Abstract
Issues of Justice, equity and good conscience first arose in the Impey’s Regulation Act of 1781. In the absence of statutes or personal laws, Indian courts use a method of settling cases known as equity, justice and good conscience. The ancient Hindu laws had their own concept of “justice, equity and good conscience”. Like its modern counterpart in the Indian legal system, it has its origins in the British Raj in India. The High Court, established by the British government, stated that where the law is unclear or silent on a matter, the matter will be decided according to the principles of “justice, equity and good conscience”.
Justice, equity and good conscience are often interpreted as referring to the laws and regulations of England, where no law applies to questions of law. Courts also use “equity, justice and good conscience” in cases where Hindu law does not exist in relation to personal relationships.
Although this concept has a timeless and unchanging universal value, its application must be adapted to the myriad situations where justice is required. Like purposive interpretations designed to correct possible situations that the legislature cannot clearly understand; justice, equity, and good conscience appear to abstractly fill a legal void that requires justice in a situation. Since the human mind can never be replaced by a computer, no law can provide justice in all situations. Yes, the social environment of a particular society may depend on the unchanging values of the old social system, the ideal values of the developing society, and the moral and social consciousness represented by the need for justice. Current thinking situations based on real situations. Thus, British concepts, especially those derived from laws enacted by the state to meet the needs of the state, do not reflect the universal principles of equal justice and conscience, which necessarily require caution when applied in the Indian context. Why the ubiquity of high ideas can enlighten anyone, and the principles applied in another real-world situation may not be relevant. Mechanical use is dangerous.
Keywords
Equity, Justice, Good Conscience, Jurisdiction
Introduction
The principles of justice, equity and good conscience arose in England in the thirteenth century when traditional common law has existed in Great Britain since ancient times.[1]
This principle was introduced to overcome the shortcomings of ordinary courts. The intensive proceedings of English common law judges in court of law forced people to approach king for justice.
History of the principle of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience
In 1780, Bengal first introduced maxim ‘justice, equity and good conscience’. Sir Elijah Impey, the first Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, ruled that Mofussil and Sadar Adalats should, in all cases where no specific instructions were given, act according to the principles of equity, justice and good conscience. In theory, this ruling gives all heads of litigation, rules for determining penalties – the theoretical,legal basis for courts to decide cases that do not have specific statutory norms. Judges are given discretion’to adopt,any rule or practice they deem reasonable in the circumstances of the case before them. This principle was applied in legislation, resulting in various laws and many principles of the English language. This principle was gradually introduced in Bombay, Madras and other provinces of India.
Privy Council:
Section 5 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 provides for the introduction of Hindu or Muslim law in civil cases.[2] According to Section 6, the court must act in accordance with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience in matters not specified in Article 5. Similarly, the Punjab Laws Act of 1872, the North-West Frontier Province Act and the Oudh Act of 1876 provided the same principle.
According to the Privy Council, the principles of “justice, equity and good conscience” had been endorsed as the eventual test in all Courts of provinces in India. This principle acted as the residuary source of law when there was no Act of Parliament, no statute, if it is outside the head of Hindu and Islamic law.
This principle had no definite and specific connotation. It did not mention a specific set of laws, nor does it provide clear guidelines that judges would follow when deciding disputes. In short, it was the judge’s discretion. Judges were entirely free to deliver the judgment of the cases brought before them to the best of their capability to ensure substantive justice between the parties involved.
This principle required courts to decide which law to apply, based on reason and justice in each case. This laid the foundation for the judges to rule on a case-by-case basis. In a disputed situation, the judge can use principles based on what he believes to be justice and good conscience.
Principles of the Hindu and Muslim Law:
Confusion and uncertainty are the unavoidable outcomes when each judge interprets it from their own perspective, and over time guidelines have been developed to guide judges’ discretion on the matter. For example, in contract law, courts would apply the verifiable principles of Hindu and Muslim law in good conscience.
For convention, in Kallup Nath Singh v. Kumlaput Jah, contracts entered into by minors are void and no claims can be made against minors or guarantors.[3] But this was not all Hindu-Islamic contract law enforced by the Mofussil courts, the prevailing traditions of the country are another source on which the courts can rely to determine the principles of discretion in deciding cases based on principles of equity, justice and good conscience. For example, the right to graze cattle on foreign land and the right to bury the dead on foreign land. In Manzur Hasan v. Muhammad Zan, the Privy Council ruled that India has the right to hold religious processions in public streets.[4]
Sources of this Principle:
- Justification of the principle’s applicator.
- Customs and usages of the applicable territory.
