The present study examines the intricate nexus between language and power within three pivotal institutional spheres, namely the legal, medical, and educational domains. Grounded in the theoretical perspectives of Michel Foucault (power/knowledge), Pierre Bourdieu (symbolic power), and Norman Fairclough's Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), this investigation contends that institutional discourse functions not merely as a reflection of extant power relations, but as an active mechanism in their construction, perpetuation, and occasional subversion. Adopting a qualitative comparative approach that synthesizes textual analysis, thematic coding, and case study methodologies, the research scrutinizes diverse data sources, including courtroom narratives, medical consultations, informed consent documentation, classroom recordings, and educational policy instruments. The findings indicate that across all three contexts, systematic linguistic devices—encompassing deontic modalities, passive syntactic structures, specialized jargon, and regimented interactional frameworks—serve to naturalize institutional authority and systematically marginalize disenfranchised populations. Concurrently, however, evidence of emergent resistance is discernible, manifesting in patients' appeals for comprehensible explanation, learners' strategic deployment of multilingual resources, and defendants' assertions of their legal entitlements amidst juridical discourse. In addressing lacunae within the extant body of scholarship—notably through its cross-institutional comparative lens and its foregrounding of grassroots agency—the study advocates for institutional transformations directed toward the democratization of discourse and the attainment of linguistic equity. The paper concludes by positing that linguistic justice represents a fundamental pillar of social justice,