Justice for Aristotle is giving the person what is due. It could be of retributive or distributive. The consequence of justice does not restore what has been done but rather a solace is derived from the collective conscious myth of justice. On the other hand, Plato believed in the transcendental world of ideas, the abode of abstract myths that humans and the nature share and try to manifest, where one of the ideas being Justice. The catch is nature does not care about justice but men do. 

The celebrated “encounters” and the “right justice” in killings of the alleged perpetrators of heinous crimes, do they stand the test of the principles of natural justice? The raw fact is No. But then they are celebrated as Justice, not for the process but for the result, implying that justice has been served. Movies, series and social medias act as ground zero in portraying the ultra-utilitarianism (greatest happiness of the greatest number) spreading a belief that justice is more concerned with the result and whatever the means undertaken is justifiable. But is it really justice? There is no absolute answer to this. Perhaps a glance on Gandhian teachings or Immanuel Kant’s philosophies could orient us towards the answer, both being strong deontologists (believing in the virtuous process and duty rather than the result) the answer we get would be in contrast of the superficial belief of numerous citizens of a democratic country.

On the other side of the bank is the consequentialism (concerning more on the result), staring right at us like a gorgeous mermaid, so appealing. A man equipped with the right knowledge can stand his ground, others…Alas they are already with the mermaid. The point is, serving justice instantly may pose so appealing and alluring but justice could be misplaced in this notion. The issue is contentious but deontology has stronger arguments at least from my perception as the very guardian of Justice, the Judiciary believes in the process of law than the result. By giving an opportunity to hear, to shed light on the root cause, to decide the proportionality of the punishment or compensation, to be unbiased even if a habitual offender stands in the trial and so on, a democratic way of settling what’s due is manifested by sourcing the idea of justice from the transcendental world. What more can a civilised world aspire for? 

Justice could obviously be both. But the driver of justice is still contentious, not through strong debates but through shallow mongering on media which only spreads superficial knowledge. Again, this would be the right time to reiterate that this is of my opinion. Law has its sanctity, the rule of law is unbiased, no institution other than the judiciary (or related institutions) has the capability to deliver justice. Serving the verdicts comes through wisdom and years of experience. Justice according to me is the process rather than the result. A thousand unlawful can escape from the grip of justice than penalising one innocent, said the madras high court, it has deep meanings that ought to be interpreted by all the institutions wielding power.