Advantages of this principle in India:
- Even where primitive laws existed, they were archaic, and unsuited to new social structures and conditions, and that so English law was in this respect, a valuable source of legal principles;
- English law introduced the principles of equity, justice and conscience, bringing some certainty to an uncertain legal system.
- As English law is used by all courts as a common source of law, the potential for legal separation between the Mofussil courts and the Presidency towns was greatly reduced.
Disadvantages of this principle in India:
- Determining whether a particular rule of English law applies to India is frequently very difficult for courts to decide.
- In 1833, the regional governments of India established a number of high courts.
Therefore, they cannot always be expected to provide a uniform interpretation of the law. For these reasons, codification of the law was considered useful.
Acceptance and Importance of this principle in India – A powerful and versatile tool for righteous ends:
The debate on the introduction and adoption of the doctrine of equity, justice and good conscience in the Indian context can be better understood when divided into:
(i) The introduction and application of the doctrine in India by the British Government,
(2) Interpretation of these principles as part of the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court of India.
Principles of Justice in British India “Justice, Equity and Good Conscience”
A 1683 charter issued by Charles II provided that the East India Company could administer admiralty courts of all kinds, each convened by a judge experienced in civil law, assisted by two persons chosen by the company. It was made clear that these tribunals were to decide matters in accordance with “justice and conscience” as well as the laws and conventions of the merchant class. However, this only applies to company employees. Another aspect of the current debate, which is sometimes overlooked in the historical literature, is the revival and inauguration of the Court of Justice on 25 March 1718 by the Governor of Bombay, Charles Boone, which marked a new era in Bombay’s judicial history.[5] The governor and council established the court, and company representatives eventually gave their approval. In addition to English judges, the Supreme Court in 1718 had 10 judges, including judges from various Indian communities. The Court was peculiar as it has jurisdiction over all civil and criminal cases in accordance with the law, equity, and conscience. In 1781, Lord Impey’s Bengal Laws laid the foundation for the Indian concept of equity, justice and conscience, requiring judges to act in accordance with the principles of “justice, equity and justice” without special instruction. Later there were many such Acts/Rules empowering the Courts/Tribunals to act according to “equity, justice and good conscience” without specific instructions or provisions of law.
Justice, equity and good conscience in India’s constitutional design
It is a common belief among academic students that this prayer is only necessary for any rest or place that is not specifically sought or removed, but this is not the case. The concepts of “equity, justice and good conscience” are very diverse and multifaceted, and have the potential to go beyond what the law says. Power and Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, Supreme Court’s interpretation of the scope of this provision led the legal profession to interpret this decision in the widest possible sense and implement the doctrine. In the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court, In Siddique v. Suresh Das (Ram Janmabhumi Temple), the Supreme Court interpreted Section 142 as the directly applicable source of doctrine. The Constitution of India does not expressly provide for the application of the principles of “impartiality, justice and peace” when courts exercise their jurisdiction and perform their functions. Language containing at least four provisions on the duties and powers of the National Constitutional Court, the scope of powers or the extension of the jurisdiction of the National Constitutional Court through judicial interpretation can be considered an expression of this principle. They are Articles 142, 32 and 136 (Jurisdiction and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court) and Article 226 (Jurisdiction of judgments of the Supreme Court). Of course, Article 142 of the Constitution has been accepted in its broad scope as a true and complete expression of the principles of justice, equality and peace of conscience, and this has been clearly confirmed in the judgment of the Ram Mandir Tribunal (Five Judges). However, it would be a wrong position to say that the only source from which the Supreme Court will apply this principle in our country is Article 142, which the Supreme Court did not even mention in the above-mentioned case. Proceedings under Articles 32 and 136 of the Constitution are constitutional, even within limited limits, regardless of the application of the principles of the Supreme Court and Article 226 of the Supreme Court, which sometimes limit the doctrine to the implementation of true concepts of justice. It can be used as a powerful tool. Tracing its origins, adoption, expansion and various applications in Indian courts, this article argues that the doctrine is not merely a formal dogma but has great inherent force in the Indian Constitutional Court; in relation to the Supreme Court, only under the leadership of self-governance can real justice be implemented.
