COURT AND DOCKET MANAGEMENT ASSIGNMENT

ON
“CONCEPT OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE”

SUBMITTED BY-
KHUSHI
1882051
BBA LLB ‘A
INTRODUCTION
“After India's independence, India became the country with the longest constitution in the
world that promised individual rights and freedoms. Despite such a promise, India has a large
population that finds it incredibly difficult to get the courts to exercise their rights. This is
because of the average salary of lawyers which costs thousands and lakhs of rupees per hour.
Hypothetically, if you had a broken arm, you would probably go to the hospital for
immediate care. If you have a persistent cough, you should see a doctor. What if you have a
legal problem? What if your landlord sends you an eviction notice or someone at work asks
you? Your answer would be to get legal help to deal with the above scenarios. But the real
question is “whether you can afford the legal services you need.” Unfortunately, for many
people in India, the answer is "NO". Solving a legal problem alone can lead to poor health,
stress, a worse legal outcome or simply giving up and accepting injustice. It worst affects
people who are close to the fringes of society.” They have the fewest resources to resist
injustice. Remember the words of Martin Luther King Jr.: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to
justice everywhere." The failure to provide easy, cheap and speedy justice undermines our
society's faith in the legal system. “Fighting back against injustice is important to maintain
our dignity and strengthen our belief that our legal system does not benefit the rich and
powerful. It is the cornerstone of our society and democracy.”
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
“Through Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India, it is promised to create an
effective mechanism and ensure the fundamental right of every person to access the courts of
India. These articles are a speed-check mechanism and provide quick solutions. A person has
the right to approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 1 without having to go
through the problem of approaching the lower courts. “The Constitution is therefore the
protector and guarantor of our fundamental right to go to court.” Also, the Court of Appeal
has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, which ensures that a person can
approach the Court of Appeal for violation of fundamental rights or any other matter. In this
regard, Article 32 is restrictive compared to Article 226 2, because a person can apply Article
32 only in the context of a violation of fundamental rights. But according to Article 226, the
Court of Appeal can be contacted in any matter (in matters not necessarily related to a
violation of fundamental rights). “Legal aid is the main tool to ensure access to justice.” Time
and again, the Supreme Court has taken progressive steps to advance access to legal
protection and followed the Constitution, which guarantees it as a fundamental right. It did so
by employing a two-pronged strategy in such cases of relaxation of traditional jurisdictional
rules and relaxation of procedural rules. In many cases, courts have taken the initiative to
appoint commissioners and expert bodies to deal with pro bono cases or cases where a party
needs representation. Basically, the courts use the public interest settlement procedure to
resolve the grievances of the poor and weaker sections of the society. It is a tool for venting
public grievances when society as a whole, rather than an individual, feels offended. In
addition to the above, there are several clauses in the Constitution that are interpreted and
read together with Articles 32 and 226. These include: Article 13 3 that deals with laws
incompatible with fundamental rights5, Article 1 that deals with equal rights. treatment and
equality before the law and Article 214, which refers to the protection of life and personal
liberty, which directly extends to the right to go to court and remedies in all matters.”

1
INDIA CONST. art 32.
2
INDIA CONST. art 226.
3
INDIA CONST. art 13.
4
INDIA CONST. art 21.
IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS
“The judgement of “Hussainara Khatoon vs The state of Bihar”5 is widely known for the
court's interpretation of the right to a speedy trial as read in Article 21. In that case, the court
launched a legal aid program that provides free legal aid to litigants. The case dealt with the
rights of prisoners in relation to habeas corpus petitions. It was observed that there was a
frightening situation in the judiciary of Bihar. Many men, women and children were put
behind bars for many years awaiting trial in court. It turned out that many of these prisoners
were incarcerated for crimes of a trivial nature, but remained behind bars for about ten years
due to extrajudicial proceedings. “In this case, the court demanded the immediate release of
these prisoners without trial, or sometimes even without charges. In this case, it was held that
the provision of free legal aid and services to the poor, poor and needy is a necessary element
in the sense of "fair, just and fair" procedures.” Regardless of whether a prisoner commits a
crime or is innocent, he must be given the opportunity to be represented and receive the legal
services that the Constitution guarantees to all its citizens. Another essential feature of our
constitution is article 39A which also emphasizes free legal services. “Article 39A basically
states that the provision of free legal services is an integral part of the "fair and just"
procedure defined in Legal aid is not provided to people with economic problems and other
disabilities.” Free legal aid is therefore an essential ingredient that can be relied upon in
Article 21 of the Constitution as a fundamental right. It is a right granted to any citizen
accused of a crime who, for various reasons, such as poverty, indigence or disability, is
unable to pay for the services of a lawyer. The state is obliged to provide a person with legal
aid if the circumstances show that the person cannot afford it. There is an urgent need to
establish a vital, robust and comprehensive legal aid and legal services program that has
impressed both the Government of India and the State Governments to ensure access to
justice for all. The state cannot escape and fulfil its constitutional duty to provide financial
and legal aid to those in need. The duty of the Court as a guardian of fundamental rights is
5
Hussainara Khatoon v Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1979) A.I.R 1369 (India).
also as a guardian of qui-viva to control the fundamental right of the accused to a speedy trial
by giving directions to States. This can be done by actions such as strengthening the
machinery used in court cases, investigating cases, creating new courts in different locations
and building new courtrooms to ensure that everyone has access to courts, appointing new
additional judges and other measures to ensure that everyone understands justice and that
everyone has access to courts.”

