Man has been continuously struggling for the maintenance of justice.

In democratic systems, justice

is given the highest place. The word justice is derived from the latin word jus which means to bind'
to contract. The Greek word for justice is Dike. Its gives the meaning of nearer to righteousness.
Justice means following of norms (customs). Justice stands for just conduct, fairness or exercise of
authority in maintenance or right.

Concept of justice is as old as the political theory itself. Different interpretations are given to justice
from time to time. Some writers regard justice as virtue while others hold it for equality' Some
consider it as rule of law'. Justice is not only an integral part of political science, but also of ethics,
law, philosophy, etc.

Major concept of justice

In the history of ideas, there are two majors concepts of justice. They are:

1. Numerical concept of justice -Its gives equal share to all. The Greek city states took the rule
so far that many offices were filled by lot. The holding of an office did not call for any special
knowledge or qualification. this concept is expressed by Jeremy Bentham as Everyone is to
count for one, nobody for more than one.
2. Geometrical concept of justice – It is a concept of proportionate equality. Its means equal
share to equal and unequal to unequals. it means that distribution of power and patronage
should be proportionate to worth or contribution of the individual. Pluto and Aristotle favour
this.

Implications of justice
The concept of justice has the following implications:

1. It requires a just state of affaires

2. It is aligned with the condition of morality
3. It carries the sense of proper distribution of favour and losses and
4. It normally prevails in a non-democratic set up as exception

Development Of Justice
In the primitive society, the basis objective f justice was to inflict punishment on the offenders of a
crime. The punishment was very serve.An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth was part of the
administration of justice. the objective was to prevent the future crimes. Hence, the nature of jusice
in the primitive was purely negative.It is based on conventional morality or tradition or custom.

The political philosophers beginning from Plato (427 BC-347 BC) right up to the twenty-first century,
the theory has been defined in various ways.

Plato, the father of political philosophy, in his THE REPUBLIC defined justice as one of functional
specialization. He was of was opinion of justice was ethical or philosophical and not based on
conventional morality. An individual render of justice if he performed his duties for Which he was
fitted and trained for.
Plato, further, viewed as a quality of the soul and habit of mind and aimed at an organic society.
plato regarded justice as the supreme virtue.

Plato's Theory of justice

Having reviewed the traditional theories of justice, plato propounded his theory of justice as
given below:
Plato opined that justice was something internal, justice exists in the individual and in the state.
Justice was the bond which held a society together. It provides a pleasant union of individuals in
accordance with one's natural fitness and training. Justice was both a public and private virtue
because it conserves the highest good both of the state (polis) and the members, each of whom has
found his life work in accordance with his natural fitness and his training.

Plato's prima facie definition of justice implied

giving to every man his due, Pluto interpretation is opposed to that of Cephalus because the latter
was talking in terms of rights while the former in terms of duties. for what is due is that he should be
treated as what he is, in the light of his capacity and his training.

Plato's justice is based on three principles of society:

i. Non interference: The state is created for mutual needs in terms of services and not of
powers. No class should interfere with the task of others classes. It shall concentrate on its
own sphere of duty and shall not meddle with the sphere of others.
ii. Functional specialization: Even the ruler is no exception for he has the special function to
which his wisdom entitles him. There is no notion of authority or sovereign power.
iii. Harmony: human virtue according to Plato is divided into wisdom, cporage, temperature and
justice. The first three he assigned on to each class. i.e, philosopher king was to arrange
these matters in the most advantageous way.

Significance of plato's theory of justice:

1. Plato's theory of justice was universal in character.
2. Plato established a new concept of virtue which consists in the discharge of one's duty
scrupulously.
3. Plato's conception of justice provided the state with a distinct will and a personality of its own
having its independent existence apart its members.
4. Plato revolt against the political selfishness and ignorance prevalent in the Athenians society
through his conception of justice.
5. Plato theory of justice gave birth to the organic theory of the state.
6. Plato's conception of justice established that the state is a whole, and it must enforce upon
the individual that fact it is, by treating him as a factor and fractions of it's

Aristotle'S Views On Distributive Justice

Aristotle (384-322 B.C )
Aristotle was born at Stagira, a great colonial town on the Macedonian coast in 384 B.C. His father
was Nichomachus, a court physician.
Aristotle while discussing justice distinguishes complete or universal justice from particular justice.

Complete and universal justice: Complete justice is identifiable with moral virtue, i.e, obedience to
law. The moral virtue regulates all public and social relation among men. Complete justice is such as
exists people who are associated in common life with a view to self –sufficiency and enjoy freedom
and equality.

