Equity in the Courtroom: A Constitutional Reappraisal of Access to Justice in India

Paper Code: AIJACLAV02RP2026

Category: Research Paper

Date of Publication: Sep 10, 2026

Citation: Dr. Deepti Singla & Ms. Ankita, “Equity in the Courtroom: A Constitutional Reappraisal of Access to Justice in India", 6, AIJACLA, 02, 11-18 (2026), <https://www.aequivic.in/post/equity-in-the-courtroom-a-constitutional-reappraisal-of-access-to-justice-in-india>

Author Details: Dr. Deepti Singla, Assistant Professor, Amity University Punjab (Mohali) &

Ms. Ankita, Student of BALLB (H), 1st Year, Amity University Punjab (Mohali)

Download PDF

Abstract

Access to justice forms an important part of the constitutional ideal of India, as evident from the promise made in the Preamble to guarantee social, economic and political justice to all. However, in reality, access to courts and law continues to be extremely challenging for many people. Lack of money, complicated process, time-consuming procedure and expensive legal procedure are some common obstacles that prevent people from accessing law. While Article 39A of the Indian Constitution envisages that justice should not remain inaccessible due to lack of money and other factors, this has been partially achieved.

The paper highlights the discrepancy that exists between the constitutional promises and the actual experience of the people while accessing justice. The analysis is based on the review of some important constitutional provisions, namely Articles 14, 21, 32, 142 and 226. The study reveals how the interpretation of these articles has evolved through time and how they have contributed to an extension of the definition of justice from the procedural sense to the substantive sense.

The paper also analyses the current initiatives in making access to justice easier by means of organisations like the National Legal Services Authority and legal aid systems across the nation. Although such steps reflect advancement, they still have their shortcomings if there is no improvement in the process itself. It can thus be said that the paper calls for a user-friendly system wherein legal proceedings can be made easy for all, where legal aid can be enhanced in terms of both quality and accessibility and the use of technology can be utilised judiciously.

Keywords: Access to Justice, Constitution of India, Legal Aid, Judicial Reform, Human Rights.

Paper Code: AIJACLAV02RP2026

1. Introduction

The idea of justice under law is a fundamental guarantee of the Constitution of India, but for most Indians, it seems unattainable. Equality and justice are important concepts highlighted by the Constitution in every aspect of society. The significance of these concepts was reaffirmed in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, in which the Supreme Court of India acknowledged the importance of constitutional doctrines in safeguarding the essential features of the Constitution. However, despite all the guarantees, people from marginalised societies have difficulty accessing the courts.

Modern practices associated with the judicial system provide the rationale behind these difficulties. Delay, complicated processes and extensive documentation are factors that make the litigation process rather long and difficult. These are difficulties experienced by all participants in court actions, but for certain marginalised groups, these barriers are even more significant. Members of marginalised social groups, such as those from the lower castes, tribes, women, the physically challenged and people with fewer resources, are usually ignorant of their rights and unable to access legal proceedings.

The India Justice Report 2022 provides an exhaustive analysis of the performance of justice agencies in various Indian states based on their infrastructure, personnel, budget and legal aid services. This report highlights significant deficiencies in the ability of the courts and legal aid agencies to offer sufficient justice. This is because, at present, numerous states are unable to mobilise adequate resources to ensure efficient and timely delivery of justice. This situation is likely to impact individuals who rely heavily on these agencies to secure their rights and privileges. While organisations such as the National Legal Services Authority have attempted to overcome these limitations by providing legal aid and spreading awareness about the importance of justice, their scope remains severely constrained compared to the problems highlighted in the report. Therefore, there is always a visible disparity between the justice promised by constitutions and the one received in courts.

Therefore, such differences are addressed in this study through an examination of the relationship between constitutional provisions and reality. Articles 14, 21, 32, 39A, 142 and 226 together constitute the mechanism through which access to justice can be made possible. The presence of legal provisions, however, does not automatically guarantee their proper implementation. In addition, judicial interpretation, effective legal aid services and streamlined processes are essential to give substance to such legal provisions.

The research methodology used in this paper is doctrinal, involving analysis of constitutional laws, precedents set by the courts, literature and government reports. Primary sources used for this study include constitutional laws and court decisions, whereas secondary sources are books, journals and government publications regarding access to justice in India.

This research is organised in a sequential and thematic manner. It begins with an evaluation of the legal structure that facilitates access to the courts. It then proceeds to highlight major judgments that have broadened the concept of access to justice. The paper also focuses on problems experienced by marginalised sections of society and assesses the effectiveness of organisations providing legal aid and technological innovations in solving these problems. Lastly, the paper makes recommendations to improve the delivery of the justice system to make constitutional guarantees realisable.

