Administration of Justice
What is administration of justice?
Administration means management and justice means to right and equitable
implication. By the administration of justice is meant the maintenance of right
with in a political community by means of the physical force of the state. For
sound administration of justice, physical force of the state is prime
requirement. There are two essential functions of every State: 1.
Administration of Justice
According to Salmond, a state with reference to its territory as a society of
men established for the maintenance of order and justice within a determined
territory by way of force. State maintain law and order and establish peace and
social security. If state failed to maintain the law and order it can’t be
called state. The main function of the administration of justice is the
protection of individuals' rights, enforcement of laws and punishment of
There are three point to define administration of justice# Political organized society
# Physical force of the state and
# Maintenance of right as the object
A man by nature is a fighting animal and is moved by his own interest and
passions. So without a common power to keep him right on track in the society,
it is very difficult for individuals to live peacefully in a society. A society
where the state power is never called into actual exercise, it is very difficult
to attain the civilization in the society.
Origin and Growth of the Administration of JusticeIt is the social nature of men that inspires him to live in a community. This
social nature of men demands that he must reside in a society. However, living
in a society leads to conflict of interests and gives rise to the need for
Administration of Justice. they involved their elders to settle disputes among
them. There we see developments of minds, starts from natural society to
developed and civilized society this is considered to be the historical basis
for the growth of administration of justice.
Once the need for Administration of Justice was recognized, the State came into
being. Initially, the so called State was not strong enough to regulate crime
and impart punishment to the criminals. But at present it is operated by
Magistrates and Judges assigned with the same nature of job.
According to Hobbes “that a common power is necessary to keep people with in
control in the community. He says, unless man is under “a common power to keep
them all in awe”
# Administration of justice brings uniformity and consistency in the law
and it causes a systematic development of law.
# The Rules of law represent the collective wisdom of community
therefore, in following them there are little chances of going wrong. Sir Edward
Coke said that the wisdom of law is wiser than any man’s wisdom and Justice
represents wisdom of the community.
# As the rules are fixed, it helps judge in applying the law uniformly.
# As the law is known to the citizen, it enables them to regulate their
conduct in accordance with it.
# It is rigid. The rate of change in the society is always more rapid
than the rate of change in the Legal Justice.
# Legal Justice is full of technicalities and formalities.
# Legal Justice is complex. Our society is complex too. Thus, to meet
the needs of the society, we need complex laws.
# Salmond said that ‘law is without doubt a remedy for greater evils yet
it brings with it evils of its own’.
Types of Administration of lawThere are two types of justice, Civil and Criminal. Which means there are two
types of wrongs, civil wrongs and criminal wrongs. Criminal wrongs are Public
wrongs while civil wrongs are private wrongs.
Civil justice - The main object of the administration of civil justice is to
provide relief by way of compensation or other relief to the injured party. The
rights enforced by civil proceedings are of two kinds- Primary rights and
Criminal Justice- The administration of criminal justice is to punish the
offender. Punishment may be described as the infliction by State Authority, of a
consequence normally regarded as an evil (imprisonment or death) on an
individual found to be legally guilty of a crime. .
Theories of Punishment
Administration of Justice is the primary functions of the State, is generally
divided into administration of Civil Justice and Administration of Criminal
Justice. The main purpose of Administration of criminal Justice is to punish
the wrongdoer. It is the State which punishes the Criminals. From the ancient
times, a number of theories have been given concerning the purpose of
What is Punishment?Punishment is a process by which the state inflicts some pain to the persons or
property of person who is found guilty of Crime.
Deterrent Theory-Salmond said that the deterrent aspect of punishment is extremely important. The
object of punishment is not only to prevent the Evildoer from committing the
crime again but also to make him an example in front of the other such persons
who have similar criminal tendencies.
Even in Manu Smriti, the Deterrent Theory is mentioned. Manu said “Penalty keeps
the people under control, penalty protects them, and penalty remains awake when
people are asleep, so the wise have regarded punishment as the source of
There is a lot of criticism of the deterrent theory of punishment in modern
times. It has been criticized on the grounds that it has proved ineffective in
checking crimes and also that excessive harshness of punishment tends to defeat
its own purpose by arousing the sympathy of the public towards those who are
given cruel and inhuman punishment. Hardened criminals are not afraid of
punishment. Punishment losses its horror once the criminal is punished.
This theory believes that the object of punishment is to prevent or disable the
wrongdoer from committing the crime again. Deterrent theory aims at giving a
warning to the society at large whereas under Preventive Theory, the main aim is
to disable the wrongdoer from repeating the criminal activity by disabling his
physical power to commit crime.
The supporters of this theory recognize imprisonment as the best mode of
punishment because it serves as an effective deterrent as also a useful
preventive measure. According to Paton: “The Preventive theory concentrates on
the prisoner and seeks to prevent him from offending again in the future. The
death penalty and exile serve the same purpose.
Critics points out that Preventative Punishment has the undesirable effect of
hardening first offenders, or juvenile offenders, when imprisonment is the
punishment, by putting them in the association of Harden Criminals.
This theory believes that Punishment should exist to reform the criminal. Even
if an offender commits a crime, he does not cease to be a human being. He might
have committed the crime under circumstances which might never occur again.
The object of the punishment should be reform the offender. The criminal must
be educated and taught some art or craft or industry during his term of
imprisonment, so that they may be able to lead a good life and become a
responsible and respectable citizen after release from jail.
Critics of this theory state that if Criminals are sent to prison to be
transformed into good citizens, a prison will no longer be a 'prison' but a
This theory has been proved to be successful in case of young offenders.
Retributive Theory In primitive societies, the punishment was mostly retributive in nature and the
person wronged was allowed to have his revenge against the wrongdoer. The
principle was “an eye for an eye”. According to Justice Holmes It is commonly
known that the early forms of legal procedure were grounded in vengeance.
According to Sir John Salmond the retributive purpose of punishment consist in
avenging the wrong done by the criminal to society.
Critics of retributive theory points out that punishment per se is not a remedy
for the mischief committed by the offender. It merely aggravates the mischief.
Punishment in itself evil and can be justified only on the ground that it yields
better result. Revenge is wild justice. Retribution is only a subsidiary purpose
served by punishment.
Theory of CompensationThis theory believes that punishment should not only be to prevent further crime
but it should also exist to compensate the victim who has suffered at the hands
of the wrongdoer. However, critics say that this theory is not effective in
checking the rate of crime. This is because the purpose behind committing a
crime is always economic in nature. Asking the wrongdoer to compensate the
victim will not always lower the rate of crime though it might prove beneficial
to the victim.
Critics points out that it tends to oversimplify the motive to crime.
Introduction of jurisprudence 4th edition by Dr Avtar Singh
Jurisprudence and Legal Theory 2016 edition
Law Article in India
You May Like
Legal Question & Answers