Civil & Criminal Administration of Justice — Jurisprudence Notes
Civil & Criminal Administration of Justice
Before there were courts, a wrong was avenged by the victim’s own family — an eye for an eye, then a feud, then a blood-war between clans. The single greatest step in civilisation was the day the state took over the settling of disputes: it said, in effect, “bring your quarrel to us; do not fight it out yourselves.” That takeover is what we call the administration of justice.
Why the state administers justice, and its two branches
Everyday hook: private revenge is like everyone being their own referee — biased, escalating, endless. The administration of justice replaces the players’ fists with an impartial umpire (the court) backed by the whole team’s strength (the state).
The administration of justice means the maintenance of right within a political community by means of the physical force of the state — the state deciding disputes and enforcing the decision. Its two pillars, as Salmond put it, are force (the might of the state) and justice (the rightness the force is used to secure): “justice without force is impotent; force without justice is tyranny.”
Why the state must administer justice (and not the individual — the origin argument):
- Private vengeance is partial (each is judge in his own cause), disproportionate (revenge exceeds the wrong), and endless (feuds). State justice is impartial, measured and final.
- Only the state has the organised force to make a decision stick against a powerful wrongdoer.
- It secures uniformity and certainty — like cases decided alike.
Advantages of state-administered justice: uniformity and certainty (fixed rules applied to all), impartiality, and the authority of the state behind every decision.
Disadvantages: rigidity (fixed rules can produce hardship in an unusual case), formalism and technicality, delay and expense. This is why equity and reforms exist.
The two branches — civil and criminal administration of justice:
| Feature | Civil administration of justice | Criminal administration of justice |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of wrong | Private wrong — infringes an individual’s right | Public wrong — an offence against society/state |
| Who sues | The aggrieved individual (plaintiff) | The State (prosecution), on behalf of society |
| Object | Enforcement of a right / redress to the plaintiff | Punishment of the offender |
| Result | A remedy — damages, injunction, restitution, specific performance | A sentence — fine, imprisonment, death |
| Parties named | Plaintiff v Defendant | State/King v Accused |
| Standard of proof | Balance of probabilities | Beyond reasonable doubt |
| Codes | Civil procedure and substantive civil law | Criminal procedure and the penal law |
Primary and sanctioning rights. Civil proceedings often enforce a primary right directly (specific performance, recovery of possession) or award a sanctioning right (damages) when the primary right cannot be restored. Criminal proceedings almost always give a sanctioning result — punishment — because the primary “right” of society (that the wrong not be done) cannot be undone.
Salmond: “The administration of justice is the maintenance of right within a political community by means of the physical force of the State. Justice without force is impotent; force without justice is tyranny.”
In Simple Terms: The state, not the victim, now settles disputes — impartially and with its own power behind the verdict. Civil justice enforces a right between individuals (remedy); criminal justice punishes a public wrong on behalf of society (sentence).
🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — Civil, criminal, or both?
Facts. A man punches his neighbour, breaking his nose.
Rule. The same act can be both a private wrong (a tort against the neighbour) and a public wrong (the offence of hurt against society).
Apply. The neighbour may bring a civil action for damages (enforcing his private right to bodily integrity, remedy = compensation). The State may separately prosecute the man for the criminal offence (object = punishment). Two proceedings, two objects, from one act.
Conclusion. Civil and criminal administration are not rivals — they run in parallel, one to compensate, the other to punish. Recognising that a single act triggers both is the classic point.
flowchart TD
AJ["ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE<br/>right maintained by the force of the State"]:::root
AJ --> CIV["CIVIL<br/>private wrong"]:::leaf
AJ --> CRIM["CRIMINAL<br/>public wrong"]:::leaf
CIV --> CO["object: enforce a right<br/>result: remedy (damages/injunction)"]:::leaf
CRIM --> PU["object: punish the offender<br/>result: sentence (fine/imprisonment)"]:::leaf
classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;
Case Laws
- M.C. Mehta v Union of India (1987) — the same hazardous escape sounded in both civil (compensation) and regulatory/criminal consequences, showing the two branches operating together.
- A.R. Antulay v R.S. Nayak (1988) — underscored that criminal justice is administered by the state through settled procedure, not by private will.
📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Jurisprudence topics