It is important to point out that although this paper makes use of the constitutional, judicial and institutional perspectives on access to justice, the literature review has shown that most studies consider these elements in isolation. The consequence of this is that there is a fragmented view of access to justice where the constitutionality, judicial and institutional perspectives are not considered together.

2. Background and Literature Review

2.1 Legal Framework and Judicial Development

The concept of access to justice in India owes its legitimacy to the Constitution of India, more specifically to Articles 14 and 21, which guarantee equality before law and due process of law respectively. It is with respect to the Article 21 that the Supreme Court of India has stated unequivocally that right to life and personal liberty under the Article would encompass the right to a fair, reasonable and just legal process. This principle was established with finality in the case of Maneka Gandhi v Union of India.

Access to justice is also reinforced by Articles 32 and 226, which entitle any citizen to move the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, in matters concerning the enforcement of their fundamental rights. The significance of access to justice in practice was illustrated in the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, where it was observed by the court that a delay in the trial process was a violation of Article 21 and the provision of speedy justice was an indispensable element of due process.

The constitutional vision is also backed by Article 39A, wherein the State shall work towards ensuring that free legal services are made available so that there may be no denial of justice on account of economic or any other disability. The directive principle found its form in statutes via the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which set up legal aid bodies such as the National Legal Services Authority. The ambit of the concept of access to justice was elaborately elucidated in Anita Kushwaha v Pushap Sudan.

Judicial interpretation has further led to the provision of legal aid being regarded as a constitutional obligation rather than a charity. As held by the Supreme Court in Suk Das v Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, a violation of Article 21 results if the accused is not provided with free legal aid. Furthermore, the rights of prisoners, along with the requirement for legal help, have been stressed in Sheela Barse v State of Maharashtra and Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration.

Another example that highlights the role of judicial reasoning in regard to access to justice is the landmark case of State of Maharashtra v Manubhai Pragaji Vashi, where the Supreme Court explicitly connected the issue of access to justice to the level of training received by lawyers, saying that incompetent lawyers end up undermining the whole justice system. Subsequently, in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association v Union of India, the Court endorsed the idea of procedure reform and alternative dispute resolution processes in order to cut down delay and facilitate access to remedy.

These rights, when taken together, clearly indicate that access to justice is more than just a legal commitment; it is a constitutional goal backed up by judicial interpretations and legislation.

2.2 Scholarly Opinion

The academic literature dealing with access to justice is characterised by an emphasis on the difference between the constitutional guarantees of access to justice and the reality in the legal system. Social action litigation is described as an innovation aimed at overcoming the procedural obstacles preventing marginalised groups from accessing the court through conventional channels. According to Upendra Baxi, social action litigation is a reaction to the difficulties facing those who want to seek judicial redress for their grievances.

Moreover, scholars such as M P Jain and S P Sathe have emphasised that constitutional rights become meaningful only when supported by effective judicial and institutional mechanisms. According to MP Jain and SP Sathe, while judicial activism has widened the ambit of rights, further progress would require a more robust institutional framework, especially one involving efficient legal aid and administrative effectiveness. These scholars have consistently highlighted the importance of viewing access to justice in the context of the practical operation of the institution as well as constitutional provisions and judicial rulings.

In this regard, a consideration of both constitutional and judicial developments in addition to an evaluation of scholars' views helps us get a better insight into access to justice and its shortcomings in the Indian legal system.

3. Analysis: Reimagining Access to Justice

3.1 From Formal Access to Substantive Justice

In the early days, access to justice was considered formal access to justice. This meant having courts, laws and procedures available would guarantee that justice was being done. As time passed, it was realised that access to justice cannot only be defined in such limited terms. What became essential for justice was that justice must be affordable; individuals must be aware of their rights, processes must be simple, there must be a quick resolution of disputes and people should have the capacity to interact with the system. It was understood that the mere presence of courts or remedies would not constitute justice. This reflects the broader shift from formal legality to substantive justice, where outcomes and real-world accessibility become more important than procedural compliance alone.

This transformation is intricately linked to the principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The Constitution of India guarantees principles of equality, equity and respect; however, it is only with the ability of individuals to reach out to the judiciary without any inconvenience that these principles gain significance. Financial restrictions, physical inaccessibility to the judiciary, unawareness about the law and procedural hassles often bar marginalised classes from utilising the process of law.

