Resolving Dilemma of Justice and Insaf -K Shamsuddin Mahmood In modern days, justice is administered in accordance with rule of law and not independently. Invariably, the Judge/Court will dispense justice by following set principles of law as contained in different laws of the land, and we will call it “Justice”. However, often it may not confirm or live up to the common expectation of the people at large that “Justice” will be or should be fair, equal and just to all concern at all times something which is very solemn, divine, morally acceptable and adhered to principles of ethics and thus based on honest conscience and common social belief, I mean ‘Insaf’. Supposing in a criminal case, X is charged with Y’s murder and he voluntarily makes a clean breast of the whole affair to a police officer, who is an extremely honest man. There is no other evidence in that case except this honest confession of X and the law as contained under the Evidence Act, 1872 is that a confession however sincerely made to or before a police officer cannot be used as honest and trustworthy evidence in criminal trials. In the result, X will be discharged (unless pleads guilty). In such a case like this, however willing the Judge may be to do real justice, his hands are tied by law and the accused offender will be released. Many such cases may also be cited from civil law jurisdiction, where honest litigants are defeated owing to law being against them (cases where parties sue after the period of limitation is over and the Court cannot decree the plaintiff’s legitimate claim, since it is time- barred) and one cannot term them as cases of injustice. In the above two situations, principles of justice underlying them are that it is dangerous and unsafe to convict on the strength of a confession to the police and that law should not help litigants to sleep over their rights and thereafter seek Court’s assistance to redress them, once the period of limitation run out, for law is for the vigilant and not the indolent respectively. In common parlance of law in both the above cases, legal justice is done and one cannot term them as cases of injustice but are cases of legal justice/justice according to fixed rules, though or may not be according to honest conscience and believe of the Judge trying the cases as well as the general notion and expectation of the people that “Justice” be fair, just, equitable and substantial and thereby confirm to ‘Insaf’. Question may arise whether Courts can function and administer justice not following the fixed rules always. The answer will be not in the negative as it is possible for the Courts to function without fixed rules at all, as there could be a “Tribunal” which would administer justice according to the conscience and natural justice and not in terms of previously fixed or accepted general principles. In fact, history of development of the English Common Law reveals that a time came when Common Law Courts in England were found to be scanty to address to different situations of the society to provide justice to all concerns, because there were no Common Law principles to be relied upon by the Judges and they used to feel constrained (though could understand and realize that a wrong has been committed and justice is required!). Which was the reason behind the creation of a new set of Courts, known as Chancery Courts of England, where Judges used to function and administer Justice by their good conscience and natural justice (not relying upon any fixed rules/ provisions of law). Across different countries and societies the modern trend in general is to follow the ‘fixed rule principle’ and confirm justice accordingly considering the advantages contained therein ( vis-à-