"The quality of mercy is not strained". Does that statement apply to justice as well?

"The quality of mercy is not strained". Does that statement apply to justice as well?

Published March 05, 2026

"The quality of mercy is not strained".

Does that statement apply to justice as well?

Introduction

The declaration: “The quality of mercy is not strained”: is the climax of the speech delivered by Portia in “The Merchant of Venice” written by William Shakespeare five centuries ago. Yet can the text be adjusted to include justice apart from mercy? In an age marked by complex legal systems, heavy red-tape, conflicts between states, and rapidly evolving social expectations, is it legitimate to expect that even the “the quality of justice is not strained”? That justice should not be forced, distorted, or artificially constrained continues to lie at the heart of modern democracies. The moral idea that mercy and justice should flow naturally from fairness, reason, and humanity remains as essential today as it was in the sixteenth century when Shakespeare wrote the play.

Objective

The purpose of this writing is not to deal with mercy but with justice which is essentially a commitment to fairness, not the rigid or strict or technical application of rules and procedures. The latter cannot be given the “thumbs up” for the very fact that such a method of application has gone ahead “with blinkers” (rather than “without blinkers” as should be the case).

Rules and procedures are there to reach out towards fair treatment. Justice cannot be sidelined by formalism. If rules and procedures are reduced to a check list or a ticking the box exercise detached from fair treatment, compassionate behaviour, and proportional exercise of taking decisions, then rules and procedures risk losing out on their legitimacy.

The public expects institutions to act with integrity, justice and reasonableness rather than hide behind procedural rigidity.

For all to understand, with the exclusion of no one, that is the role of the Ombudsman to oversee and ascertain.

Harsh

Justice and mercy are not opposing but complementary values. Justice ensures order and predictability. Mercy ensures humanity. When balanced correctly, the two values sustain each other. Where acts of public administration are concerned, public authorities have an obligation to interpret rules and procedures not by taking the short cut or with their eyes shut but by taking all facts and circumstances into account, including past experience of persons and their behaviour.

Good administration

Administrative decision-making must be guided by the principles of good administration. When those principles are put aside, administrative injustice takes over. Decisions may technically comply with rules but fail to treat individuals fairly. Institutions like the Ombudsman that are there to ensure that the public administration plays an essential role in preventing justice from being “strained” by excessive formalism.

The Ombudsman has an obligation to determine whether administrative actions, even when legally defensible, produce outcomes that are unfair, unreasonable, improperly discriminatory, wrong or inconsistent with good governance.

Public officials (in their minority) and strong corporative interests (even these in their minority) have to acknowledge the principles of good administration are there to be adhered to. These principles are not there to pick and choose. The Ombudsman Act 1995 is clear as to what constitutes maladministration [Art 22(1)]. One cannot refuse to accept that the Ombudsman (including the Commissioners) has a constitutional, oversight and investigative function to carry out without fear or favour.

Trust

When justice appears “strained”, public confidence erodes. The enduring relevance of Shakespeare’s message lies in its reminder that mercy and justice should be perceived as natural not extraordinary.

Present

Today the tendency towards legal complexity is real. Regulations multiply, administrative procedures become intricate, and legal systems are growing increasingly technical. This trend though arising from legitimate efforts to regulate a complicated social fabric carries risks with it, including putting conscience at bay. In these circumstances the principle that justice should not be “strained” acquires renewed importance. Simplification and transparency are not merely components of good administration but are the essence of justice itself. Justice requires an understanding of context, empathy, and moral reasoning.

Worth

Justice is not a technical legal process for resolving disputes. It is an affirmation of the worth of every person. The aspiration that justice should not be “strained” reflects the belief that rules are there to protect persons rather than create undue stress, more so when justice is possible with the exercise of good sense and reasonable behaviour.

Timeless

Societies may evolve, institutions may change, and legal systems may grow more complex, but the fundamental principles of fairness and humanity remain timeless. Nonetheless when justice is “strained” disrespect prevails.

Conclusion

Rules are there to be applied but with fairness. When that happens, the quality of justice—like the quality of mercy—will not be “strained”.