3.2 Judicial Innovation and Constitutional Expansion

Constitutional interpretation has been responsible for broadening the scope of access to justice in India's judicial history. In Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, the Supreme Court stated that every procedure which affects life and personal liberty needs to be just, fair and reasonable in order to broaden the interpretation of Article 21. In doing so, it made sure that fairness became an integral part of the constitutional regime by going beyond the narrow interpretation of "procedure established by law.

Another step towards improving access came with the development of Public Interest Litigation, which made provisions for relaxing the stringent conditions of locus standi that were in existence previously. It enabled persons and organisations concerned with public interest to file petitions in court for marginalised people. The ruling in Anita Kushwaha v Pushap Sudan provided the definition of access to justice as a basic right with essential ingredients.

On the other hand, the use of Article 142 of the Constitution by the judiciary has enabled the latter to address procedural hurdles and provide justice. Though the application of extraordinary power might lead to inconsistency, this move by the judiciary is an indication of the latter's determination to deliver justice. In all, the innovation by the judiciary has been crucial in elevating access to justice to a constitutional status.

3.3 Structural Constraints, Institutional Deficits and the Role of Technology

Following from the above discussion regarding judicial developments, one may clearly realise that judicial interpretations are inadequate without proper institution working. Even through progressive judicial interpretation, structural limitations make the provision of justice problematic. One problem relates to the huge number of pending cases, which not only delays the process of resolving disputes but also renders any legal redress meaningless. This becomes more problematic for economically disadvantaged people, since it places additional pressure on them emotionally and financially.

In addition, Lok Adalat and other forms of dispute resolution have also gained significance as instruments for promoting access to justice. By settling small disputes and civil cases outside normal judicial processes, such institutions help ease the pressure on courts and offer more cost-effective solutions to disputants. However, the rise of such institutions highlights the reality that access to justice need not always involves litigation and can often be provided via means that are more straightforward.

Furthermore, cases piling up in India are also evident from the data obtained from the National Judicial Data Grid. The pendency of these cases is an indicator of how delay in itself acts as a major impediment to the dispensation of justice, especially for those who have little money or social standing. This delay contributes directly to what is often described as an accessibility deficit in the justice delivery system.

The legal aid systems, which have been set up by way of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and the National Legal Services Authority, have also been beneficial to many people. Unfortunately, lack of adequate funding, insufficient manpower, poor reach and ignorance of these services, especially in the countryside, hamper their efficacy. Complex processes, delays and inefficiencies exacerbate the access to justice problem.

Last but not the least, technology-related efforts like e-filing, video-hearings and online case management systems have proven useful in enhancing efficiency and sustainability in court operations. They have been helpful in eliminating some procedural hurdles and enabling litigants to participate easily in the proceedings. However, access to technology is not equal and illiteracy, among other challenges, has led to the existence of a digital divide. In summary, technology is a facilitator that can turn into a barrier.

3.4 Toward an Integrated Access to Justice Framework

Ensuring effective access to justice calls for a multi-faceted approach, which will involve incorporating the principles laid out in the constitution, judicial processes, reforms in institutions and increasing public consciousness about the issue. Streamlining of processes, eliminating unproductive adjournments and resorting to Alternative Dispute Resolution methods like mediation and Lok Adalats would contribute greatly towards achieving these objectives.

Institutional strengthening should involve increased funding for legal aid organisations, appointment of judges, court infrastructure development and adequate training for court employees. Technology reform needs to be done inclusively, ensuring there are provisions for people who cannot use online platforms. Lastly, access to justice should take into consideration community-based dispute resolution mechanisms, which can offer viable solutions outside the courts.

In a judicial process wherein rights are backed by effective systems, well-informed people, efficient processes and even technology, access to justice becomes not merely a constitutional right but an actual possibility.

4. Recommendations and Reforms

4.1 Judicial Reforms: Strengthening Interpretative Practice

It is essential that any improvement in accessing justice largely depend on the way constitutional guarantees are interpreted and implemented by judges when considering regular cases. Courts frequently represent a stage where constitutional promises meet practical reality. Poverty, remoteness from a court of law, ignorance and disadvantaged social status influence one's capacity to claim one's rights. Considering Article 21 in conjunction with general social justice goals set out by the Constitution, it becomes easier for the courts to evaluate the fairness of procedural measures.

The procedural obligations including court costs, the need for certain paperwork and evidence obligations, which may seem impartial, can be extremely harsh on individuals with little means. It is possible to assess whether these procedural obligations have led to unintended barriers to accessibility of the justice process. The emphasis here is not on the rule but on accessibility through the process.

