-long desideratum which could
be supplied neither by the Greek author of the republic not by the Roman emperor who wrote
meditations. The ancient approach to justice was religious. The modern one is social; the
ancient one was sacred, the modern one is secular. The attempt to give the god to things that
are god’s and to caesar the things that are caesar’s has been long obsolete because in the modern
instrumentality of justice, the institutions both of god and Caesar are either oblivious or
innocuous. The cauldron pot of the modern thought is to give to the state the power that are
hers and to the subjects the rights that are theirs. The subtle concept of justice is traceable
today only by legal characterization. Human happiness is ought to be secured through the agency
of laws. The laws have to command acts which produce and preserves happiness while they
forbid those which are injurious to the welfare of man and society.
 19

Therefore justice is that makes man to live honestly, not to injure anyone and to give everyone
his due. As justice is not a mere fantasy but a necessary and desirable goal of law and society.
For bible says husband justice so that you may garner peace’.

Nevertheless, the system of justice must be one that the people regard as satisfactory, and which
has a transparently moral ethic.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Internet sites :-

 https://books.google.co.in/books/Amartya+Sen+-+The+idea+of+justice
 http://www.worldcat.org/title/idea-of-justice/oclc/318421063
 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02680939.2012.756556
 http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Concept-of-Law-and-Justice-as-it-was-and-
Understood-By-various-Jurists-3306.asp#.VRAJH_mUfvY
 http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/the-meaning-of-justice
 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justice
 http://www.davidschmidtz.com/sites/default/files/files/Justice.pdf
 http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/c45/c45.pdf

Books :-
 BHAT ,P. ISHWAR , LAW AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION( Eastern Book Company , Lucknow ..1st
edn.,2009 )
 DHYANI , S.N ,JURISPRUDENCE AND INDIAN LEGAL THEORY ( Central Law Agency , Allahabad 3rd
edn.,1999 )
 SAXENA , D.R , LAW , JUSTICE AND SOCIAL CHANGE ( Deep & Deep Publication , New Delhi .,1996)
 DHYANI , S.N , FUNDAMENTALS O F JURISPRUDENCE (Central Law Agency , Allahabad 2nd edn,1997 )
 M YENI , S.R ,POLITICAL SCIENCE ( Allahabad Law Agency , 3rd edn ., 2010 )
 SHARMA , G OKULESH , FUTURE OF LAW AND JUSTICE ( Manas Publications , New Delhi 1st edn,2004 )
 FOX , HON RUSSEL , JUSTICE IN 21ST CENTURY ( Cavendish Publishing Ltd , London , Sydney , 2000)
20