अनेकातवाद ओर न्याय की अवधारणा

Summary

The text discusses the relationship between the concepts of "stability of justice" and "dynamism of justice," linking them to two philosophical perspectives: ekantavada (absolutism) and anekantavada (non-absolutism). It argues that the stability of justice results from an absolutist view, while the dynamism of justice stems from a non-absolutist view. The justice of justice itself lies in its dynamism, and the thought-basis that is favorable and useful for maintaining this dynamism is anekantavada. The text explains that society requires rules (laws) and punishments to maintain order and prevent anarchy, as human nature includes negative tendencies like greed, jealousy, and anger that lead to criminal behavior. Laws are created based on societal needs and circumstances, but they can become irrelevant over time. Changing laws is a slow process, leading to accusations that law is rigid and conservative. However, if laws changed too quickly, they would cease to be laws. The text then introduces anekantavada, a Jain philosophical concept meaning "accepting the truth or validity of different viewpoints." It argues that justice is administered through an anekantavadi approach, as courts consider that accusations may be motivated by malice, giving the accused full opportunity to present their case. Even after a verdict, appeals and review petitions are possible, reflecting anekantavada. The text concludes by citing modern legal theorists like Kelvin, Hooper, Goodhart, and Barker, who distinguish between "change in justice" (related to dynamism) and "change of justice" (not related to dynamism). They maintain that justice as an abstract concept does not change, but applied justice is changeable due to human imperfection. The acceptance of this change requires a justification that anekantavada can provide.