Difference Between Perfect and Imperfect Rights
In jurisprudence, rights are classified in several ways depending on their nature, enforceability, and legal recognition. One of the classical distinctions, drawn by jurists such as John Austin and Salmond, is between Perfect Rights and Imperfect Rights. This distinction is based on the extent of enforceability of a right under the law.
A perfect right is one that can be fully enforced through legal action, whereas an imperfect right is one that exists in principle but cannot be enforced by legal means. Both have moral significance, but only the former is supported by judicial sanction.
Meaning of Perfect Rights
A Perfect Right is a right recognised and enforceable by law. It imposes a corresponding legal duty on another person or persons, and the holder of the right can seek a legal remedy if the right is violated.
According to Salmond, a perfect right is “one which corresponds to a perfect duty and is enforceable by legal action.”
Example:
- A creditor’s right to recover a debt from a debtor.
- An owner’s right to recover property from an unlawful possessor.
- A citizen’s right to freedom of speech under constitutional protection.
In each of these cases, the law provides the right-holder with a definite remedy in case of violation.
Meaning of Imperfect Rights
An Imperfect Right is a right that, although recognised in a moral or social sense, cannot be enforced through legal action. It corresponds to an imperfect duty — a moral or social obligation that is not legally binding.
According to Austin, an imperfect right “is a right which lacks legal sanction.” The person against whom such a right exists may have a moral duty, but no legal compulsion to perform it.
Example:
- A promise made out of gratitude or affection without legal consideration (a voluntary promise to donate).
- A charitable obligation to help the poor.
- A moral duty to repay a favour when not legally bound.
While such rights may carry moral weight, courts do not compel their performance.
Basis of Distinction
The distinction between perfect and imperfect rights primarily rests on enforceability and legal recognition. Perfect rights are legally protected, whereas imperfect rights are morally recognised but legally unenforceable.
Points of Difference
| Basis of Difference | Perfect Rights | Imperfect Rights |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Enforceability | Legally enforceable through courts. | Not enforceable by legal action. |
| 2. Corresponding Duty | Corresponds to a perfect duty that must be performed by others under law. | Corresponds to an imperfect duty — moral or social in nature. |
| 3. Legal Sanction | Supported by legal sanction; violation leads to legal remedies or penalties. | Lacks legal sanction; violation invites only moral censure. |
| 4. Example | Right to recover a contractual debt, right to property, right to personal liberty. | Right to receive a promised gift or moral obligation to repay kindness. |
| 5. Remedy | Legal remedy available in courts (e.g., damages, injunction). | No judicial remedy; only moral persuasion applies. |
| 6. Legal Recognition | Recognised by and protected under law. | Recognised by morality or conscience, not by law. |
| 7. Obligation | Creates legal obligation on another person. | Creates only moral or social obligation. |
| 8. Enforcement Authority | Enforced by the courts of law. | Enforced, if at all, by moral conscience or public opinion. |
Examples Explained
-
Perfect Right Example: A landlord’s right to receive rent from a tenant under a valid lease.
- The tenant has a legal duty to pay rent.
- The landlord can sue in court for non-payment.
-
Imperfect Right Example: A friend promises to give a gift but changes their mind.
- The promise is morally binding but lacks consideration.
- The promisee cannot compel performance in court.
Thus, while both types of rights express a relationship between persons, only perfect rights are protected by law.
Relation Between Perfect and Imperfect Rights
Though distinct, these two types of rights are interrelated:
- Imperfect rights may become perfect rights if they are later recognised by law (e.g., charitable promises under statutory authority).
- Perfect rights often originate in moral obligations, showing that law evolves from morality.
- Every legal system selectively transforms certain moral duties into legal duties to maintain justice and order.
Criticism of the Distinction
- Over-simplification: The division ignores the many intermediate cases where moral and legal obligations overlap.
- Changing Legal Standards: Some rights considered imperfect in one era or system (e.g., labour rights, environmental duties) may later become perfect through legislation.
- Moral Significance: Imperfect rights may have strong ethical force even without legal backing, thus their exclusion from enforceable law can be questioned.
Nevertheless, the distinction remains valuable in understanding the boundary between law and morality.
Modern Relevance
In modern jurisprudence, the distinction between perfect and imperfect rights underlines:
- The scope of legal enforcement in contrast to moral obligation.
- The process by which moral duties evolve into legal rights (e.g., human rights, social welfare).
- The principle that not every moral wrong is a legal wrong, maintaining the autonomy of both domains.
Constitutional and human rights law still reflects this difference — some rights (e.g., right to life, property, or liberty) are legally enforceable, while others (e.g., Directive Principles of State Policy in India) remain non-justiciable, resembling imperfect rights.
| Related | |
|---|---|