Particular justice: particular justice, on the other hand lies in the observance of rules of
proportionate equality. particular justice exists Iin particular from governments.such as oligarchy
democracy.

Types of Justice
1. Social Justice:
In contemporary times a large number of scholars use prefer to describe the concept of Justice as
Social Justice. Social Justice is taken to mean that all the people in a society are to be equal and
there is be no discrimination on the basis of religion, caste, creed, colour, sex or status.

However, various scholars explain the concept of Social Justice in different ways. Some hold that
social justice is to allot to each individual his or her due share in the social sphere. According to
some others, distribution of social facilities and rights on the basis of law and justice constitutes
social justice.

What is Social Justice?

Social justice is another name for equal social rights. Social Justice aims to provide equal
opportunities to every individual to develop his inherent qualities.-Barker
By social justice we mean ending all kinds of social inequalities and then to provide equal
opportunities to everyone.-C.JP.B. Gajendragadkar

Social democrats and modern liberal thinkers define social justice as the attempt to reconstruct the
social order in accordance with moral principles. Attempts are to be continuously made to rectify
social injustice. It also stands for a morally just and defensible system of distribution of reward and
obligations in society without any discrimination or injustice against any person or class of persons.

In the Indian Constitution several provisions have been provided with a view to secure social
economic and political justice. Untouchability has been constitutionally abolished. Every citizen has
been granted an equal right of access to any public place, place of worship and use of places of
entertainment.

The state cannot discriminate between citizens on the basis of birth, caste, colour, creed, sex, faith
or title or status or any of these. Untouchability and apartheid are against the spirit of social justice.
Absence of privileged classes in society is an essential attribute of social justice.

2. Economic Justice:
Economic Justice is indeed closely related to social justice because economic system is always an
integral part of the social system. Economic rights and opportunities available to an individual are
always a part of the entire social system.

Economic justice demands that all citizens should have adequate opportunities to earn their
livelihood and get fair wages as can enable they to satisfy their basic needs and help them to
develop further. The state should provide them economic security during illness, old age and in the
event of a disability.
No person or group or class should be in a position to exploit others, nor get exploited. There should
be fair and equitable distribution of wealth and resources among all the people. The gap between
the rich and the poor should not be glaring. The fruits of prosperity must reach all the people.

There are present several different views regarding the meaning of economic justice. The liberals
consider open competition as just and they support private property. On the other hand, the
socialists seek to establish complete control of society upon the entire economic system.They
oppose private property. Whatever be the ideology or the system, one thing is clear and that is that
all citizens must be provided with basis necessities of life.All citizens must have their basis needs of
life fulfilled (Food, clothing, shelter, education, health and so on.)

3. Political Justice:
Political justice means giving equal political rights and opportunities to all citizens to take part in the
administration of the country. Citizens should have the right to vote without any discrimination on the
basis of religion, colour, caste, creed, sex, birth or status. Every citizen should have an equal right to
vote and to contest elections.

Legal justice has two dimensions-the formulation of just laws and then to do justice according to the
laws. While making laws, the will of the rulers is not to be imposed upon the ruled. Laws should be
based on public opinion and public needs. Social values, morality, conventions, the idea of just and
unjust must be always kept in view.

When the laws do not meet the social values and rules of morality, citizens neither really accept nor
abide by laws. In this situation, the enforcement of laws becomes a problem. Laws are just only
when these are accepted not out of fear of external power but when inspired by internal feeling for
the laws being good, just and reasonable.

4. Legal Justice:
Legal Justice means rule of law and not rule of any person. It includes two things: that all men are
equal before law, and that law is equally applicable to all. It provides legal security to all. Law does
not discriminate between the rich and the poor. Objective and due dispensation of justice by the
courts of law is an essential ingredient of legal justice.

The legal procedure has to be simple, quick, fair, inexpensive and efficient. There should be
effective machinery for preventing unlawful actions. The aim of law is the establishment of what is
legitimate; provide legal security, and prevention of unjust actions. -Salmond.

Thus, Justice has four major dimensions: Social Justice, Economic Justice, Political Justice and
Legal Justice. All these forms are totally inter-related and interdependent. Justice is real only when it
exists in all these four dimensions. Without Social and Economic Justice there can be no real
Political and Legal Justice.

5 Retributive justice-, response to criminal behaviour that focuses on the punishment of

lawbreakers and the compensation of victims. In general, the severity of the
punishment is proportionate to the seriousness of the crime. Immanuel Kant uses a debt
metaphor to discuss the notion of just desert. Citizens in a society enjoy the benefits of a rule of law. According to the
principle of fair play, the loyal citizen must do their part in this system of reciprocal restraint. An individual who seeks
the benefits of living under the rule of law without being willing to make the necessary sacrifices of self-restraint is a
free rider. He or she has helped themselves to unfair advantages, and the state needs to prevent this to preserve the
rule of law.]

