Author: Riya Yadav Course: BA LL.B (Hons.) Year: 2nd Year College: GLA University City: Mathura
Introduction
Justice is often described as the foundation of a democratic society. In India, the Constitution promises justice—social, economic and political—and equality before law. Yet, for an ordinary person, justice is not always as simple as approaching a court and getting a fair decision. A poor worker, a woman facing violence, a person with a disability, a prisoner, or a family living far from a court may experience barriers that are invisible on paper.
This raises an important question: if justice exists as a constitutional promise, is it truly accessible to everyone? Access to justice should not mean merely having courts. It means being able to understand one’s rights, obtain legal advice, reach the appropriate forum, afford representation, participate meaningfully in proceedings, and receive a timely and effective remedy. Judged by this wider standard, India has made considerable progress, but the promise is still incomplete.
The Constitutional Promise
The Constitution provides a strong foundation for access to justice. Article 14 guarantees
equality before the law, while Article 39A directs the State to ensure that the legal system
promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity and to provide free legal aid to those who
cannot afford it. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 gave this principle an institutional
structure through NALSA and the State and District Legal Services Authorities.
Free legal aid is not limited to appointing a lawyer. It can include legal advice, representation,
drafting of legal documents, payment of certain litigation expenses and access to certified copies.
Lok Adalats and legal services clinics also try to bring dispute resolution closer to ordinary
citizens. These mechanisms show that Indian law recognises that equality before law has little
meaning if a person cannot practically use the legal system.
When Law Is Available but Justice Is Difficult to Reach
The major difficulty is that legal rights and real-life accessibility are not always the same.
Litigation can be expensive and time-consuming. Court fees may be only one part of the burden;
travel, documentation, lawyer-related expenses, repeated hearings and loss of wages can make a
case difficult for a person with limited resources. For someone working on a daily-wage basis,
attending several hearings may itself become a serious economic cost.
Delay is another barrier. A remedy that arrives after many years may technically be justice, but it
may not feel like justice to the person who needed protection or compensation when the problem
occurred. The continuing problem of case pendency makes timely justice an important part of the
access-to-justice debate.
There is also a knowledge gap. Many people do not know what legal remedy is available, where
to file a case, whether they qualify for free legal aid, or how to approach a Legal Services
Authority. Language, digital literacy, social disadvantage and fear of authorities can further
distance people from formal institutions.
Technology: A Doorway, but Not the Whole House
Technology has created new possibilities. The e-Courts Project has expanded e-filing, e
payments, video conferencing and online access to case information. By the end of 2025, the
Department of Justice reported more than 3.93 crore court hearings through video conferencing
and around 1.03 crore cases filed through e-filing. These developments can reduce travel,
improve transparency and make basic case information easier to obtain.
However, digital justice can also create a new form of exclusion. Not everyone has a reliable
internet connection, a smartphone, digital skills, or the confidence to use online systems. A
person who cannot navigate technology may still need human assistance. Therefore,
digitalisation should supplement physical and community-based access rather than replace it.
The goal should be technology that makes courts easier to reach, not technology that becomes
another gatekeeper.
The Role of Legal Aid and Public Interest Litigation
Legal aid is one of the strongest tools for making justice more equal. NALSA provides a
nationwide framework through which eligible persons can seek free legal services. The Supreme
Court also recognises legal-aid mechanisms for vulnerable groups. Yet, the success of legal aid
depends not only on the existence of schemes but also on awareness, quality of representation
and effective follow-up.
Public Interest Litigation has also widened access to constitutional courts. The Supreme Court
notes that a public-spirited individual or group can approach the Court where a matter affects the
public at large. PIL has allowed issues concerning disadvantaged communities and public rights
to reach the judiciary even when affected persons themselves may find litigation difficult. It
demonstrates an important principle: justice becomes more meaningful when the system is
capable of hearing voices that are otherwise difficult to hear.
What Needs to Change?
India does not need to choose between courts, legal aid, technology and alternative dispute
resolution; it needs to strengthen all of them together. First, legal awareness should reach
villages, schools, colleges, workplaces and vulnerable communities in simple local languages.
Secondly, legal aid should be judged by the quality and outcome of assistance, not merely by the
number of people represented.
Thirdly, vacancies and infrastructure in the lower judiciary need sustained attention because
district courts are often the first point of contact for ordinary litigants. Fourthly, mediation and
Lok Adalats should be strengthened for disputes that can be resolved without prolonged
litigation. Finally, accessibility must include persons with disabilities, senior citizens and people
who face linguistic or technological barriers. The justice system should be designed around the
actual experience of the litigant, not only around institutional convenience.
Conclusion: Justice Must Be Reachable, Not Merely Promised
So, is justice really accessible to all in India? The honest answer is: not completely. India has
built a substantial constitutional and institutional framework for access to justice, and recent
developments in legal aid and digital courts are encouraging. But affordability, delay, lack of
awareness, social inequality and the digital divide continue to affect whether a legal right can be
converted into a real remedy.
The real test of access to justice is not how impressive the law looks on paper. It is whether an
ordinary person, standing alone and without influence, can enter the system, understand it, be
heard and obtain a meaningful remedy without being crushed by cost or delay. A democracy is
strongest when justice is not a privilege reserved for those who know the system, but a public
institution that ordinary citizens can actually reach.
India has therefore travelled a long distance, but the journey is not over. Justice becomes truly
accessible only when the distance between a citizen and the law becomes small enough that no
one has to ask whether justice was ever meant for them.
Research basis: Constitution of India; National Legal Services Authority (NALSA); Supreme Court of India;
Department of Justice, Government of India.
Disclaimer: This article is published for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, legal opinion, or professional counsel. It does not create a lawyer–client relationship. All views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author and represent their independent analysis. Times Law does not endorse, verify, or assume responsibility for the author’s views or conclusions. While editorial standards are maintained, Times Law, the author, and the publisher disclaim all liability for any errors, omissions, or consequences arising from reliance on this content. Readers are advised to consult a qualified legal professional before acting on any information herein. Use of this article is at the reader’s own risk.
