Lex Et Iustitia – Law And Justice

“There is a higher court than courts of justice. It is the court of conscience. It supersedes all other courts.” Quoted by Mahatma Gandhi, the relevance of this is about to be put under scrupulous scrutiny. 

With respect to law, one is delinquent when they violate the rights of others, with substantial evidence. However, in the court of conscience, it is more about ethics and whether the person has wronged themselves in the process. The court of justice is like Anchises, blinded by facts and evidence. If there is adequate evidence to prove that the right is wrong and the wrong is right notwithstanding the actions of an individual – they will be convicted accordingly. However, in the court of conscience, retrospection and deep-rooted analyses of one’s actions lead the way. 

Considering the International Court of Justice’s judgement on the accusation filed by Bosnia, during the 1992-95 war, on Serbia of masterminding a genocide of Bosnian Muslims, it is conspicuously articulated that despite the lack of evidence of the direct involvement of the Serbian Government, the ICJ ruled that Serbia was nonetheless guilty of violating the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 

It is rather paradoxical that A tort et à raison (wrong and right) sometimes do not really contradict each other. In such a case- who or what gives the judge the right to eschew these reasons, considering them incapacitated? It is the court of conscience, which allows the judge to differentiate between the head and tails of a coin and arrive at a consensus. It is the court of conscience which gives criminals the opportunity to arrive at a confluence of contrition and righteousness. 

People may be elusive from the court of justice, but never can they escape the court of conscience. 

Now, when we talk about the court of conscience and the court of justice, another question that arises is- are law and justice conceptually the same? As a matter of fact, legal and political theorists dated back to the time of Plato have continually wrestled with the argument as to whether justice is an integral part of law or if it is simply a judgement based on the moral aspect of law. Well, conceptually speaking, they may be alike but they are definitely not the same. Abnegation of the same would be futile and, in a way, abjuring this will actually be necessary. It is imperative for people, especially students like us, who are future luminaries and will be responsible for the progress of humankind, to understand the difference and similarity between these two elementary ideas. 

Assiduously scrutinising, one can come to a conclusion that law and justice are two sides of the same coin. The very existence of law can be traced back to the purpose of delivering justice, both to the deplorable culprits as well as to the irreproachable victims. Justice, on the other hand is an integral and irreplaceable part of the legal system. For instance, suppose you have a friend from whom you have borrowed some money, without any legal documents. You promised him that you would return the money to him soon. Now, that friend dies out of the blue, all of a sudden due to certain unfortunate circumstances. Will you still give this money to his family members? Will you still righteously repay the money which you had borrowed from your friend? Will you keep your promise? According to the law, you do not need to give him a penny, but according to justice, you have to return that money in any case. This, precisely, is the difference between justice and law.

Justice is a concept which is now considered an irrelevant criterion in this modern world by many. It is a rather elusive and nebulous concept broadly based on something Aristotle defined approximately two thousand years ago- “equals being treated equally whilst unequals being treated unequally”. Justice depends on equality of rights, fairness and morality. For instance, if Rohan and Tina do the same amount of work for the same time, without any relevant differences or advantages in the work that they are doing, then they both deserve equal wages. However, if Rohan is paid more just because he is a man or because he is white, then it is considered injustice due to discrimination based on gender and race as there is differentiation based on grounds irrelevant to the subject in discussion. John Rawls formulated a Theory of Justice inspired by the social contract theory. He argued that rather than following utilitarian philosophies, the desirable state of nature would actually be equal distribution of resources. 

Next, laws are rules and regulations established and enforced by each respective government and its institutions. Every country has a unique judicial system which is curated for the people of that country. National laws are rules and regulations established to regulate the behaviour of citizens, inform them of their rights and duties and also prevent the government from taking arbitrary decisions to protect the interest of the citizens. In India, law is interpreted by the Judiciary, created by the Legislature through a long, thorough and complex process and implemented by the Executive. Laws can vary from country to country (or even state to state as is the case in the United States). They are applied to all the citizens of the country or that particular jurisdiction. Furthermore, International Law, violations of which can be instituted in the International Court of Justice, is valid to those countries who choose to become part of certain treaties, conventions or other such stipulations. For example, the Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile), Application of the CERD (Qatar v. UAE) and Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France). Despite the presence of law, our world is full of crimes. Even today the egregious practice of dowry is prevalent in our society. Even today innocent people are put behind bars. Even today in our country, corrupt officials are looting money and usurping what in reality belongs to the lower strata of society. 

Furthermore, it can be agreed upon that law and justice, although not the same, go hand-in-hand. I would like to reiterate that the very purpose behind the creation of law was to deliver justice, be it the Hammurabi Code of Law (‘tis for ‘tat), the Indian Penal Code, the Third Geneva Convention, the ICJ Statute or the UN Charter. Justice is the foundational principle on which all laws should ideally be based upon. Laws are created by politicians through a system of checks and balances. Justice, however, is not created. It is a profound concept that unites people from various cultural and ethnic backgrounds from all over the world. Justice is something that is not legally binding and universally recognised, unlike law. However, it is based on moralities, values and virtues which are an intrinsic part of human nature. Law and justice are like two peas in a pod- similar and inseparable, but endowed with unique characteristics of their own.