Why Access to Justice in India Still Fails the Average Citizen—and What Needs to Change

Introduction

Every morning in a crowded district court, a blue-collar worker waits for his case to be called—just as he has done for the past few years, taking leave from his daily wage job in the hope that he’ll get the justice he deserves. In today’s world, justice means endless dates, packed corridors, and money they can’t afford to spend. Access to justice exists only on paper. The Constitution discusses equality and fair procedures, and even provides free legal aid to those who are indigent. Door of the courtrooms are open, but the remedy always seems unapproachable. Many times, we hear that courts are the “last hope” of the layman. But when simple cases drag on for years, undertrial stays in jail longer than the sentence itself, or when a woman gives up her maintenance case because she is not able to afford a good lawyer, this shows where our system lacks behind, and something is deeply wrong. 

This article focuses on why it is so hard for common people to get the timely and affordable justice they truly deserve. It looks at the uncomfortable gaps between what the lawmakers promise and what an average citizen actually experiences. Who gets benefits from the way our system works and who is left behind. And most importantly what changes we need inside courtrooms, government decisions and the use of technology, so that justice doesn’t just stay in books, it really helps people in everyday life. The main objective is to unpack why the judiciary is falling and how practical changes can bring reform in everyday life.

Research methodology 

Type of research

1. The study follows a doctrinal research method, focusing on what the law “is” on access to justice in India rather than doing field surveys or interviews.
2. It is mainly qualitative, based on analysis of texts and cases, not numerical data collection.

Sources of data

Primary sources:

1. Constitutional provisions, especially Articles 14, 21 and 39A.
2. Statutes such as the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and relevant rules.
3. Important Supreme Court and High Court judgments on access to justice, legal aid, undertrials, virtual courts, and pendency.

Secondary sources:

1. Textbooks, commentaries, journal articles, reports of committees and commissions, and research reports on judicial pendency and legal aid.
2. Official websites like the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) and reports on access to justice in India.

1. Access to justice: Promise vs Reality

On paper, India strongly promises equitable justice to all; however, the practical implementation of this idea remains a subject of inspection and debate. The Indian Constitution promises equality before the law and fair procedure, and Article 39A mandates the State to provide equal justice and free legal aid to ensure opportunities for justice aren’t denied due to economic or other disabilities, promoting justice on a basis of equal opportunity for all citizens, especially the poor and marginalised. Yet in practice, there is a huge gap between all of these promises, huge case backlogs,  and what an ordinary person actually faces in Indian courts. Repeated adjournments, complicated procedures, and the cost of litigation often turn justice into a slow and tiring process for people. 

2. Structural Barriers: Delay, Cost and Weak Legal Aid

One of the major barriers is the delay in the process; simple cases drag on for years, even for decades, making the so-called “speedy trial” just a phrase for many litigants. Awaiting decisions increases expenses; parties repeatedly have to bear travelling, lawyers fees, and court fees, which is very harsh for women with no independent income, people from marginalised backgrounds, and daily wage workers. Legal aid exists in theory only because in many places, services are under-resourced or the legal aid lawyers are overworked. Poor litigants most of the time don’t know about their rights, or do not get effective help. All of these factors show that this system only tends to favour those who are wealthy, have time and legal knowledge.

3. Who Gets Left Behind in the System

People who suffer the most with this system are those with the least power; underprivileged people, women, daltis, tribes, migrants and day labourers. Many undertrials from these backgrounds stay in jail not because they are proven guilty, but because they have no money for bail and no lawyer to present their case. Women who go to court for maintenance, protection from violence, or justice at the workplace often give up halfway, as each hearing costs time, money, and a lot of stress. For a lot of ordinary people, courts feel scary and confusing, and they end up relying completely on others instead of feeling strong enough to claim their own rights.

4. Effective Challenges: Digital Divide, Government Litigation

Recent developments, such as video hearings, e-filing, and online access to court case information, were supposed to make courts faster and more transparent, but another group that is affected by these court reforms is people who cannot afford smartphones and stable internet services and may not have knowledge about technology and how to use most court reforms. On the other hand, the government is actually one of the largest litigants, and this contributes to the crowding in courts because everyone wants their appeal and court cases to be heard first.

5. The Way Forward: Making Justice Work for People  

To make justice more accessible, something that people can actually experience, not just talk about, but need changes at many levels. Courts need better facilities, more judges, and strict timelines to be worked on so that cases don’t drag on endlessly. To improve legal aid, there must be proper funding, good training, and regular checks, so that poor and vulnerable people get real help instead of just names on paper. Government litigation needs smarter policies, and there should be more use of mediation, arbitration and Lok Adalats to settle disputes quickly and cost-effectively. Using technology in simple, people-friendly ways—along with strong awareness campaigns—can help shift the system from being focused on lawyers and the government to one that truly serves the citizens.

