Right, Duty, Wrong and Remedy

Positive and negative. A positive right requires somebody to do something, such as pay. A negative right requires somebody to refrain, such as not to trespass.

Right in rem and right in personam. A right in rem is available against the world at large: ownership of land is the standard example, because everybody is under a duty not to interfere with it. A right in personam is available against a definite person only, and a right under a contract is the standard example, because only the other contracting party owes the duty. The distinction decides who can be sued.

Legal and equitable, a division inherited from English law and of limited use in India, where the two systems were never administered separately.

Fundamental rights, which are the rights in Part III of the Constitution, enforceable against the State and, in some cases, against private persons. They are dealt with in the chapters on writs and on the six named judgments.

Hohfeld, briefly, and why it is worth two sentences

The word "right" is used loosely for four different relations, and a well known analysis by Hohfeld separates them: a claim, which is a right in the strict sense with a duty facing it; a liberty or privilege, meaning simply the absence of a duty not to do something; a power, an ability to change legal relations, such as the power to make a will; and an immunity, a freedom from another's power.

Two sentences on this will improve an answer on the meaning of "right". A whole page on it will lose marks in a first-year paper, because the question asked is almost always simpler.

Duty

What it is

A duty is an obligation to act or to refrain from acting, imposed by law, whose breach the law treats as a wrong.

Correlativity, and its one exception

Every right has a duty facing it. That is what makes the right real: a right without anybody bound by it is a wish.

Does the reverse hold, so that every duty has a right facing it? Mostly yes, and there is a familiar class of exceptions: absolute duties, owed to the State or to the public generally rather than to any identified person. The duty not to commit an offence is the clearest case. Nobody holds a corresponding private right that they can sue on; the State prosecutes.

Fundamental duties

Article 51A of the Constitution lists the fundamental duties of every citizen: to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem; to cherish the noble ideals of the freedom struggle; to protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India; to defend the country; to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood; to value and preserve the rich heritage of the composite culture; to protect and improve the natural environment; to develop the scientific temper; to safeguard public property and abjure violence; to strive towards excellence; and the duty of a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to a child between six and fourteen years.

Note the point that carries marks: article 51A is not directly enforceable. No court will issue a writ compelling a citizen to develop a scientific temper. Its value is as a guide to construction and as a foundation on which the legislature may build.

Wrong

What it is

A wrong is the breach of a legal duty. That is the whole definition, and it is the one to write down.

A moral wrong is not a legal wrong unless the law has made the conduct a breach of duty. This follows from the chapter before this one: law and morality overlap and are not the same.

Civil wrong and criminal wrong

This division decides who brings the case, what has to be proved, and what the court can do.

A civil wrong is a breach of duty owed to a determinate person, who sues in their own name for a remedy that compensates or restores. Breach of contract, tort and breach of trust are the main classes.

A criminal wrong, or offence, is a breach of duty owed to the community. The State prosecutes, in the name of the State, and the outcome is punishment rather than compensation. "Offence" is defined in section 3(38) of the General Clauses Act 1897 as any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force, and it is dealt with in [Fact, Person, Offence and State].

The same act can be both. If Rahul drives negligently and injures Sameer, Sameer may sue in tort for damages and the State may prosecute for the offence. The two proceedings are independent: an acquittal does not bar the civil suit, because the standard of proof is different.

Two Latin tags worth knowing

Damnum sine injuria, meaning loss without legal injury. A person suffers real damage but no legal right of theirs has been violated, so there is no wrong and no remedy. A new shop opens next to yours and your profits fall. That is loss, and it is not a wrong, because you have no right to be free of competition.

Injuria sine damno, meaning legal injury without loss. A legal right is violated but no actual damage follows. A trespass across an empty field harms nothing and is still actionable, because the right to exclusive possession has been invaded. Rights in rem, such as ownership, are typically actionable without proof of damage.

Remedy

What it is

A remedy is what a court gives to enforce a right or to redress a wrong.

