Significance of Compensatory Jurisprudence Under The Employees Compensation Act, 1923

Abstract

The basic rights contained in the Constitution of India would be useless unless and until concrete means to ensure them were implemented. There can be no justice if there is no remedy (Ubi jus ibi remedium). The term “compensation” refers to making amendments for a loss. Crime is more than simply a breach of the law; it also causes harm to victims and their families, including economic loss, emotional distress, and bodily, psychological, or intellectual injury. Crime has a wide variety of consequences for victims and their families, ranging from major injuries to minor disruptions. The concept of victims’ compensation is a well-established legal principle that is implemented within the framework of traditional civil courts. The court’s adoption of compensatory jurisprudence, guided by the principles of human rights philosophy, serves as a positive indication of its commitment to safeguarding the fundamental rights to life and personal liberty for all individuals, even in situations when there is a lack of explicit Constitutional provisions or established legal precedents. There is evidence that some groups of victims of crime were reimbursed, either by the perpetrator, their relatives, or the sovereign, even in ancient times. The right to compensate is a relatively new addition to Indian Constitutional law. This notion just began to gain traction in India under Constitutional law in the late 1980s. This was an innovative notion devised by the Indian Judiciary to ensure justice. Compensation is often granted based on the claimant’s entitlement. Modern justice is more concerned with delivering assistance to victims than with the requirements of legal principles. The right to compensation for violations of basic rights comes from the rights that were infringed, which shall be further addressed in the research.