Justice is a theory which is being longed by all who needs it, but those people also have their own ideas of justice for themselves. This is because every person belongs to a different social institutions and their idea of justice is based on a certain set of beliefs in which they grew up and developed their worldview. Moreover, these social institutions are also influenced by the religions they follow and their latent beliefs and traditional ideologies of justice. Some people’s idea of justice is based on humanity, some on simply following the duty and the law designed, some people consider justice to be conferred right upon them even if others suffer, some regard justice as a sociological tool used to provide to the disadvantaged, while some believe justice must be delivered to all who needs it and must overrule and overwrite all other laws to make it the most important element that builds social belief. Thus justice is the basic structure of society, or more clearly, the way in which all major social institutions distribute their fundamental duties and rights and further determine the benefits from social cooperation from the division of advantages. This indicates that there is not universal definition of justice and that every institution attaches a separate meaning to the theory if justice.
This paper gives a commentary on the case of Lodhi v Attorney General of New South Wales  NSWCA 433, by including the thoughts provided by Rawls on justice. The case will be discussed based in Rawls theory and provide a new perspective in Lodhi’s pursuit of justice.