In cases of wrongdoing, someone who merits certain benefits has lost them, while someone who does not deserve
those benefits has gained them. Punishment "removes the undeserved benefit by
imposing a penalty that in some sense balances the harm inflicted by the offense."[3]
It is suffered as a debt that the wrongdoer owes their fellow citizens. Retributive
justice in this way aims to restore both victim and offender to their appropriate positions relative to each other.

7. Distributive justice. Retributive justice ensures justice by means of providing punishment to the
offender whereas distributive justice focuses on removing the inequalities in society by
concentrating on fair allocation of resources.

The Two Principles of Justice

John Rawls presented two principles of justice that self-interested and rational
individuals would choose when separated by the veil of ignorance. The principles
include:

1. Principle of Equal Liberty

The principle of equal liberty is the first principle of justice to be derived from the
original position. It states that all citizens have an equal right to basic liberties, which,
according to Rawls, entails freedom of conscience, expression, association, and
democratic rights.

Rawls added the right of personal property as one of the basic liberties that individuals
should have, and that cannot be infringed or amended by the government. He,
however, excluded an absolute right to unlimited personal properties as part of the
basic liberties that people should have.

2. Principle of Equality

The principle of equality holds that economic principles should be arranged in a way
that they meet two requirements. First, the least advantaged in society should receive a
greater number of benefits.

Second, the economic inequalities should be arranged in a way that no individual is

blocked from occupying any position or office, regardless of their ethnicity, sex, or social
background. Rawls argued that all individuals in the society should have fair equality of
opportunities and an equal chance as everybody else of similar natural ability.

Theories of distributive justice

Distributive justice is concerned with the measurements that should be used to allocate the resources of the
society. It also decides fair distribution of the burdens and benefits of social cooperation among persons with
various needs and claims.
According to Aristotle, distributive justice implies that the state should divide or distribute goods and
wealth among citizens according to merit.

Distributive justice includes issues such as affirmative actions such as recruitments and promotion in
government actions, admission to public educational institutions, seats in legislature, welfare, free education
and other goods and opportunities and they are distributed amongst the members of the society.

The goods that one might possess include the following:

 Economic goods such as incomes and property.

 Opportunities for development such as healthcare, sanitation, education, clean water for drinking.
 Recognitions in the society such as honour, job promotions and social status.
The state should distribute goods, resources and wealth to the people depending on various aspects and
distributive norms.

In the presence of enough goods, opportunities and status for everyone in the society, issues of distributive
justice are less likely to arise.

Theories of distributive justice specify the meaning of just distribution of goods and fair share of resources
among members of society. The main theories behind distributive justice are enumerated below.

Rawls’ theory of distributive justice

The most simple approach, in regards to the theories of distributive justice, was made by the Twentieth
century American political philosopher John Rawls in his books A Theory of Justice and Political Liberalism. His
theory of justice is one of the best-known modern conceptions of distributive justice. The basic tenets of his
theory are as follows:

Justice as fairness
In his book “A Theory of Justice”, John Rawls introduced a concept of justice as fairness. He held that an
adequate amount of justice cannot be derived from utilitarianism, which promotes “the greatest amount of
happiness for the greatest number of people”.

The doctrine of justice as fairness consists of two main principles. They are liberty and equality. Equality is
subdivided into

 fair equality of opportunity; and

 the difference principle.
This doctrine is appropriate for the forms of government which neglects the basic rights and interests of the
minority.

Two principles
In his books “A Theory of Justice” and “Political Liberalism”, Rawls further provides a precise interpretation of
his two principles of justice. According to him:

 Each person has an equal claim to equal basic rights and liberties including equal political liberties,
which is compatible with for all. Only those liberties which are compatible for all are to be
guaranteed their fair value.
 Social and economic inequalities should satisfy two conditions of fair equality of opportunity and the
greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.
Fair equality of opportunity
 Each person should have equal rights in society and basic liberties. The rights and liberties should be
compatible with all.
 Social and economic liberties should be distributed in such a way so that it becomes the greatest
benefit to the least-advantaged.
 Liberties should be present in the offices and positions. They should be open to all under the
condition of fair equality of opportunity.

The difference principle

The difference principle is influenced by the varying nature of wealth in any economy. In any society, every
individual does not own the equal amount of wealth which leads to the difference. Hence, distributive justice
should aim to balance the difference of wealth between varying individuals.