The maxim

Ubi jus ibi remedium: where there is a right, there is a remedy. Understand what it means and what it does not. It does not mean a court will invent relief whenever somebody feels wronged. It means that the law will not recognise a right and then leave it bare, so where a legal right exists and has been violated, the law provides some means of enforcing it.

The corollary is used constantly in argument: if the law gives no remedy at all for a supposed injury, that is a strong indication no legal right was involved. That is the reasoning behind damnum sine injuria.

The kinds of remedy

Damages, a money payment to compensate for loss. The commonest civil remedy.

Specific relief, where money is not enough and the court orders the very thing to be done. The Specific Relief Act 1963 governs it. Section 4 states the boundary: specific relief can be granted only for enforcing individual civil rights and not for the mere purpose of enforcing a penal law.

Declaration. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act allows a person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to property, to sue for a declaration that he is so entitled. The court declares the position; it does not order anybody to do anything.

Injunction, an order to do or refrain from doing something. Section 36 says preventive relief is granted at the discretion of the court by injunction, temporary or perpetual. Section 37(1) says temporary injunctions continue until a specified time or until further order and may be granted at any stage of a suit, being regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Section 37(2) says a perpetual injunction can only be granted by the decree at the hearing and on the merits, and perpetually restrains the defendant from an act contrary to the plaintiff's rights. Section 38 sets out when a perpetual injunction may be granted. Injunctions are worked in full in [Writ, Stay Order, Injunction and Adjournment].

Restitution, restoring a party to the position they were in before.

Constitutional remedies, the writs under articles 32 and 226, dealt with in [Writ, Stay Order, Injunction and Adjournment].

Punishment, which is the criminal law's answer to a criminal wrong, and is not a remedy in the private law sense at all.

The remedy can die while the right lives

Two situations, and both are examinable.

Limitation. Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act 1963 provides that, subject to sections 4 to 24, every suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence. The right is not extinguished by lapse of time in the ordinary case; the ability to enforce it in court is. The maxim behind this rule, vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt, meaning the law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights, is worked in [Legal Maxims: the First Eight].

A right with no forum. If the only court that could hear the claim has had its jurisdiction ousted, the right may exist and be unenforceable. Whether jurisdiction has in fact been ousted is a question dealt with in [International Law, Arbitration, Jurisdiction and Amicus Curiae].

A worked example

Meera owns a plot in Thane with a right of way over Nikhil's adjoining land, granted by a registered deed in 2015. In March 2026 Nikhil builds a wall across the path.

The right. Meera has an easement, a right in rem over Nikhil's land, whose title is the deed of 2015. Its content is passage; its object is the strip of land; the person of inherence is Meera; the person of incidence is Nikhil and, because it is a right in rem, everybody else as well.

The duty. Nikhil is under a negative duty not to obstruct the way.

The wrong. Building the wall is a breach of that duty and so a civil wrong. Note that Meera need not prove she lost money: this is injuria sine damno, an invasion of a right which is actionable in itself.

The remedy. Damages would be useless, because what Meera wants is to use the path. So she asks for an injunction. She will seek a temporary injunction under section 37(1) of the Specific Relief Act read with the Code of Civil Procedure to have the wall left alone or removed while the suit runs, and a mandatory perpetual injunction at the hearing under sections 37(2) and 38 requiring the wall to be pulled down. She may add a claim for a declaration under section 34 that the right of way exists.

And the trap. If Meera waits until 2036 to sue, section 3 of the Limitation Act will require the court to dismiss the suit even if Nikhil never raises the point. Her right will still exist; her remedy will be gone.

Distinctions table

What these words do NOT mean

A right is not the same as what you want. An interest becomes a right only when the law recognises and protects it. "I have a right to be left alone by competitors" is not a right, which is why damnum sine injuria exists.

A duty is not always owed to somebody in particular. Absolute duties are owed to the State or the public, and the criminal law is built on them.