The clarity regarding the use of the powers provided by Article 142 could also enhance the balance of institutions. Though the powers provided by this Article empower the Supreme Court to do complete justice, a systematic formulation of guidelines regarding their use could help. On the other hand, Public Interest Litigation should concentrate on removing structural impediments affecting a majority of people rather than personal issues or politically motivated ones.

4.2 Legislative Measures to Support Access to Justice

The effectiveness of judicial guidelines is enhanced if these guidelines are accompanied by legislation. The legislative body can play a critical role in implementing the values set out in the Constitution into legal obligations that will guide the operations of the courts and the entire justice sector.

As seen above, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of various factors for accessing justice, such as affordability, timeliness of hearing cases, availability of remedies and awareness. These factors could be used in formulating the obligations of the state in ensuring access to justice.

The reform of procedural laws is vital to avoid delays and intricacies. An amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure Act, 1908 will be helpful in bringing a time limit and discouraging adjournments. Similarly, in the field of criminal procedure, the changeover from the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1973 to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 indicates how procedural laws are being revised to make the process more efficient and timely.

More changes can be made to the Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987 to improve legal aid services through quality control standards for legal aid lawyers, periodic evaluation of their performance and increased access for economically disadvantaged members of society, especially those who work. The adoption of online dispute resolution within legislation can reduce costs and expedite the resolution of disputes.

4.3 Practical Policy Steps and Institutional Strengthening

Access to justice in the end relies on the efficient functioning of the institutions. Appointment of judges, upgrading of courts and proper financial allocation towards the judiciary are all necessary steps in order to improve the efficiency of the institutions. Training is crucial and constant training of the people involved in the process will make reforms possible.

In addition, technology can help streamline processes by means of e-filing, hybrid trials and real-time case tracking, subject to provision of alternatives that do not depend on technology for those who lack access. Systems created in regional languages along with assistance from centres in regions can help people use such processes.

Moreover, legal awareness efforts in collaboration with schools, community organisations and local governmental bodies will enable people to know about their rights prior to reaching a stage of conflict. Effective systems of resolving disputes at the local level like Lok Adalats would be helpful in light of the present scenario.

Lastly, data transparency also contributes to accountability. Publishing data on the rate of disposition of cases, delays, legal aid provision and judicial performance makes decision-making based on evidence possible and helps gain public confidence. Periodic assessment of institutional performance will keep reform efforts aligned with the goal of ensuring justice is accessible to everyone.

5. Conclusion

This study suggests that in order to appreciate access to justice in India, it must go beyond being a constitutional guarantee to becoming a concrete experience in terms of results. The mere presence of courts and processes will not mean that justice has been done unless the people, particularly those who belong to marginalised groups, can achieve their desired results. In the past decades, the Supreme Court of India has made immense contribution towards the shaping of this concept through the interpretation of the Constitution. Cases like Maneka Gandhi and Anita Kushwaha stressed the need for not only procedural justice but also that it must be just, reasonable and accessible. The emergence of Public Interest Litigation opened up avenues of the law process through lenient norms of locus standi and allowed for cases concerning marginalised sections of society to be raised in the court.

On the other hand, this study also emphasises that there is a significant gap between theoretical and practical aspects of constitutional law. Some of the challenges associated with constitutional law include backlog of cases, complexity of process, lack of knowledge about fundamental rights, weak performance of legal institutions such as NLSA and unequal access to technology. The use of courts alone to address these issues cannot solve these structural issues. Access to justice is thus an exercise that demands collaborative efforts by all three arms of the state. The judiciary, the legislative arm and the administration should collaborate in making processes easier, ensuring adequate provision of legal aid, developing appropriate infrastructure and designing technology that will ensure inclusion and not exclusion.

Access to justice must therefore be understood as a continuous process of institutional improvement rather than a one-time constitutional achievement. Sustained effort is required to ensure that legal systems evolve in response to the needs of society. Therefore, access to justice must be assessed not only through the existence of legal rights but also through their effective usability in practice. Institutional efficiency, legal awareness, affordability and procedural simplicity collectively determine whether constitutional guarantees translate into lived reality.

In conclusion, the effectiveness of any legal system is dependent upon the extent to which people receive justice when it is needed the most. The existence of rights without any practical value diminishes the sense of trust among the people. In contrast, addressing problems through legal means leads to an increase in faith in democracy. In other words, access to justice is an indicator of the success of the Constitution.