The phrase "substantive justice" is correct and can be used in written English.
It is often used in legal and philosophical contexts to refer to the fairness or justness of a decision or outcome, rather than just the procedural aspects. Example: The judge's ruling was based on both procedural and substantive justice, taking into account the evidence and the principles of fairness.
And what lends this skirmish extra juice is the potential divergence between procedural and substantive justice.
Judge E frankly said: "Case reasons can be adjusted during the trial process, which emphasizes substantive justice rather than the procedural justice advocated by laws".
Social justice is characterized as justice of outcomes (substantive justice) while legal justice is about procedures without reference to consequent outcomes (procedural justice) (Sadurski, 1984).
Some might hold that the point of democratic politics is to produce just laws and policies and substantively just outcomes generally and that substantive democratic equality should have no weight against this fundamental aim and should be pursued just to the extent it is a means to substantive justice.
However, as Ronald Dworkin says, "[t]hey say that this is a matter of substantive justice, and that substantive justice is an independent ideal, in no sense part of the ideal of the rule of law".
"Let's call it substantive justice," Brinda summed up our visit with Kamakshi.
Conversely, Andrew Harding has argued that the idea of substantive natural justice is vague and subjective, and has taken the view that fundamental rules of natural justice are entirely procedural in nature.
There is also academic commentary that rejects the notion of "substantive natural justice", arguing that it is too vague and leads to problems in application.
Another argument against substantive natural justice is the fear that it may become an avenue for judges to invalidate laws on the basis of their own subjective opinions, leading to unbounded judicial activism.
On the other hand, it has also been suggested that substantive natural justice would merely be a full exercise of the judiciary's proper role as conferred by the Constitution.
Also, instead of the invalidation of legislation in this manner being seen as an encroachment by the judiciary into the legislature's sphere, the application of substantive natural justice would simply be a full exercise of the judiciary's proper constitutional role.