Real Fixes: Making Justice Work for Everyone

1. We need practical changes, not just on paper but in real life. Courts should get more judges and rooms right away, with strict rules—no more than 3 hearings per case unless there’s a real reason. Use tech like the National Judiciary Data Grid (NJDG). It is an online platform under India’s e-Courts Project that serves as a central repository for case information, judgments, and statistics from High Courts, District Courts, and Taluka Courts, providing transparency and aiding in case management and reducing pendency. It helps track old cases first and cut endless delays.
2. Must set up for legal aid: pay lawyers properly for what their work deserves, train them well, and set up full-time public defenders like in big criminal cases. Legal help camps should be organised by the authorities in rural areas where people need to learn about their rights in simple words—no fancy English.
3. The government should stop filing silly appeals; make a rule to check cases twice before the court, it’ll help save the time of both the courts and parties. Push Lok Adalats and mediation hard—they settle 70-80% of fights fast and cheap.
4. Judges can set an example by passing simple, clear orders and helping people without lawyers for their basic rights. Lawmakers should make court rules easier and fund internet centres and cyber cafes in villages so online hearings work for everyone, not just city folks.
5. Civil society—NGOs, bar groups, colleges—can run awareness drives in schools and markets, teach women and workers about their rights and how to file basic cases. Each of these pulling together can turn indian courts from scary places into real helpers for ordinary people.

Conclusion

India’s Constitution promises justice for everyone. Article 14 says equality before the law. Article 21 gives the right to a fair and quick trial. Article 39A says the government must give free legal help to poor people. Laws like the Legal Services Authorities Act set up free lawyers, Lok Adalats for fast settlements, and camps to teach people their rights. In theory, anyone—from a daily worker to a farmer—can get help without money worries.

But in real life, it’s not like as its shown. More than 5 crore cases are stuck in courts. Simple disputes take years or even decades. Court fees, lawyer costs, and travel money add up fast, so many people quit midway without getting justice. Legal aid is there, but doesn’t work well—lawyers get low pay, too many cases, and poor folks don’t even know about it. Women who ask for maintenance or safety from violence stop going because it’s too stressful and costly. Poor undertrials from Dalit or tribal groups stay in jail longer than their punishment would be, just because of no money for bail or a good lawyer. Online courts help people living in city majorly, but not in villages because lack of phones or internet. The government files tons of cases as well, making everything slower.

This affects trust in the system and makes the rich-poor gaps more bigger. People turn to local goons instead of courts.

We can fix it by hiring more judges, limiting hearings to at least 3 max, paying legal aid lawyers better, stopping silly government appeals, building village internet spots, and teaching rights in simple words everywhere. Judges write easy orders, lawmakers make rules simpler, and NGOs help the weak.

Let’s turn courts into friendly places, where every common person should feel strong walking in. Justice should be real for all, not just a delusion in the books of law. It’s high time to act now.

References / Bibliography

Books

1. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (8th ed. 2018).
2. V.D. Mahajan, Jurisprudence and Legal Theory (6th ed. 2012).

Journals & Reports

1. C. Yogamurugan, A View on Access to Justice in India, 5 Int’l J. Legal Rsch. & Analysis 1 (2019).ijlra​
2. Daksh India, State of the Indian Judiciary Report (2024).dakshindia​
3. Harvard Law School, Access to Justice in India: National Report (2023).clp.law.harvard​

Case Laws

1. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81 (speedy trial as part of Art. 21).
2. Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, (1983) 2 SCC 96 (legal aid for undertrials).
3. Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2024) INSC 813 (directions on prison legal aid).sci​
4. In Re: Directions to Legal Services Authorities, (2024) INSC 919 (free legal aid for prisoners).sci​

Statutes & Constitutional Provisions

1. INDIA CONST. art. 14, art. 21, art. 39A.
2. Legal Services Authorities Act, No. 39 of 1987.
3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 304 (legal aid in criminal cases).

Official Websites & Data Sources

1. National Judicial Data Grid, https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in (accessed Dec. 25, 2025).doj+1​
2. Department of Justice, Government of India, https://doj.gov.in/njdg (case pendency statistics).doj​
3. Supreme Court of India, e-Committee Reports on Virtual Hearings (2024).scobserver​

News Reports & Articles

1. “Rising Judicial Pendency in India,” Drishti IAS (Sept. 15, 2025), https://www.drishtiias.com.drishtiias​
2. “Supreme Court Case Backlog Hits All-Time High,” Vision IAS (Sept. 14, 2025).visionias​
3. “SC Issues Directions on Legal Aid for Prisoners,” SCC Online (Oct. 24, 2024).scconline​
4. “Judicial Pendency in India: Causes & Solutions,” PMF IAS (Feb. 17, 2025).pmfias