Justice and its Kinds — Jurisprudence Notes

Justice and its Kinds

Aristotle, more than two thousand years ago, split justice into two ideas that lawyers still use daily. When the state shares out honours, offices and public money, it should give to each in proportion to merit — that is distributive justice. When one person wrongs another, the court should restore the balance by making the wrongdoer put it right — that is corrective justice. Every scholarship scheme and every damages award is one or the other.

What is justice, and what are its kinds?

Everyday hook: justice is the fairness a child appeals to when she says “he got a bigger slice!”. As a legal idea, justice means giving to each person his due (suum cuique tribuere — to render to each his own) and the maintenance of right by rightful means. It is the highest purpose of law: law is the instrument, justice the goal.

The kinds of justice:

A. Natural justice vs Legal justice

Natural justice — justice according to the conscience and reason of humankind, independent of any particular legal system. In modern law it has narrowed to two procedural rules the courts insist on: nemo judex in causa sua [no one should be a judge in his own cause — the rule against bias] and audi alteram partem [hear the other side — the right to a fair hearing].
Legal justice — justice as administered by the state through its courts and according to law. Ideally the two coincide; where legal justice departs from natural justice, the law is criticised as unjust.

B. Distributive justice vs Corrective justice (Aristotle’s central division)

Distributive justice — concerns the fair allocation of benefits and burdens (wealth, honours, offices, rights) among the members of a community, in proportion to their merit, need or contribution. It is proportional, not equal, and it is chiefly the work of the legislature and the state. Reservation policies, progressive taxation and welfare schemes are distributive justice.
Corrective (remedial) justice — concerns putting right a wrong done by one person to another; it restores the balance the wrong disturbed, by compensation or punishment. It looks only at the transaction, treating the parties as equals, and is chiefly the work of the courts. Damages for breach of contract and compensation for a tort are corrective justice.

C. Civil justice vs Criminal justice

Civil justice — enforces private rights between individuals; the outcome is a remedy (damages, injunction, restitution) to the wronged party.
Criminal justice — enforces public wrongs; the outcome is punishment imposed by the state on the offender. (Developed fully in Topic 4.)

Law and justice. Are they the same? No. Law is the means; justice the end. Usually law serves justice, but the two can diverge — a valid law may be unjust (the naturalists’ point), and strict application of a rule can produce hardship, which is why equity grew up to soften the rigour of the common law. The ideal is law and justice together; where they part, reform is called for.

Aristotle: “Justice is a kind of proportion. Distributive justice distributes honours and goods in proportion to merit; corrective justice restores the equality that a wrong has disturbed.”

In Simple Terms: Justice is giving each person his due. Distributive justice shares out society’s benefits fairly (the legislature’s job); corrective justice repairs a wrong between two people (the court’s job). Law is the tool; justice is the goal.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — Which justice is being done?

Facts. (i) The state gives extra college seats to a backward class. (ii) A court orders a driver to pay ₹5 lakh to the pedestrian he injured.

Rule. Distributive justice = fair allocation of society’s benefits by merit/need (state/legislature); corrective justice = restoring the balance a wrong disturbed (courts).

Apply. (i) is distributive — the state allocating a benefit (seats) by need. (ii) is corrective — a court restoring the balance between two individuals by compensation.

Conclusion. Same word “justice”, two entirely different operations by two different organs. Labelling each correctly is the mark-winner.

flowchart TD
    JU["JUSTICE<br/>giving each person his due"]:::root
    JU --> NL["Natural vs Legal"]:::leaf
    JU --> DC["Distributive vs Corrective"]:::leaf
    JU --> CC["Civil vs Criminal"]:::leaf
    DC --> DI["Distributive<br/>share benefits by merit — legislature"]:::leaf
    DC --> CO["Corrective<br/>repair a wrong — courts"]:::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

State of Kerala v N.M. Thomas (1976) — reservation upheld as an aspect of distributive justice (fair allocation by social need).
M.C. Mehta v Union of India (1987) — corrective/remedial justice extended through absolute liability to compensate victims of a hazardous escape.

📄 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