Justice Denied? The Disconnect Between India’s Legal System and the Common Citizen

 

Prologue

India’s legal system is one of the largest and most complex in the world, grounded in constitutional ideals of justice, equality, and fairness. Yet, for ordinary citizens, the lived experience of law is often alienating, inaccessible, and prohibitively expensive. This paper examines the persistent disconnect between India’s legal system and its people. Drawing upon academic literature, case studies, and media reports, it identifies structural challenges such as judicial delays, high costs, complex procedures, and low levels of legal literacy as core obstacles to access to justice. The article also highlights how undertrial prisoners, industrial disaster victims, and marginalized farmers bear the brunt of systemic deficiencies. In addition to analyzing reforms such as Lok Adalats, legal aid services, and e-court initiatives, it compares India’s practices with the United States and the United Kingdom. The paper concludes by offering policy recommendations for systemic transformation and greater citizen-centered justice delivery.

---

1. Introduction

The Indian Constitution envisions justice—social, economic, and political—as a foundational principle. Courts, as custodians of constitutional rights, are expected to serve as accessible avenues of redress for all citizens. However, ordinary litigants often experience the justice system as a distant, intimidating, and costly institution. As N.R. Madhava Menon notes, “the law, meant to serve the people, has often become a burden that distances them from justice.”¹

This paper investigates the causes of the disconnect between law and the people in India, using case studies, scholarly critiques, and comparative insights. It argues that systemic reforms are necessary to align the legal system with constitutional promises.

---

2. Structural Challenges of India’s Legal System

2.1 Judicial Delays

India faces one of the world’s highest case backlogs, with over 25 million cases pending in lower courts and nearly 80,000 before the Supreme Court.² With only 21 judges per million people compared to 107 in the U.S., the shortage severely undermines timely justice.³

2.2 High Costs of Litigation

Legal representation, repeated adjournments, and court fees make litigation prohibitive for lower-income groups. Wealthier litigants often exploit delays to exhaust opponents financially.

2.3 Complex Procedures

Cumbersome procedural laws in civil and criminal litigation create barriers for laypersons, who often lack legal literacy.

2.4 Inequality Before the Law

The system privileges resourceful litigants with better access to legal talent, while marginalized groups often lack the capacity to contest even basic claims.

---

3. Case Studies

3.1 The Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984–2010)

Victims of the disaster endured decades of litigation before Union Carbide settled for $470 million—an amount widely criticized as inadequate. The case underscored how corporations and the state dominate negotiations, leaving ordinary victims powerless.⁴

3.2 Undertrial Prisoners

As of 2022, 77% of Indian prisoners were undertrials, many jailed for years due to inability to afford bail or lawyers.⁵ This exposes systemic bias against the poor.

3.3 Land Acquisition Disputes

Farmers displaced by land acquisition often face prolonged litigation and delayed compensation. Even favorable Supreme Court rulings fail to translate into timely relief.⁶

---

4. Scholarly Perspectives

• Upendra Baxi argues that India’s legal structures often reproduce inequalities rather than dismantle them.⁷
• Marc Galanter demonstrates that access to justice is skewed in favor of elites.⁸
• Arun Shourie critiques lengthy and technical judgments that alienate common citizens.⁹
• N.R. Madhava Menon emphasizes that legal education must prioritize public service, not only corporate law.¹⁰

---

5. Disconnect Between Legislature, Judiciary, and Citizens

While Parliament enacts increasingly complex legislation, courts are left to interpret them through lengthy proceedings. Simultaneously, judiciary tends to prioritize high-profile political matters, sidelining everyday disputes of ordinary citizens. The gap between constitutional ideals and legal practice breeds distrust and disillusionment.

---

6. Existing Reform Measures

1. Lok Adalats – Speedy, low-cost forums for civil disputes, though limited in scope.
2. Legal Aid Services – Mandated under Article 39A but poorly implemented and underfunded.
3. E-Courts and Digital Justice – Efforts toward modernization, constrained by digital divide.
4. Fast-Track Courts – Designed for sexual assault and corruption cases; uneven in performance.

---

7. Comparative Perspectives: India, U.S., and U.K.

Feature	India	United States	United Kingdom
Legal Aid	Constitutional mandate; weakly implemented	Public defenders for criminal cases; legal aid in civil disputes	Legal Aid Agency funds civil & criminal cases; wider coverage
Small-Claims Justice	Absent	Small-claims courts with simple, low-cost procedures	Small-claims track in county courts (up to £10,000)
Language of Law	Complex, inaccessible	“Plain English” reforms simplify legal docs	Judgments in plain language with public summaries
Technology	Pilot e-courts; rural digital divide	Online dispute resolution, e-filing	Online courts for minor claims
Transparency	Opaque collegium, limited feedback	Public hearings and filings	Live-streaming, JCIO annual reports

Comparisons reveal how India lags behind in accessible forums, plain-language justice, and citizen transparency. Lessons from the U.S. and U.K. suggest the need for small-claims courts, robust legal aid, and simplified communication.¹¹

---

8. Policy Recommendations

1. Expand judicial capacity by filling vacancies and creating specialized tribunals.
2. Strengthen legal aid through empowered NALSA and awareness campaigns.
3. Simplify procedures and mandate plain-language judgments.
4. Establish small-claims courts modeled on international practices.
5. Regulate litigation costs and curb adjournment abuse.
6. Ensure equitable digital infrastructure for rural justice delivery.
7. Introduce accountability mechanisms, including annual performance reports.

---

9. Conclusion

The Indian legal system, despite its constitutional ideals, remains inaccessible to large sections of society. Delays, high costs, and procedural complexity alienate citizens, especially the poor and marginalized. By adopting international best practices and implementing systemic reforms—such as small-claims courts, legal aid expansion, and plain-language judgments—India can bridge the gap between law and the people. Without such transformation, the constitutional promise of justice for all will remain aspirational rather than real.

---

References

1. N.R. Madhava Menon, Turning Point in Legal Education (LexisNexis, 2004), 15.
2. “Pendency of Cases in Indian Courts Reaches Record High,” The Hindu, 2023, https://www.thehindu.com.
3. “India’s Judge-to-Population Ratio among the Lowest in World,” Indian Express, 2022, https://indianexpress.com.
4. Arun Shourie, Courts and Their Judgments: Premises, Prerequisites, Consequences (Rupa, 2001), 68–74.
5. “Why Undertrials Continue to Languish in Indian Prisons,” Scroll.in, 2022, https://scroll.in.
6. “Farmers vs. Land Acquisition: Courts Struggle with Compensation Disputes,” The Print, 2021, https://theprint.in.
7. Upendra Baxi, The Crisis of the Indian Legal System (Vikas, 1982), 22.
8. Marc Galanter, Competing Equalities: Law and the Backward Classes in India (Oxford University Press, 1984), 54–60.
9. Shourie, Courts and Their Judgments, 92.
10. Menon, Turning Point in Legal Education, 45.
11. Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO), Annual Report (2023), https://judicialconduct.judiciary.uk; U.S. Courts, “Access to Justice Initiatives,” 2023, https://www.uscourts.gov.