According to the legislative and theoretical theory of social justice, the idea of impartiality includes aspects that go elsewhere those found in civic and criminal law, market source and claim, or conventional ethical agendas. Social justice frequently places a greater emphasis on just relationships between groups within society as opposed to the justice of individual conduct or justice for individuals. According to the theory and history of social justice, everyone must take equal contact with resources like money, health, and prospects irrespective of their social, political, or economic situation. Modern social justice involves rewarding or punishing particular groups of people based on moral judgments about past events, present circumstances, and interpersonal relationships, regardless of any one person’s choices or deeds. This often indicates the restructuring of wealth, income, and economic occasions from tyrants to oppressed communities from an economic perspective.[1]

Social justice is a foundational idea of the Indian Constitution. The writers of the Indian Constitution were knowledgeable on how to apply and minimize a variety of justice ideals. They sought a system of justice that would be able to satisfy the demands of the revolution. Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru made the following suggestion to the Constituent Assembly: “This assembly’s first work is to make India independent by a new constitution through which starving people will receive a complete meal and clothing, and each Indian will receive the best option that he can advance himself”.[2]However, the Constitution of India does not specifically refer to social justice, but it is a supreme sentiment that the constitution aspires.


The Constitution of India earnestly affirms that its citizens will enjoy communal, economic, and governmental justice; freedom of expression, and ith; right to equal chance and status; and the promotion of fraternity among all people to hold the decency of the human being and the unity of the country. The Constitution has tried to balance the problems of social and economic fairness, and equal rights by including a few key parts. The words “Socialist” and “Secular” have been added in the prologue, to convey the belief in a social welfare state.[3] The span “justice” in the Introduction alludes to the communal, financial, and political forms of fairness, which all are covered by different articles of the Basic Rights and Directive Principles. Egalitarian treatment of all persons, irrespective of color, creed, race, gender, religion, or other considerations, is referred to as social justice.


State and its organizations, markets, labor and commodity markets, and society itself, as clear by the moral and cultural ideas that support the social bond’s shape, are the three fundamental mediators of social justice.[4]The weight given to each of those agents is directly related to how rights, deserts, and needs have been articulated.[5]Many approaches have focused on functioning besides institutional structure and governmental activity. In the vast field of “critical theory,” the emphasis is on the disputability of interpretations of important social rules and ethics sustaining the “fundamental structure of the community.”[6]Redistribution is one of the fundamental normative difficulties in some of these systems, along with legislative depiction and status identification. Where social justice ends and where it begins is another issue brought up by the emphasis on social movements. The nation-state being the primarily applicable framework, which is a fundamental tenet of contemporary political theory, has become problematic as a result of the aggressive growth of urbanization procedures at every level.


The government’s efforts to ensure social fairness through equalization or anti-discrimination policies have created some conflict in society. Even acts that have nothing to do with social justice are carried out in the name of social justice. The necessity of the hour is to guarantee that policies are implemented properly and fairly to make social justice an effective vehicle for social progress. A generous communal rule should attempt to afford probabilities to the utmost under privileged while also making a societal network that surges their skill to manage with ruins. Numerous administrations have been required to address people’s vital needs by spending massive amounts of money on a range of grants, job formation, and deficiency improvement programs. There is a requirement to encourage entrepreneurship and self-employment in addition to economic liberalization initiatives that would open new work opportunities, particularly in light of the quickly advancing technology. Persons would be encouraged to advance, and each business might hire one or more workers as a result. To provide employment and opportunities for self-employment, support must be provided to industries like agronomy, estates, and a variety of substructural activities. Without regionalization of power on the political and bureaucratic levels, social justice goals might not be realized. People’s communal and political consciousness would surge if they were given the autonomy to pick their own progress needs. It would also increase their sense of self-worth and reinforce homegrown and communal leadership. The Supreme Court of India acknowledged in D. S. Nakara v. Union of India[7] that the main goal of a collective state is to remove inequalities in capital, location, and living situations. The fundamental agenda of communalism is to give humans a decent level of living, predominantly safety from support to severe. Financial fairness and impartial distribution of revenue were among the goals.


Social justice necessitates a topographical, sociological, dogmatic, and social agenda within which associations amongst persons and assemblages can be unstated, measured, and categorized as just or unjust, as revealed in the former discussion. At the same time, social justice has a universal factor, with civilization as the mutual denominator. Backing up the notion of social justice involves disagreeing for a settlement of these urgencies within the framework of a wider communal outlook where the entities capable of constitutional entitlements and liberties purpose within the limits of the tasks and errands that come with being a participant of society. Our state’s supervisory and governmental divisions have yet to reveal any apparent attention to evolving a flexible lawful structure, which is a prerequisite for accomplishing social justice, as there is no scarcity of social law in India, there are at present countless requirements for synchronization between the administrative and judicial divisions of government. As can be seen, the Supreme Court has constantly stepped in to protect the welfare of Indian inhabitants, whether in cases of consumer safety, insurance entitlements, or the depiction of burdened groups. It has delivered reasonableness through the instrument of social justice as an umbrella saying. Subsequently, social developments are frequently changing the social order, an actual lawful organization promises that rules become accustomed to altering situations and encourage social well-being. The jurisdictional organization is a vital facet of the jurisdictive process that guarantees people’s well-being and social justice.

Author(s) Name: Anubhuti Sharma (Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi)


[1]John Rawls,Theory of Social Justice (first published 1999, Harvard University Press)

[2]Minerva Mills  v. Union of India (1980) 3 SCC 625

[3] The 42nd Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1976

[4] Jose Reis, ‘The State and the Market: An Institutionalist and Relational Take’ (Open Edition Journals, 2012)

<> accessed on 19th February, 2023


[6]Nancy Fraser,Scales of Justice. Reimagining Political Space in a Global World (first published 2009, Columbia University Press, New York)

[7]D. S. Nakara v. Union of India(1983) AIR 130SCR (2) 165

error: Content is protected !!