India’s judicial system is a cornerstone of the world’s largest democracy. Whether it is the Chandigarh Mayor elections, the Secret Electoral Bonds or an individual citizen’s rights, the system ceaselessly grapples with the complex task of upholding the rule of law and safeguarding the rights enshrined in the Constitution. This colossal undertaking, however, is fraught with challenges that raise concerns about fairness, affordability, and accessibility for the common citizen. Let us examine the Indian judiciary’s intricate architecture, take stock of its strengths and weaknesses, and address the shadows of corruption and political interference that threaten its integrity.
The Judicial Hierarchy: A Towering Structure
The Indian judiciary operates in a three-tier structure, with the Supreme Court at the apex, followed by 25 High Courts, and a vast network of district and subordinate courts across the country. This pyramidal structure grants the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution, resolve disputes between states and the central government, and act as the guardian of fundamental rights.
The High Courts exercise broad jurisdiction within their respective states. These courts serve as the highest courts in their respective states and union territories and play a crucial role in the Indian judicial system. They oversee lower courts and adjudicate on significant legal matters. District and subordinate courts handle the bulk of civil and criminal cases, serving as the first point of contact for justice for most citizens.
Fairness and Access to Justice: Upholding Rights, Overcoming Barriers
The Supreme Court and High Courts have set important precedents by upholding the rights of marginalised communities, tackling environmental issues, and promoting social justice. Landmark decisions like the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India case (2018) and recognising transgender rights in the National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India case (2014) stand as testaments to the judiciary’s role in evolving and interpreting the law to meet societal needs.
However, concerns persist about uneven access to justice for the disadvantaged. The society’s weaker sections feel daunted by lengthy court proceedings, complex legal procedures, and the inability to navigate judicial formalities. Factors like poverty, illiteracy, geographical remoteness, gender, and social status worsen these inequalities, creating a system where justice often seems far-fetched for the most vulnerable.
The case of Akkai Padmashali, an LGBT activist, highlights the systemic challenges faced by marginalised groups. Padmashali was charged with sodomy in 2000 and underwent traumatic abuse for being transgender. Her case lingered for several decades, violating her right to a speedy trial. The Karnataka High Court acquitted her in a landmark judgment upholding the rights of the marginalised.
The case of Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979) highlighted the plight of thousands of undertrials languishing in jails because of their inability to understand legal proceedings or secure legal representation. The Supreme Court’s intervention led to the release of many such individuals, underscoring the need for accessible legal aid and linguistic support.
Similarly, the Nirbhaya case exposed the struggles of a working-class victim’s family in navigating the legal system without means or connections. The perpetrators were convicted and sentenced. But this was possible because of the intersection of public pressure, media attention, political will, and citizen resources rallying for years with legal perseverance. Many similar cases languish, unheard and unnoticed.
Affordability: A Barrier to Justice
The high cost of legal representation remains a significant barrier to justice for many. Lawyer fees, court fees, and other associated expenses can be prohibitive for low-income individuals. This renders the judicial system beyond their reach. While free legal aid schemes exist, their reach and effectiveness are limited. Many are unaware of such schemes.
In a country where a significant portion of the population lives below the poverty line, affordability remains a critical hurdle to ensuring equal access to justice. Unlike the organised Industry bodies and associations, individuals with limited means are at a great disadvantage. Worse, the lack of class action lawsuits or collective redressal mechanisms deprives the financially weaker sections of a fair chance of seeking justice.
The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) data indicates that around 60% of Indians cannot afford a lawyer because of poverty. India spends only 0.1% of its GDP on legal aid, covering just 9-10% of the country as per 2017 data. Clearly, much needs to be done to enable common people to avail of their constitutional right to legal aid.
Accessibility: Bridging Geographical and Linguistic Divides
India’s vast expanse and diverse population pose accessibility challenges. Many people find it difficult to access courts because of enormous distances and connectivity issues. Language barriers further complicate matters. The National Judicial Data Grid indicates that over 85% of pending cases are in local languages, but a vast majority of judgments are written in English. This hampers access to justice for most people.
Many remain unaware of how to navigate the judicial system and claim entitlements. To make justice available to all, bridging geographical, linguistic, and knowledge gaps is essential. Efforts such as establishing virtual courts, translation services, and legal literacy campaigns can help mitigate these challenges.
The Shadow of Corruption and Political Interference
While the Indian judiciary enjoys a reputation for independence, concerns about corruption have surfaced in recent years. Allegations of judicial misconduct, financial impropriety, and nepotism have adversely affected public trust in the system. Instances of influential lawyers manipulating case allotments, bias in appointments, and quid pro quo deals between lawyers, law enforcement, and judges have dented faith in the judiciary’s integrity.