Inequalities in the allocation of goods are only permissible if they are used to the benefit of least advantaged
members of the society.

Veil of ignorance
 Rawls imagined a hypothetical situation consisting of a group of individuals completely unaware of
their social and economic needs and ignorant of their origin, i.e. the places they come from.
 The group of people are also ignorant of their basic needs and the requirements for a “good life”.
 Rawls termed this situation as the “veil of ignorance”. Situated behind this, the group of people
cannot be influenced by self-interested desires to benefit some social groups.
 This will ensure fair distribution and proper allocation of resources.

OTHER THEORIES OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE-

Welfare-based principles: Utilitarianism

Welfare-based principles are concerned with the idea of the moral importance of welfare of people. Equality
of resources, liberty, distribution and allocation are termed as derivative concerns in welfare-based
principles. The factors are relevant only if and so far they affect the welfare of the members in the society.
All distributive questions are settled entirely depending on how the distribution affects welfare.

Utilitarianism is one of the relevant distributive theories in case of welfare-based principles. However, the
proponents of this theory focus more on ‘utility’ rather than ‘welfare’.

Jeremy Bentham is considered to be the historical father of utilitarianism. According to him,

 Pleasure was the only thing with intrinsic value.

 All other things are of importance insofar as they contribute to the experience of pleasure or the
avoidance of pain. Actions are right if they cause pain and alternatively, they are wrong if they
cause pain.
 His successor, John Stuart Mill, broadened this theory of intrinsic value to include happiness, or
fulfilment.
Utilitarianism holds that the maximisation of happiness ultimately determines what is right and what is
wrong. It must examine a number of factual issues in order to determine for themselves which economic
system will be the best to promote social well-being and happiness.
Libertarian principles: Nozick’s theory of justice
Robert Nozick, a renowned American philosopher, became famous for his book Anarchy, State and
Utopia written in response to John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice. In the very beginning of his book, he
proclaimed that “individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without
violating their rights)”

Natural rights and individual inviolability

Nozick took inspiration from 17th century English philosopher John Locke’s ‘theory of natural rights’ and 18th
century German philosopher Immanuel Kant’s ‘individual inviolability’ to explain his theory. According to
Nozick, individuals have their natural rights which cannot be violated or infringed upon and no one can
violate them to achieve, in this case, for the welfare of other people in the society, as proposed by John
Rawls, is immoral.

Minimal state and limited government

Libertarianism advocates for minimal government interference. According to this theory, there should be no
government regulations, no state-owned property, no welfare schemes but the police, laws and court system
may be present.

According to Nozick, “the minimal state is the most extensive state justified.” and if the state seeks a greater
role rather than the narrow function of providing protection against force, theft, fraud and enforcement of
contracts, it is crossing the boundary and violating individual rights.

Boundary crossings
Nozick’s theory hints at a bigger problem regarding how the state could possibly be justified to make the
citizens pay taxation, follow rule of law and whether it is a violation of natural rights.

Nozick has termed the limit of interference as boundary crossing. Crossing the line and infringing upon an
individual’s personal freedom is only permissible with consent. This is the Anarchist view.

According to an Anarchist, because of the inviolability of individuals, no state can be justified.

Entitlement theory
Nozick analysed extensive tax collection as forced labour. Individuals acquire their holding through their
labour, and each person’s possession of self-ownership should be enjoyed by them. This is known as Nozick’s
entitlement theory which assures property rights as well as individual rights.

Distribution based on merit

Nozick totally disregards Rawls’ theory of “justice as fairness” as according to him, it causes inequality in
terms of the average gains made by individuals since less-endowed get more than the deserving talented
ones. Hence, distribution should be based upon merit.
The significance of distribution procedures and outcomes
The different principles of distributive justice targets different goals and outcomes. The main aim behind
distributive justice is to help any society to function effectively. To achieve this, it is important to look after
the well-being of its members.

Different targets of different principles

The principles of distributive justice such as equality targets to make individuals equal in all terms and
opportunities. Whereas, the principle of equity motivates one to be rewarded for one’s productivity. Lastly,
need-based principles seek to ensure everyone’s basic and essential needs, reducing the probability of
criminal and political violence.

Central criterion of distribution

The principles of distributive justice completely contradict one another. Hence, any one of the principles is
considered as the central criterion of distribution. Depending on the principle adopted, an economic system
is characterised by equality, competition, or social welfare.