“Judge Bhagwati, in paragraph 107 of the judgment, also strongly emphasized the duty of the
state to ensure that every citizen has the constitutional right to a speedy trial and that the state
cannot resort to defense because it does not have sufficient funds to fulfil the necessary.
expenses expenditures necessary to improve the administrative and judicial apparatus to
speed up the judicial process.”
“Another case that stands out in terms of judicial discussion is the case of “Khatri Vs. State
of Bihar”6 also known as “Bhagalpur gloss.” The case was initiated by several applicants
who submitted written applications to the Supreme Court to secure their fundamental rights
under Article 21 of the Constitution through Article 32. They complained that the police
blinded them while they were detained at the police station. The case emphasized the
constitutional obligation to provide legal services to the poor and the criminal. The court
emphasized the constitutional obligation of state governments to provide free legal services to
those who cannot afford it. The trial held at the state's expense against the indigent defendant
without legal aid expires and the sentence is annulled. Free legal services should also be
provided to the poor and needy as they are an essential part of "reasonable, just and fair
proceedings". Legal aid is an important part of legal aid. As soon as the accused is brought
before a judge, this right of seizure arises. The accused is then given the opportunity to apply
for bail and thus released, after which he seeks legal aid and representation. The accused has
the right to demand free legal aid in a situation where the court has convicted him and wants
to appeal this decision. According to the court, judges and magistrates also have a legal duty
to inform the accused about seeking legal services and using a lawyer if it appears that the
accused cannot afford legal services for financial reasons. circumstances, poverty or
destitution. The state is responsible for providing this aid. The court said that the right to free
legal services is obvious to a poor defendant if the judge does not inform him of that right.

6
Khatri V. State of Bihar II, (1981) SCC (1) 627 (India).
The court also addressed the second tangent and insisted that the production of an arrested
person before a judge within 2 hours of arrest is a constitutional requirement and this
condition must be strictly and very carefully followed.”
“Another interesting case that determined the true meaning of "access to courts" is “Cotton
Corporation of India Vs. UIB.”7 Here, the court began by stating that everyone has the right
to go to court protected by law without objection. A person has uninterrupted and
uninterrupted access to a court. The court then noted that the word "courts" is used in this
general and broad sense to bring it under the umbrella and to understand all forums where
relief can be obtained under the law of the land. Legal proceedings and legal protection must
not be obstructed at any cost and must not be obstructed even in the hands of judges.
According to the law, it is a human right for a person seeking the right to go to court, and
another court cannot remove that right or prevent an appeal. This principle exists and works
in the constitution, which basically aims to create a legal society. The parliament establishes a
rule according to which the court cannot, in general, be an obstacle to access to legal
protection through the court. It is an important and just principle enshrined in our
Constitution that keeps judicial processes and law unhindered.”

