Author: Chilakala Aswini, 4th Year, 7th sem, Christ Academy Institute of Law, Bengaluru, India
ABSTRACT
Access to justice is a basic need in a fair society. India has a constitution, courts, legal aid
groups, and digital tools to ensure that justice is available to all. However, many people still
find it difficult to get justice due to high costs, long delays, lack of legal knowledge, and the
distance they must travel. This article looks at the difference between the idea of equal justice
and how it really works in practice. It argues that justice can only be real when someone knows
their rights, can get legal help, can afford the process, and gets a solution in a reasonable time.
Keywords: Access to Justice, Legal Aid, Article 39A, Legal Awareness, Judicial Delay,
Equality.
INTRODUCTION
Justice is often said to be available to everyone, but for many people, the experience is quite
different. A person may know something is wrong but not know how to complain, which
authority to go to, how to find a lawyer, or how much the process will cost. For someone with
limited income, going to court, paying legal fees, and attending several hearings can be a big
burden. So even if a person has a legal right, they might not be able to use it.
The Constitution guarantees equality before the law under Article 14 and protects life and
personal freedom under Article 21. Article 39A also says the state must provide equal justice
and free legal aid1. The Supreme Court has recognized access to justice as a key constitutional
value2. However, ongoing problems with cost, delays, and lack of awareness raise an important
question: Is justice really accessible to all, or is it more accessible to those who can afford to
seek it?
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This article uses a qualitative and doctrinal approach. It looks at constitutional laws, court
decisions, NALSA reports, and recent studies on the justice system. It also examines the
challenges people face when trying to get legal help, such as financial strain, delays, and lack
of awareness.
REVIEW LITERATURE
Existing research shows that access to justice means more than just having courts. In Anita
Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan, the Supreme Court stressed the importance of effective decisions,
reasonable accessibility, quick justice, and affordability3. The India Justice Report 2025 also
says that infrastructure, human resources, workload, and legal aid capacity are key to delivering
justice4. NALSA’s work shows how free legal services and awareness are essential.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROMISE OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE
Constitutional Promise of Access to Justice Article 39A requires the state to promote equal
justice and provide free legal aid so that economic or other disadvantages don’t stop people
from getting justice6. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 sets up institutions for legal
aid and Lok Adalats7.
The judiciary has also supported this principle. In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, the
Supreme Court recognized the importance of a speedy trial under Article 218. In Khatri v. State
of Bihar, the court stressed the need for legal help for those who can’t afford a lawyer9. These
decisions show that access to justice is closely connected to fundamental rights.
ACCESS TO JUSTICE: THE REALITY
In reality, cost is one of the biggest barriers. Lawyer fees, travel expenses, documents, and
repeated court visits can be a big pressure on regular families. A daily-wage worker might even
lose money by attending a hearing. Although free legal aid is available, many people don’t
know they are eligible or where to get help. NALSA therefore focuses a lot on legal awareness
and legal aid services10.
Delays are another major issue. A person seeking compensation, maintenance, employment
relief, or other remedies might have to wait years. Justice that comes after an unreasonable
delay loses much of its real-world value. The India Justice Report 2025 reported around 5.7
lakh prisoners, with 76% being undertrials, showing how important timely legal help and
judicial processes are11.
Geographical and digital challenges also play a role. People in rural areas may have less access
to lawyers and legal institutions. While technology has made some services easier through e
Courts and online legal aid, those without internet or digital skills may still be left behind12.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
The biggest issue is the gap between formal equality and practical equality. The law may give
everyone the same right to go to court, but not everyone has the same money, knowledge of
the law, or patience to wait for years. A rich person might keep fighting a case even if it takes
a long time, but someone with less money might have to give up a claim because they can’t
afford to wait.
Legal aid is very important, but just having it isn’t enough. A person needs to know about legal
aid and be able to reach the place where they can get it. Similarly, technology can help people
connect across various distances, but it can’t fix problems because, lack of education, poverty,
or the gap between those who have access to technology and those who don’t.
The real test is whether justice is truly accessible should be simple: Can a regular person
understand their rights, get help from a lawyer, pay for the legal process, and get a decision in
a reasonable time? If the answer is no, then justice is written into the law, but it’s not really
available to everyone in real life.
SUGGESTIONS
1. Run legal awareness programs in villages, colleges, and local communities.
2. Improve and check the quality of free legal aid services.
3. Build more court facilities and reduce unnecessary delays.
4. Make online legal services system which is easy to use and available in local languages.
5. Open more legal aid clinics in rural areas and in prisons.
CONCLUSION
India has built a strong legal system that helps people get fair treatment through Articles 14, 21, and 39A, court decisions, legal aid groups, and technology projects. These efforts have made the justice system more reachable than ever before. However, just because these tools exist doesn’t mean everyone can easily use them. The real issue is the gap between ‘having a right’ and actually ‘being able to use it’. Until people with low income and limited knowledge can get help without facing problems like high costs, long distances, or delays, justice cannot be said to be equally available to all. The real test of access to justice isn’t the number of laws, but whether those who need it most can actually get it.
REFERENCES
1. Constitution of India.
2. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
3. Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan, (2016) 8 SCC 509.
4. Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81.
5. Khatri v. State of Bihar, (1981) 1 SCC 627.
6. National Legal Services Authority, Legal Aid.
7. India Justice Report, India Justice Report 2025.
8. Department of Justice, Government of India, e-Courts Project.
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.