Justice Doctrine of Supreme Court Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court of India’s system dates back to the Supreme Court of India Act of 1861, which was passed before the present Supreme Court. The Court of King and the Court of Equity’s authority is exercised by the Supreme Court of India. But after the introduction of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court was established as the highest court in the country’s uniform legal system, which was given a wider and unfettered discretion, guided only by self-imposed limitations. The fact that these powers have not been granted to the Supreme Court, however, does not remove the jurisdiction, even if it has a more limited meaning than the trinity in Articles 32, 136 and 142 of the Constitution. Article 226 of the Constitution defines the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which is available in any case of violation of a person’s legal rights, and in this sense it is much broader than Article 32 of the Constitution. Article 227 also gives the Supreme Court general control over all lower courts under its jurisdiction, making it a court of wider jurisdiction than the Supreme Court. In the case of MP and Visan Kumar Shivcharan Lal, it was argued that Article 226 is essentially a repository and repository of “justice, fairness and peace of conscience”. In Ramesh Chandra Sankla v. Vikram Cement Company, the Supreme Court held that even the supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution can be exercised without justice viz. a court, but also a judicial institution.
Conclusion
The concepts of “justice, equity, and good conscience” are directly expressed by the broader idea of natural justice, which is now a defining feature of Indian law. For the doctrine now encompasses both the literal meaning of the terms employed in English laws as well as crucial principles i.e. Justice, equity, and Good Conscience. The notion of equity is the foundation for the frequent usage of words like “fairness,” “public order,” “justice,” etc. in legal and judicial decisions. The approach of the judiciary in the Maneka Gandhi case epitomizes the application of this doctrine. In this case, the Supreme Court while interpreting the word “law” in Article 21 of the Constitution of India held that the law must be just, fair and reasonable.[6] In India we have never had a separate court (like the UK) to administer equity’. But equitable legal principle, justice, equity and good conscience drive most laws and court decisions in our country.
However, since the 19th century, the meaning of the term has declined. The reason for this decline in influence is that most Indian laws are now codified. Most of the laws using the principle of “justice, equity and good conscience” have been codified by India. But the basis remains the same. For example, in 1963, the Indian Parliament passed the Special Relief Act on the recommendation of the Law Commission of India, repealing the earlier Special Relief Act of 1877.[7] The 1963 Act formalised and established equity as a statutory right, eliminating the courts’ discretion to grant equitable remedy. However, a recent trend in law has been to adopt a novel strategy rather than a conventional one when incorporating English law.
For all its zeal to develop its own brand of equity and justice, the Supreme Court has not abandoned its habit of relying on English or any other legal system. We don’t need to go through the case laws anymore for the immediate example is the euthanasia case (or Aruna Shuanbagh’s case) where the Supreme Court relied on English law among other legal systems around the world. The Supreme Court adopted and cited AIREDALE CASE where the House of Lords held that if a doctor acts on informed medical advice and withdraws artificial life support when it is in the patient’s best interests, that action would not be regarded as crime.[8]
Hence, it can be said that the dependence of the Indian Judiciary on British jurisprudence has not disappeared to a large extent. However, the formula of the principle of “justice, equity and good conscience” is far from satisfactory. Because the principle “justice, equity and good conscience” does not have a clear and definite meaning. It does not apply to a specific legal entity. In short, it is the judge’s discretion. This principle (doctrine) also opens up opportunities for judicial legislation from case to case. Moreover, applying laws developed in different climates and different civilizations thousands of kilometers away is pure nonsens. History is clear that Indian courts have refused to apply certain principles of English law. Even Indian courts sometimes apply English law, which is a result of the peculiarities of the United Kingdom.
Together, justice, equity, and good conscience form the basis of many legal decisions, particularly in cases where the law is unclear or where the strict application of the law may result in an unjust outcome. In such cases, judges may use their discretion to apply these principles in order to arrive at a decision that is fair and just.
For example, in a case where a person is facing eviction from their home, a judge may consider not only the letter of the law, but also the individual’s circumstances and whether it would be just to evict them. The judge may consider factors such as the person’s financial situation, their health, and their family circumstances in order to arrive at a decision that is fair and just.
Overall, justice, equity, and good conscience are essential principles that help ensure that legal decisions are fair, impartial, and just. By upholding these principles, societies can work towards creating a more equitable and just world for all.
NAME- GARIMA RAJPUT
COLLEGE NAME- GLA UNIVERSITY
[1] Singh M.P., Outlines of Indian Legal & Constitutional History, Universal LexisNexis, pp.10
[2] Nidhi Verma, Significance of the Principle of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience, eatmy.news, 2020
[3] Ibid
[4] Ibid
[5] Nikhil Goel, In The Interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience, India Legal, 2022
[6] Burhan Majid, Justice, Equity And Good Conscience: Origin And Present Application, JKJ 2013 (2) J-21, 2021
[7] Ibid
[8] Ibid