“Court in another important judgment: “Sukh Das Vs. The Union Territory of Arunachal
Pradesh”8 has placed great emphasis on providing free legal aid. In this case, the appellant
was accused of threatening his assistant engineer with cancellation of transfer orders. The
appellant was unable to find legal representation due to his economic background. There was
no cross-examination here. “The Supreme Court thus annulled the judgment against the
appellant due to the lack of legal representation. The court then found that the provision of
free legal aid at the expense of the state is a fundamental right of a person accused of an
offense that may threaten his life or personal freedom, and that fundamental right indirectly
derives from the requirement of reasonable, fair, and legal aid.” In accordance with the
procedure provided for in Article 21. Thus, in this case, the court confirmed the right to free
legal aid and recognized that free legal aid could indeed be mocked if free legal aid were left
to the poor and ignorant. It would only become a paper promise and defeat its purpose. The
fact that the accused is not represented at the trial is a complete violation of his fundamental
rights.”
7
Cotton Corporation of India V. United Industrial Bank, 1983 A.I.R 1272 (India).
8
Sukh Das V Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, 1986 A.I.R 991 (India).
ACCESS TO COURTS ACCORDING TO INDIAN JUDICIARY
“Judiciary plays a very important role in India. It works independently, without interference
from the legislative and executive branches. It is the guarantor and defender of our
fundamental rights. While all this is true, the sad reality of our country is that most people in
India find it difficult to access and approach courts. Chief Justice of India in 2017, P.
Sathasivam stressed the need for judges to ensure easy access to courts for the common man
and "early dispensation of justice" to maintain credibility. He also emphasized that the
judiciary is the most respected institution of the country and should be cherished and that the
common people's high trust in the judiciary must remain unchanged. The Constitution Bench
of the Supreme Court also found in its decision Ajay Kumar Pandey Vs. State of Jammu and
Kashmir9, that “access to justice is a fundamental right guaranteed to all its citizens by
Articles 1 and 21 of the Constitution of India.” In this case, the Bench observed that life does
not mean the physical body, but the accompanying rights that make life worth living, and
denying a person access to a court and the administration of justice has a profound effect on
the quality of his human life.”

9
Ajay Kumar Pandey V. State of Jammu and Kashmir. (2012) C.P No. 5597 of 2012 (India).
MEANING OF ACCESS TO COURTS
“This essentially means access to legal protection. After I interpreted what a legal remedy
means and based on the interpretation of the courts, I came out of the following points”:

 “Mechanism of judicial decision: To ensure access to the court and thereby legal
protection, the basic condition would be that there is mechanisms that ensure the
same enforcement. These can be courts, tribunals, commissions, authorities, etc.,
where a citizen can go to report a dispute or problem that may have been caused by
another person/state or any of its instruments. This mechanism must prove to be
efficient, fair, reasonable and fast. It should ensure justice and recognize the
principles of natural justice.”

 “Courts must be accessible to all (remote access): Courts and other dispute resolution
forums must be reasonably accessible to all. This means that there should be
provisions for dispute resolution mechanisms in rural areas. The resolution of
disputes largely depends on the ability of the party to the dispute to approach the
court/competent authority.”

 “The process of solving use cases should be fast: access to courts and legal protection
is only an illusion and a waste if the process is not fast. If the process is time-
consuming, tedious, and frustrating, it will cause more and more people to give up on
the process. In the case of Sheela Barse v Union of India10, the court explicitly found
and emphasized the importance of a speedy trial that serves the right to life.
Litigation would only have value and meaning and profit if the delivery system was
fast. Accessibility has long been achieved in India with Civil Judges and Sessions
Judges in every tract (village/district), but the process seems slow, and time-
consuming and courts are insufficient.”

 “Affordable for litigants: One of the biggest reasons why people do not want to go to
court when they have a legal dispute is the high cost of legal services. Legal services
must be available to all and at a reasonable price. If this is not done, the system is not
a mere illusion.”
10
SheelaBarse vs Union of India, (1986) 3 SCC 632.
CONCLUSION
“Access to courts and access to justice are certainly strongly supported by the Constitution of
India. The right to legal aid is also now firmly enshrined in various laws such as “the Legal
Services Authorities Act, the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, the National Legal
Aid Authority (NALSA) and the various Lok-Adalats” set up in districts and remote villages
across India. to provide legal aid. for those who cannot afford it.”

“Too often people view the legal system and the law as inaccessible and unapproachable.
They expect it to be like a castle with high walls and doors. The castle cannot be entered by
anyone who is not an insider and does not have the resources. This needs to be changed.
“Everyone should know where to go if they have a legal problem, and they shouldn't be
afraid to do so.” The government has a duty to ensure that citizens believe in the fairness of
the legal system, and we can contribute to this by clarifying laws, expanding the range of
legal service providers and making them more accessible. Just as in today's welfare society,
there is no right to sell the sharing of rights at a price.”