JUSTICE

Rishika Singh Priyanka Kumari Vanya Dhingra

Madhu Kumari Satyam Shukla Sanskar Agnihotri
 What is Justice ?
▪ The term ' justice' is derived from the Latin word " justicia" which means joining or
fitting , or of bound or tie.
▪ The concept of justice has been analyzed and defined differently by philosophers,
political thinkers , economists , sociologists and religious leaders. It has been
changing from time to time, depending upon the conditions and circumstances
prevailing in each age.
▪ It has to coordinate and draw a harmonious balance between rights and duties of the
people living in the society.
▪ It is connected with the moral, social, economic, political, and legal relations of an
individual with others.
Aristotle :- “Aristotle says justice consists in what is lawful and fair, with fairness involving equitable distributions
and the correction of what is inequitable”.

WHY DO WE NEED JUSTICE?

It protects people It helps promote

from religion-based equality between
discrimination It protects people genders
It ensures that It helps promote
everyone gets the from sexuality-
essentials for a based economic
good life discrimination equality
Substantive Procedural
Justice Justice
 SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE

▪ Substantive justice is concerned with the way in which an individual evaluates important and meaningful

things to produce an outcome. It is not just mere following of the procedure.

▪ Substantive justice is the opposite of procedural justice. A clear definition for substantive justice is that it is a

just behavior or treatment that is fair and reasonable. It has a solid foundation or basis and is concerned with

the way in which an individual evaluates important and meaningful things to produce an outcome.
 E.g. Let’s assume that there exists a law which allows frisking of people selectively
based on a particular religion. Now, according to the principles of procedural
justice, the policeman is justified in frisking all Muslims as the law permits. But
according to the principles of substantive justice, selectively targeting someone
based on religion is unjustified. The law should require amendments.

Judicial justice is necessary for law itself as well as for the idea of governing the country by law. Judicial justice consists
of procedural justice and substantive justice. Being the real connotations of judicial justice, there inevitably exist
eorfliets and dashes between procedural justice and substantive justice.
 PROCEDURAL JUSTICE
Procedural justice is the idea of fairness in the processes that resolve disputes and allocate resources.
• procedural justice is related to discussions of the administration of justice and legal proceedings.
• Procedural justice concerns the fairness and the transparency of the processes by which decisions can made.
• The idea of procedural justice is especially influential in the law.
• Procedural justice is reflected in the Due Process clauses of the United States Constitution. In other common
law countries, this same idea is called natural justice.
• * John Rawls ( A theory of justice ) distinguished three ideas of procedural justice.
• (1) Perfect procedural justice ( 2) Imperfect procedural justice (3)Pure procedural justice
FOUR PILLARS OF

PROCEDURAL

JUSTICE
RAWL’S THEORY OF JUSTICE

About :

 20th Century American Philosopher.

 Normative political theory.
 Egalitarian philosopher & Social liberal.

His famous work:

 The Theory of Justice (1971

 Justice as Fairness (1985)
METHODOLOGY

Social contract

Original Position

Veil of Ignorance

1. Equal Liberty
PRINCIPALS
Equal opportunity
2.
Difference Principal
 ANALYSIS
CRITICS FAVOR
 MARXIST – Any deliberation without  Welfare State.
the knowledge of prevailing social
and economic conditions are
meaningless.
 Does not reject Capitalism.

 LIBERTARIANS – Rawl’s has scarified

liberty for the sake of Equality.
 Favors Liberty.

 COMMUNITARIANS – Rawl’s
political philosophy does not grade
any conception of good life as
superior or inferior to others.
 He has discovered a way to attain
substantive justice by procedural
justice.
 NOZICK THEORY OF JUSTICE
▪ Nozick thinks that whether distributions of income, wealth etc are just depends entirely on their history. So, if we have a
just initial position, and the only changes from that position come from free exchanges, then the changed position is just
too. For Nozick, it's about process, not content or pattern.

▪ Nozick on the other hand is concerned with what might follow if we grant some very, very strong moral premises. That
people have various rights, and what's of paramount importance is that these rights don't get violated.

▪ I personally think that the particular rights that Nozick thinks exist don't exist, but that's another debate. Sufficient to
say, an intellectually sophisticated commitment to rights doesn't mean you have to be a Nozick style deontological
libertarian.
 CONCLUSION
▪ The term 'access to justice' means different things to different people. For some, the subject centralises
the issue of overcoming the procedural barriers within the court system itself. Such an approach tends
to concentrate on issues of overcoming delays within the court process, efficiency, formality and cost of
proceedings, and the organization, structure and administration of courts and tribunals.
▪ As is well known, life is unfair. Justice is the human attempt to make it fair where we can.
▪ We attempt justice only in those areas where our efforts can pay dividends. Typically, this is only in
cases where the cause of unfairness is other humans. We create systems and establish principles that are
calculated, as best we can, to reach a fair result.
▪ In essence, we try to rig the system. To bias it, if you will, towards fairness. We devise checks and
counters against the kinds of unfairness we know can creep in. We admonish and train participants as to
their duties, what they can and cannot consider.

▪ The goal is to create a system where if everyone does their job, it will be easier to achieve a fair result
than an unfair one. When we’ve done a good job, creating well-balanced systems staffed with able and
relatively honest workers sworn to uphold a clear set of disinterestedly-applied laws, people know what
types of grievances justice can redress, and they have a fair idea what their chances are if they appeal to it.