The word ‘Jus’ means the legal authority to do or demand something, and the word ‘remedium’ means the right of action in a Court of law. Literal meaning of this maxim is that whenever there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy . Sometimes it is expressed that there is no wrong without a remedy .
The principal upon which this maxim is based is that if a man has a right and if his right is injured , he must, of necessity, have a mean to vindicate or a remedy. It is useless to think about a right without a remedy . Because want of right and want of remedy are same thing . Both the right infringed and the remedy sought should be legal.
The law of torts was developed to some extent on the basis of this maxim.
But he maxim does not say that there is legal remedy for every wrong.
Justice Stephen ( of England) remarked that the maxim would be more intelligibly and correctly stated if it were to be reversed to say that where there is no legal remedy, there is no legal wrong.
There are many moral and political wrongs which are not recognized by law and are therefore not actionable. A cruel war may raze houses to the ground, or oppressive legislation may reduce men to moral slavery, or a contract required to be made on a stamped paper may be made orally in all these cases, irreparable harm may be caused, and yet, a legal remedy may not be available.
Thus, the maxim does not mean that there is a legal remedy for every moral or political wrong.
