Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium is a Latin maxim that says, where there’s a wrong, there’s a remedy.

 If a crime is committed, the law gives a means of redress. The maxim can be stated as follows:

“No one will suffer a wrong without a remedy,” which suggests that if a right has been proven to have been violated, equity will supply an appropriate remedy. This principle also emphasizes the need of ensuring that no evil goes unpunished if it can be rectified in a court of law.

According to Justice Pollock right and wrong, are diametrically opposed.

 Right activities are those that follow moral principles, whereas bad actions are those that do not follow moral rules or are prohibited by law.

The maxim Ubi jus ibi remedium is supposed to have evolved into tort law.

The term “jus” refers to legal authority to do or demand anything. The term “remedium” refers to a person’s legal right to sue in a court of law.

 Where there is a wrong, there is a remedy, according to the literal meaning of the maxim.


  • The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium may only be applied if a right exists and should be recognised by a court of law; an unlawful act must have been committed that clearly breaches a person’s legal rights.
  • This maxim can only be applied where the court has failed to provide adequate relief to the person who has been injured.
  • This maxim applies if any legal injury has been caused to a person; if no legal injury has been caused, the maxim damnum sine injuria (damage without legal injury) shall be applied.
  • The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium does not apply to non-actionable moral and political wrongs.
  • This maxim does not apply in circumstances when a proper remedy is provided for an infringement of a common law right.
  • This maxim will not apply if no legal damage has been inflicted to any person.
  • In the case of a breach of marriage vows or a personal commitment, there are no remedies available because they are all agreements made without thought and based on trust.
  • This rule does not apply in cases of public nuisance until and until the plaintiff can establish that he was injured more than other members or people in the society.
  • When the plaintiff is negligent or there is negligence on the plaintiff’s behalf, this maxim does not apply.

The idea of ubi jus ibi remedium is regarded as a core principle of the theory or philosophy of law, according to the court in Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Pramod Gupta & Ors. The Supreme Court further stated that courts must preserve and maintain the rights of parties and assist them rather than deny them remedy.

The petitioner in Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir was an MLA . While on his way to the legislative session, he was wrongfully arrested by a police officer, and he was prevented from attending. He was not arraigned in front of a magistrate. His right to freedom of expression under Article 21 of the Constitution was likewise violated. Finally, the Supreme Court found the defendants to be at fault and awarded the petitioner Rs.50,000 in damages for his fundamental rights violations.


The court of equity is the court of justice. A person whose rights have been violated has the right to appear in court. This maxim does not imply that there is a solution to every problem.

Many political and moral rights are recognised by law, but the law does not provide a remedy in these cases. The underlying premise of ubi jus ibi remedium is that no wrong will go unpunished if the court can correct it.

 The maxim holds valid in most cases since no right exists without a remedy. The maxim is acknowledged by tort law and gives a remedy in every circumstance, just as the common law theory in England provides a remedy for every wrong.

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on FacebookTwitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.

We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.