Difference of opinion of distribution procedures and outcomes

Some thinkers are of the opinion that the final outcome defines the success of the principle of distribution,
while others think that the rules followed in determining that distribution is important rather than the
outcome. The procedures used to the distribution may be unjust, while the outcome may result in fair
allocation of resources. Similarly, a fair procedure may end up in an unfair distribution of resources. Others
are also of the opinion that in case of distributive justice, both the procedure and outcome are equally
significant.

Importance of distributive justice

The sole purpose of distributive justice is not to achieve any particular result of distribution, but to ensure a
fair distribution and equal allocation of resources. Distributive justice is gaining more importance day by day.

 Distributive justice provides a philosophical and moral guidance to ensure social justice and bring
equalities among individuals.
 According to the theory of relative deprivation, a sense of injustice is aroused when individuals
believe that they are deprived of essential things and basic rights to sustain life, the individuals,
together, by forming a group may start to challenge the system giving rise to such a state of
affairs. Distributive justice prevents such turmoil in the society by ensuring fair distribution and
proper allocation of resources in the society.
 The difference principle allows the greatest benefits to the least advantaged which allows the least
advantaged social group to prosper.
 Distributive justice targets towards balanced empowerment eg. economic empowerment, political
empowerment, social empowerment of women etc.
 By means of distributive justice, the reservation policy in India was framed in order to give special
preference to the sections of societies or the communities which were earlier deprived of equal
opportunity for centuries. For example, reservation to SC/ST communities, Other Backward
Classes (OBCs), Transgenders, Persons with Disability, etc are all based on distributive justice.
Criticisms of distributive justice
The main criticism of distributive justice is that there is no need to achieve further equal distribution of
resources since all human beings are born with the basic rights. Further, there is no specific principle to
direct the allocation of resources which is the main notion of distributive justice.

 Distributive justice fails to achieve social justice properly due to the lack of specific guidelines and
directions.
 While distributive justice is a form of social justice, sometimes it may conflict with social justice as a
whole due to different targets. Distributive justice targets to achieve the welfare of an individual.
whereas, social justice is related to the welfare of a social group.
 There is no specific theory or principle of distributive justice, which might create conflict in different
social justices. For example,the feminists rights are sometimes in conflict with transgenders’
rights. Again, the rights of the trangender often conflict with the rights of the LGBTQ
communities.
 The whole notion of distributive justice can be very confusing and complex sometimes. This
phenomenon can also be best explained in the Indian social perspective where the complex
question arises whether a rich and affluent person from SC/ST community should continue to use
the benefits of reservation based on caste and whether a poor person from an upper caste is
entitled to reservation based on economic situation.
 According to libertarian scholars, distributive justice is just an illusion and it is never possible to
ensure ‘equal shares for all’.

Relevance of distributive justice in current times

Global distributive justice, by the application of difference principle would help to eradicate the differences
between the riches and the poors.

According to Beitz, an American political theorist, the global economic inequality can be solved through the
use of global distributive justice. This can be done by extending the views of Rawls’ in an international
perspective.

Beitz held the view that money and resources should be transferred up until the point where individuals
across the globe have equal schemes of basic liberties and primary goods.

Equality is the fundamental principle of distributive justice and it helps all members of a particular society to
have equal rights and consideration on resources.

Proper attention is being given to ensure fair allocation of distributive effects of economic development
policies in modern times.

Distributive justice in Indian scenario

Modern Indian legal system is closely based on the British common law system where the Western ideas of
justice and fairness are deeply embedded. Even during the British Raj, in 1933, British Prime-Minister
Ramsay Macdonald started the ‘Communal Award’ which provided separate electorates for Muslims,
Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, Europeans and the Dalits.

Post-independence, the concept of distributive justice in Indian jurisprudence has been ingrained in The
Constitution of India . Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equality before law and states that
every person is ‘equal before the law’.

The reservation system in India is one of the best examples of distributive justice. Though the applicability of
it is highly debatable in recent times, at the beginning, the reservation system was started to eradicate the
social gaps between various castes and also to bring the secluded tribes into the mainstream society by
means of reserving their places in every sphere.

The first backward classes commission after independence is known as Kaka Kalelkar Commission. By the
recommendation of this Commission, the Indian government ensured the rights of the various scheduled
castes and tribes.

In 1979, the Mandal Commission was formed to identify various socially socially or educationally backward
classes in India. Based on the report of this commission, the government ensured another additional 27% of
government positions for Other Backward Classes (OBCs). This implementation led to violent protests but
was finally confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union Of India And
Others (1992).

The huge debates regarding the due process of law in cases like A.K. Gopalan v. The State Of Madras
(1950) and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) was sourced from distributive justice by which the
freedom and equality has been ensured by the Constitution of India.