Rawls’ Theory of Procedural Justice
John Rawls’ theory of procedural justice is a nuanced framework that explores how fairness can be embedded in the processes by which decisions are made. He outlines three distinct types of procedural justice in A Theory of Justice, each with its own implications for how justice is achieved:
Rawls’ Three Types of Procedural Justice
1. Perfect Procedural Justice
- Definition: A procedure is perfectly just if it guarantees a just outcome every time.
- Example: The classic “one cuts, the other chooses” method for dividing a cake. It ensures fairness because each person has an incentive to act justly.
- Key Feature: Both the procedure and the outcome are known to be just.
2. Imperfect Procedural Justice
- Definition: The outcome is known to be just in theory, but no procedure can guarantee that outcome every time.
- Example: A criminal trial. The goal is to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent, but even a fair trial may not always achieve that.
- Key Feature: There is a correct outcome, but the procedure only aims to reach it—it doesn’t ensure it.
3. Pure Procedural Justice
- Definition: There is no independent criterion for what counts as a just outcome. The fairness of the outcome depends entirely on the fairness of the procedure.
- Example: A lottery. The outcome (who wins) is considered just because the procedure (random selection) is fair.
- Key Feature: Justice is defined by the procedure itself, not by any external standard.
Rawls uses these distinctions to emphasize that justice isn't just about outcomes—it’s about the integrity of the processes that lead to them. His broader theory, “Justice as Fairness,” builds on this by proposing that fair procedures can help structure a society where rights and resources are distributed equitably.
⚖️ 1. Perfect Procedural Justice
Definition: A procedure that guarantees a just outcome because both the procedure and the outcome are independently defined as fair.
🔍 Legal Example: Plea Bargaining with Safeguards
In some jurisdictions, plea bargains are structured with strict oversight—judges ensure that the defendant understands the consequences, the plea is voluntary, and the sentence aligns with legal standards.
Why it fits: The procedure (judicial review of plea) ensures the outcome (fair sentencing) is just, assuming all safeguards are properly followed.
⚖️ 2. Imperfect Procedural Justice
Definition: There is a known fair outcome, but no procedure can guarantee it every time.
🔍 Legal Example: Criminal Trials
Even with due process—right to counsel, impartial judge, and evidence rules—errors can occur. Innocent people may be convicted, or guilty ones acquitted.
Why it fits: The law aims for justice (punish the guilty, protect the innocent), but the procedure can't always ensure that outcome due to human error or evidentiary gaps2.
⚖️ 3. Pure Procedural Justice
Definition: There is no independent standard of fairness—the outcome is considered just because the procedure was fair.
🔍 Legal Example: Civil Litigation with Equal Access
In cases like small claims court or online dispute resolution, fairness is defined by equal opportunity to present one’s case, transparent rules, and impartial adjudication.
Why it fits: The outcome is accepted as fair because the process was fair—there’s no external measure of what the “right” result should be.
Basic Essense of CPC includes:
- Equity
- Justice
- Good Conscience.
Perfect Procedural Justice was rejected by Legislature of India
CPC is menifestation of the principles of
"Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium"
(Where there is a right there is a remedy)
"Audi Alteram Partem"
No Justice without Hearing both Parties.
- Section 9 of CPC also called Gateway of Civil Procedure.