{"id":259574,"date":"2022-01-06T14:00:27","date_gmt":"2022-01-06T08:30:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=259574"},"modified":"2022-01-06T09:32:23","modified_gmt":"2022-01-06T04:02:23","slug":"complete-justice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/06\/complete-justice\/","title":{"rendered":"Redefining \u201cComplete Justice\u201d \u2014 An Incomplete Endeavour\u2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ever since Plato\u2019s celebrated book \u201cThe Republic<\/em>\u201d made its appearance somewhere around 375 BC, speculations continued as to why it is subtitled as \u201cConcerning Justice\u201d. How can these two be assimilated and why he titled his book so vaguely though its first part had mainly covered Socratic dialogue. In the last 2500 years of the development of human civilisation since Plato, neither the word \u201cRepublic\u201d could get a clear meaning nor the word \u201cjustice\u201d. The framers of the American Constitution used \u201cRepublic\u201d for the first time in their Constitution without defining it. They only said that the existing form of the Government was \u201cRepublican\u201d, and as a Union, it guaranteed the same to every individual States. However, it is a common knowledge that the word \u201cRepublic\u201d primarily implies two things. First, the Head of the State must not be a hereditary one and second, he must be an elected representative of the people, namely, citizens of the country. The significance of saying all these is that if the meaning of a term is clear in the mind of every individual, an attempt to define the same with composition of words would be not of much relevance.<\/p>\n

In the same parlance if we try to find out the meaning of \u201cjustice\u201d we can attempt the same as till date, with no finality it has been defined, not even in our own Constitution, which is considered to be the largest written code on human conduct and governance. Interestingly enough the word \u201cjustice\u201d has found its place in the Preamble to the Constitution as a constitutional value and as a philosophical goal under Article 38(1) of the Directive Principles but not as a constitutional\/fundamental right. At best, a derivative meaning can be imputed to \u201cjustice\u201d that has passed through the ages of civilisation through Greek, Roman, Medieval and Renaissance age and ultimately settled at \u201censuring what is just and proper\u201d. To quote Dr Justice B.S. Chauhan, \u201cJustice is an illusion as the meaning and definition of \u2018justice\u2019 varies from person to person and party to party. Party feels having got justice only and only if it succeeds before the court, though it may not even have a justiciable claim.\u201d[1]<\/a><\/p>\n

The purpose of having the above discussion can be summed up differently to justify that \u201cjustice\u201d is not an altogether vague concept but its meaning varies contextually. However in the subconscious mind of every individual it has been set through judicial process that ensuring what is \u201cjust, proper and equitable\u201d is what we mean as imparting justice though words like just and proper cannot be treated as a synonym of justice.<\/p>\n

Now the question arises as to if \u201cjustice\u201d can be subdivided into complete justice, incomplete justice, partial justice, substantial justice, so on and so forth, though its subdivision like fair justice, equitable justice, social justice, natural justice, etc. are being well-recognised as categories of justice despite the fact that its meaning and contextual usage are quite different from each other. For example, while natural justice and social justice are treated as a means through which justice is secured and promoted, fair and equitable justice are the end products of ensuring justice through a court process. It is with this background in mind an attempt is made to explain \u201ccomplete justice\u201d as enshrined in Article 142 of the Constitution of India[2]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

It can be said at the cost of repetition that \u201ccomplete justice\u201d has not been defined in the Constitution of India nor debated in the Constituent Assembly to derive its meaning while adopting it, though discussed thoroughly to provide it a proper meaning, which will be discussed at the concluding portion of this article but it would not be entirely wrong to say that \u201ccomplete justice\u201d travels much beyond the concept of giving justice. It is a great plenary power vested with the Supreme Court of this country. Through judicial pronouncement over the years, its meaning had been expanded and purpose has been broadened, though in the initial phase of its exercise till 1989, it had received a very narrow interpretation. The interpretations which have emerged through long practice of constitutionalism and judicial interpretation has not been consistent, but can be broadly outlined:<\/p>\n