A wrong is not the same as harm. Harm without breach of duty is damnum sine injuria and gives nothing. Breach of duty without harm is injuria sine damno and can still give a remedy.

A remedy is not automatic. Specific relief and injunctions are discretionary: section 36 says preventive relief is granted "at the discretion of the court".

Losing the remedy is not always losing the right. Limitation ordinarily bars the suit and leaves the right standing, which is why a time barred debt voluntarily paid is validly paid.

Limits and criticism

Correlativity is a useful rule and not a universal one. Absolute duties have no corresponding private right, and some rights, on the Hohfeldian analysis, are liberties with no duty facing them at all.

Article 51A is a list without a sanction, and it is fairly criticised for that. The answer usually given is that it guides interpretation and gives the legislature a foothold, which is real but modest.

Ubi jus ibi remedium is a principle, not a rule of jurisdiction. It does not create a court where none exists, and it does not survive an express statutory bar.

Quick revision

Right: an interest recognised and protected by law, whose violation is a legal wrong. Five elements: holder, person of incidence, content, object, title. Kinds: perfect and imperfect, positive and negative, in rem and in personam, fundamental.

Duty: an obligation imposed by law. Correlative to a right, except an absolute duty owed to the State. Article 51A, eleven fundamental duties, not enforceable.

Wrong: breach of a legal duty. Civil, sued on by the injured person for a remedy; criminal, prosecuted by the State for punishment. The same act can be both. Damnum sine injuria, loss without legal injury, no remedy. Injuria sine damno, legal injury without loss, actionable.

Remedy: damages, specific relief, declaration (Specific Relief Act 1963, s.34), injunction (ss.36, 37, 38), restitution, writs, punishment. Ubi jus ibi remedium. Limitation Act 1963, s.3: a suit filed after the prescribed period shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence.

Test yourself

1. Define a legal right and name its five elements.

A legal right is an interest recognised and protected by law, the violation of which is a legal wrong. Its five elements are the holder or person of inherence; the person of incidence, who bears the correlative duty; the content, being what the right entitles the holder to; the object, the thing to which it relates; and the title, the fact or event from which it arose.

2. Explain the correlativity of rights and duties, and state its exception.

Every legal right in one person implies a corresponding legal duty in another, and it is that duty which makes the right effective. The converse is not universal: absolute duties are owed to the State or to the public generally and no determinate person holds a matching right. The duty not to commit an offence is the standard example, which is why the State and not a private individual prosecutes.

3. Distinguish damnum sine injuria from injuria sine damno, with an example of each.

Damnum sine injuria is damage without legal injury: real loss is suffered but no legal right has been violated, so there is no wrong and no remedy, as where a new competing shop reduces a trader's profits. Injuria sine damno is legal injury without damage: a right is violated although no loss follows, as in a trespass over vacant land, and it is actionable because the right to exclusive possession has itself been invaded.

4. A debt becomes time barred. Has the creditor's right been extinguished?

Ordinarily no. Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1963 requires the court to dismiss a suit filed after the prescribed period, and to do so although limitation has not been pleaded, so the remedy by suit is lost. The right itself survives, which is why a payment voluntarily made by the debtor after the period has expired is a good payment and cannot be recovered back. It is an example of an imperfect right.

5. What is the difference between a temporary and a perpetual injunction?

A temporary injunction, under section 37(1) of the Specific Relief Act 1963, continues until a specified time or until the further order of the court, may be granted at any stage of a suit, and is regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. A perpetual injunction, under section 37(2), can be granted only by the decree made at the hearing and upon the merits, and perpetually restrains the defendant from asserting a right or committing an act contrary to the plaintiff's rights.

6. Are the fundamental duties in article 51A enforceable in a court?

Not directly. Article 51A lists eleven duties of every citizen but attaches no sanction and creates no cause of action, so no writ will issue to compel a citizen to perform one. Its practical value is that courts use it in construing statutes and in weighing the reasonableness of restrictions, and it gives the legislature a constitutional foothold for laws that give effect to those duties.