While language enables meaning, constituting knowledge in courts, schools, or parliaments, who gets to decide what can be known? Is meaning only use or a result of power too? Pitting Wittgenstein's forms of life against Foucault's regimes of discourse makes linguistic norms appear as instruments of exclusion. Marginalised speakers – subaltern, indigenous, and non-normative are often rendered unintelligible. Epistemic justice demands more than inclusion; it demands considering how rules are set, who enforces them, and how meaning is being contextually built. A discourse-sensitive, epistemic theory of justice is proposed, based on Kripke's rule-following paradox and Dijk's discourse analysis, to show that language is not neutral but a battleground of struggle over meaning, recognition, and epistemic authority.