JURISPRUDENCE

Social Justice
The concept of justice entails fairness. Fairness in society is what social justice is
all about. Fairness in healthcare, employment, housing, and other areas falls under
this umbrella. Social justice and discrimination are incompatible. While the word
"social justice" is now widely used, it is not a new one. In comparison to the justice
of individual behavior or justice for individuals, social justice tends to focus on just
relations among groups within society. The state is restricted from discriminating
against citizens based on their birth, caste, race, creed, sex, faith, title or position,
or any combination of these factors. Apartheid and untouchability are antithetical
to the spirit of social justice. The lack of favored social classes is a crucial feature
of social justice.
Social justice means that everyone’s human rights are respected and protected.
Everyone has equal opportunities. This doesn’t guarantee that society will be
perfect and everyone will always be happy. However, everyone will have a
fighting chance at the life they want. They aren’t held back by things out of their
control like systemic obstacles or discrimination.

HISTORY AND EVOLUTION SOCIAL JUSTICE

Social justice depends on four essential goals: human rights, access, participation,
and equity. Social justice can’t be achieved without these four principles.

1. Access
Being able to access essentials like shelter, food, and education is crucial for a just
society. If access is restricted based on factors like gender, race, or class, it leads to
suffering for individuals, communities, and society as a whole. Social justice
activists work to increase and restore access, giving everyone equal opportunities
for a good life.
For example, individuals from wealthy households among the upper and upper-
middle classes are often better able to afford to attend good schools and access
post-secondary education, which leads to a greater chance of obtaining jobs with
higher income in the future, while those from the lower classes face fewer
opportunities. It, in turn, limits access to education for future generations and
continues the cycle of facing disadvantages.

2. Equity
Many people believe that “equality” is one of the principles of social justice, but
it’s actually “equity.” Equity refers to how individuals are given tools specific to
their needs and socioeconomic status in order to move towards similar outcomes. It
contrasts with equality, where everyone is offered the same tools to move towards
the same outcome. As such, often, things that are equal are not equitable due to the
more advanced needs of some individuals and groups. Integrating social justice
with addressing equity issues might include advancing policies that provide
support to overcome systemic barriers.

3. Partition
Everyone in society is given a voice and the opportunity to express their opinions
and concerns, as well as a say in any issue that impacts their livelihood and level of
living. When a small group of people make decisions for a big group of people,
social injustice emerges since some people are unable to express their ideas.

4. Human Rights
Human rights are essential in societies that respect people's civil, economic,
political, cultural, and legal rights, and governments, organizations, and individuals
must be held accountable if these rights are not respected. The connection between
social justice and human rights has strengthened over the years. It has become
clear to activists and governments that one can’t exist without the other. When a
society is just, it protects and respects everyone’s human rights. This connection is
essential since human rights are recognized globally. Various treaties help keep
governments accountable.

5. Diversity
Understanding diversity and appreciating the importance of cultural variations is
especially essential since politicians are frequently better able to develop policies
that take into account disparities between social groupings. By recognizing that
some groups encounter more challenges in society, it is critical to take these
disparities into account; by doing so, politicians and civil servants will be in a
better position to expand opportunities for excluded or disadvantaged groups.

Natural Justice

Natural Justice is taken from the Roman law term "Jus Natural" and is closely tied
to common law and moral principles, although it is not codified. It is a natural law
that is unrelated to any statute or constitution. Natural justice is a value that is held
in high regard by all citizens of civilized states. The Supreme Court provided its
command with the passage of time and the formation of social, justice, and
economic statutory protection for workers in the ancient days of fair practice, when
industrial areas were regulated by a severe and rigorous law to hire and dismiss.
Natural Justice represents higher procedural principles developed by judges which
every administrative agency must follow in taking any decision adversely affecting
the rights of private individuals.

Natural justice simply refers to following a rational and logical decision-making

process while dealing with a certain issue. It doesn't always matter what the most
reasonable option is; what counts is the technique and who is involved in making
the most reasonable decision. It is not constrained by the concept of "fairness".

Theories of Justice
John Rawls Theory

John Rawls' 'A Theory of Justice' (1971) established a view of justice that
generalized what is justice and related it to a higher degree of abstraction rather
than describing it in concrete form. According to John Rawls, there are some
principles of justice that run as an undercurrent in the construction of a well-
organized society that functions in a specific way. These are the kinds of principles
that 'free and reasonable' people would follow in order to advance their own
interests in a starting position of equality. This is the 'equality' that is at the heart of
their relationship. And it is this idea that governs all of their subsequent
agreements. By agreements, he meant that the laws that would be passed later will
be based on this same premise. As a result, he defined justice as "fairness."

According to John Rawls, these are principles of justice that serve as the
foundation of an ideal society. He believes that the principles of justice are best
deduced from a hypothetical contract carried out in the "initial position" of equality
behind the veil of ignorance. These are the principles that each individual would
choose if they were in a so-called "original position" of equality with regard to
rights and obligations, and if all individuals were behaving rationally and in a
mutually disinterested way. This "initial position" is a hypothetical circumstance in
which each individual acts with a "veil of ignorance" regarding his or her own
social position, class rank, individual assets, and personal aptitudes or talents.

Nozick’s theory

In 1938, Robert Nozick, an American political philosopher, was born in Brooklyn,

New York. In the year 2002, he died of stomach cancer. In his debut book,
Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), he presented "the entitlement theory of justice,"
stating that every human being is entitled to what they are entitled to. According to
Nozick, every human being is born with a basic individual right. No one should
take another's right of entitlement by doing an unlawful act or engaging in
misbehavior. Some people obtain illicit benefits via stealing, seizing, forging,
deception, abuse, fraud, and so on. As Nozick correctly pointed out, the principle
of just distribution through legal methods is important.

The most important demand for the rule of law is that those who work the hardest
have more rather than equal distribution. Entitlement theory lays down three
principles:
1. Justice in acquisition: A person who acquires a holding justly is entitled to that
holding.
2. Justice in transfer: If someone transfers you something then you can possess but
such transfer must be legally valid.
3. Principle of rectification of injustice: If someone’s right is infringed through
coercion, fraud, robbery, looting, mugging, enslavement, theft, etc then they can
file a claim against the beneficiaries.

Amartya Sen’s The Idea of Justice

According to Sen’s, the dominant approach, which he refers to as' transcendental

institutionalism, 'is plagued by two major issues: practicality and duplication. The
first is due to the practical difficulty, if not impossibility, of arriving at a single set
of principles that may assist us in selecting just institutions through an unbiased
reasoning process. For example, in Rawls' theory of justice, it is suggested that his
two lexically ordered principles of justice are those that would be universally picked
by an impartial choice method-through the hypothetical initial position employing
the "veil of ignorance" mechanism. In the "legislative stage," these concepts serve
as the foundation for selecting real institutions.

In fact, Sen’s maintains that there are many principles that can pass the test of
impartiality. He illustrates this point first, using an anecdote about the competing
claims of three children over the distribution of a single flute. One child argues that
they should receive the flute because they are the best flautist; the second, because
they are the poorest of the lot; and the third, because they crafted the flute without
help from the others. The three arguments are based, in turn, on principles of utility,
economic equity, and the entitlement to the fruits of one’s unaided efforts. Each can
be defended with strong, impartial arguments.

928178