Successful! Thanks For Submitting.
It is an elementary maxim of equity jurisprudence that for every wrong, the law provides an appropriate remedy this Roman principle is being followed now-a-days in common law and all court are guided well by the same principle.
The word ‘Jus’ means the legal authority to do or demand something, and the word ‘remedium’ means the right of action in a Court of law.
It is rightly said that where there is a legal right there is a legal remedy. If in case the remedies enforcing the rights are gone, the Rights in itself would cease to exist. Also, if there is an absence of remedy, it may only be evident that there must be no right, but it is not conclusive.
If the right of an individual is infringed, he had the very right to seek redress against it and the remedy for the injuries caused to him. The maxim explains that though there is a remedy for the wrong that has been cause to the individual, it is not necessary that for every moral and political wrong the person could get redress. Hence, Justice Stephen of England has rightly remarked that the maxim would be more intelligibly and correctly stated if it were to be reversed to say that where there is no legal remedy, there is no legal wrong.
Legal awareness should be created regarding the principle where people can maintain their rights and enjoy the privileges given to them without an injury being caused to them. Also, people should be made known to the fact that ‘one is not allowed to interfere in the private space of an individual causing him or his rights any harm. The law is made for the benefit of the individuals and hence they are ought the provisions for safeguarding the interest not only of themselves but also of the society they live in.