The lack of a robust and independent mechanism for addressing complaints against judges further weakens accountability. This casts a shadow on the impartiality of the judicial system. Addressing these concerns requires strong institutional reforms. There is a need to establish judicial standards and accountability. The norms ought to be transparent. It should be mandatory for judicial officers to disclose their assets. Effective in-house vigilance mechanisms are essential for ensuring the integrity of the judicial system.
The spectre of political interference looms large. The design of the collegium system aims to secure judicial independence in appointments to higher judiciary positions. It has come under scrutiny for lack of transparency and potential executive influence on selection. Disagreements between the executive and judiciary over appointments have resulted in court vacancies.
Concerns have been raised about the government’s attempts to influence judicial decisions through legislative or executive measures. These undermine the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) case (2015) struck down the NJAC Act. This Act aimed to give the executive a role in the appointment of judges.
Maintaining the judiciary’s independence from political agendas is crucial for upholding the rule of law and ensuring fair and impartial judgments. Insulating appointments and transfers from ideological leanings, coupled with restoring the robustness of institutions like the Lokpal and Lokayukta, will help safeguard judicial independence.
Judicial Delays and Pendency: Justice Delayed, Justice Denied
One of the most pressing issues plaguing the Indian judicial system is the massive backlog of cases, leading to unfair outcomes and denial of justice. As of September 2022, over 4.5 crore cases were pending across Indian courts. According to the National Judicial Data Grid records, at least 3 crore cases are stuck at High Courts and lower courts.
Such massive case pileup leads to unfair outcomes. Millions are languishing in jails without timely trials. They are forced to wait for court verdicts for years. The case of the TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities) Act, where individuals were acquitted after decades of incarceration because of flimsy or unfair arrests. The human costs of judicial delays and overreach only add to the miseries of disadvantaged individuals and communities.
Police Excesses and Custodial Violence: A Tarnished Narrative
The Indian judicial system’s quest for fairness and accessibility is marred by police excesses and bias. Not much has been done by the government to curb custodial violence against the marginalised. Poor people are denied a fair chance at justice from the outset. This is because they face the brunt of unfair or flimsy arrests and detentions.
Arrests under the draconian TADA serve as a grim reminder of the human costs associated with such excesses. Reports of perseverance by the victims of excesses, who fought for decades to clear their names, underscore the resilience required to navigate a system that can be stacked against the disadvantaged.
The Road Ahead: Reforms, Capacity Building, and Technology
India’s judicial system faces a constant balancing act between upholding its constitutional duty and responding to the evolving needs of a diverse and complex society. To strengthen its effectiveness and regain public trust, several critical steps are necessary.
Firstly, reforms must be implemented to streamline court procedures, reduce the pendency of cases, improve the judge-to-population ratio, and make the system more accessible to the common people. Initiatives like introducing e-courts, online case management systems, and videoconferencing can help expedite proceedings and enhance transparency.
Secondly, initiatives to improve legal literacy and awareness, especially among women, rural, and marginalised communities, are crucial to empowering individuals to claim their rights. Legal aid clinics, community outreach programs, and partnerships with civil society organisations can play a vital role in this endeavour.
Thirdly, strengthening accountability mechanisms within the judiciary through greater transparency and independent anti-corruption oversight bodies is essential to maintain the system’s integrity. Measures such as establishing a National Judicial Commission, periodic audits, and robust grievance redressal mechanisms can help restore public confidence in the judiciary.
Finally, continuous efforts to expand legal aid services, bridge language and digital accessibility gaps, and sensitise the law enforcement machinery are vital to ensure that justice is not just a right on paper but a lived reality for all Indians.
Conclusion: Upholding the Promise of Justice
India’s judicial system is grappling with the challenges of ensuring fairness, affordability, and accessibility to all sections of society. It has contributed to upholding the rule of law and protecting fundamental rights. But the road ahead is fraught with obstacles that must be overcome through bold reforms, augmented capacity building, and the embrace of technology.
Apart from legal and administrative reforms, it is morally imperative to uphold the promise of justice enshrined in the Constitution. There is a need for concerted action by our judiciary, the executive, civil society, and the citizenry to strive for a fair and just system. It should uphold the principles of equity, fairness, and access to justice for every individual, regardless of their social, economic, or cultural background.
By confronting the challenges head-on and implementing comprehensive reforms, India can pave the way for a judicial system that serves as a beacon of hope, ensuring that the scales of justice are balanced, and the rights of every citizen are protected.
No comments:
Post a Comment