Access to justice in India: a fundamental right with modern challenges

The right to access to justice is a foundational pillar of the Rule of Law and a cornerstone of any vibrant democracy. In India, the Supreme Court has elevated this principle to the status of a fundamental right. However, the judiciary also grapples with balancing this right against systemic challenges like the abuse of legal processes through frivolous litigation and the executive’s use of measures like internet shutdowns, which severely impede this access.

The Constitutional Mandate for Access to Justice

The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case of Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan (2016), unequivocally held that the right to access justice is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution. This right implies that every individual must have the ability to seek and obtain a remedy for grievances through formal or informal justice institutions without any barriers.

Challenge 1: Frivolous Litigation and Judicial Burden

While the doors of justice are open to all, the system is often choked by frivolous litigation—lawsuits filed without any arguable basis in law or fact, primarily to harass an opponent or delay proceedings.

The Supreme Court has consistently taken a stern view of this practice. In cases like Subrata Roy Sahara Vs Union of India (2014) and more recently K.C. Tharakan Vs State Bank of India & Ors (2023), the court imposed significant penalties on petitioners for filing multiple baseless litigations. This underscores the principle that the right to access justice is not absolute and cannot be used as a tool to abuse the judicial process.

Fun Fact: As of late 2023, over 5 crore (50 million) cases were pending across all courts in India. Frivolous litigation is considered a significant contributor to this judicial backlog, consuming valuable court time and resources.

Challenge 2: Internet Shutdowns as a Barrier to Justice

In the digital age, access to the internet is intrinsically linked to the exercise of fundamental rights, including access to justice, information, and freedom of speech. However, India has become the global leader in imposing internet shutdowns, often citing public order and national security.

A major development in this area was the Supreme Court’s judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020). The Court declared that freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practice any profession or carry on any trade, business or occupation over the medium of internet enjoys constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g). The court ruled that any suspension of internet services must adhere to the principles of necessity and proportionality and cannot be indefinite.

Analogy: An internet shutdown for maintaining public order is like turning off the entire water supply to a city to fix a single leaky pipe—it’s a disproportionate response that affects countless essential services far beyond the intended target.

Despite this ruling, shutdowns continue. A 2024 report highlighted that India remained the world’s top internet-shutdown offender for the sixth consecutive year in 2023, with shutdowns severely affecting regions like Manipur and Punjab. These shutdowns not only cripple the economy but also prevent citizens from accessing legal aid, reporting crimes, and obtaining vital information.

Parliamentary Committee Recommendations on Internet Shutdowns

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology (2021) provided several key recommendations to balance security needs with citizens’ rights.

Mnemonic for Recommendations: To remember the committee’s suggestions, use the acronym “AGP-ISE”: Adoption of best practices Grounds for suspension to be codified Principle of proportionality Inclusive Review Committee Selective banning of services Effectiveness study

Critical Policy Appraisal

Analytical Lens: UPSC Focus (Mains & Prelims)

Conceptual Basis

The legal backbone for this topic rests on several constitutional provisions:

• Article 14 & 21: Interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the fundamental right to access justice.
• Article 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(g): Protect freedom of speech and profession, which are exercised via the internet.
• Article 39A: A Directive Principle of State Policy that mandates the state to provide free legal aid to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.

UPSC Integration: Connecting the Dots

• Polity & Governance: Directly relates to Fundamental Rights, the role and powers of the Judiciary, Rule of Law, and mechanisms of state control versus individual liberty.
• Indian Economy: The economic cost of judicial delays and the multi-billion dollar impact of internet shutdowns on the digital economy are critical areas of analysis.
• Science & Technology: Explores the dual role of technology as a facilitator of justice (e-Courts, telemedicine) and as a tool of state control (surveillance, internet shutdowns).

The long-term policy challenge lies in creating a robust, transparent, and accountable framework for actions that restrict fundamental rights. For internet shutdowns, this means moving away from blanket bans towards targeted interventions with judicial oversight. For frivolous litigation, it involves strengthening gatekeeping mechanisms without discouraging genuine litigants. The future of justice delivery in India will depend heavily on how effectively technology is leveraged to enhance access while building safeguards against its misuse by both citizens and the state.

Prelims Practice Question (MCQ)

Question: In the context of internet shutdowns in India, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) established which of the following principles?

a) The government has absolute power to suspend the internet for national security. b) Internet shutdowns are a violation of the right to privacy under Article 21. c) Any restriction on internet access must be temporary, limited, and satisfy the test of proportionality. d) Only the Parliament, not the executive, can authorize an internet shutdown.

Answer: (c) Explanation: The Supreme Court in the Anuradha Bhasin case held that freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to carry on a trade or business through the internet are constitutionally protected. It ruled that any suspension of the internet is a drastic measure and must adhere to the principles of necessity and proportionality. It also stated that indefinite shutdowns are impermissible.

Mains Sample Question

Question (15 Marks): “While the right to access justice is a fundamental right, it is not absolute.” Critically analyze this statement in the dual context of the Supreme Court’s stance on frivolous litigation and the recurring issue of internet shutdowns as a barrier to justice. Suggest a framework for a balanced approach.

Mind Map Outline (Revision Structure)

• Access to Justice in India
  • Core Concept & Constitutional Basis
    • Meaning: Ability to seek and obtain a remedy for grievances.
    • Supreme Court Interpretation: A Fundamental Right.
      • Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan (2016)
    • Constitutional Articles:
      • Article 14 (Right to Equality)
      • Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)
      • Article 39A (Free Legal Aid - DPSP)
  • Contemporary Challenges to Access to Justice
    • Challenge 1: Frivolous Litigation
      • Definition: Lawsuits lacking legal or factual basis.
      • Impact: Burdens judicial system, causes delays.
      • Supreme Court’s Stance:
        • Imposition of penalties to deter abuse.
        • Key Cases: Subrata Roy Sahara (2014), K.C. Tharakan (2023).
    • Challenge 2: Internet Shutdowns
      • Impact on Justice: Hinders crime reporting, legal aid, and access to information.
      • Economic & Social Impact:
        • Loss of revenue and foreign investment.
        • Disruption of education and healthcare.
      • Legal Framework & Judicial Scrutiny:
        • Governed by Telecom Suspension Rules, 2017.
        • Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)
          • Internet access linked to Article 19.
          • Established Principle of Proportionality.
          • Indefinite shutdowns ruled illegal.
  • Policy Recommendations & Way Forward
    • Parliamentary Standing Committee (2021) Report
      • Codify grounds for suspension.
      • Adopt selective banning over complete shutdowns.
      • Create an inclusive, independent Review Committee.
      • Study global best practices.
    • Critical Policy Appraisal
      • Challenges: Lack of compliance with SC judgments, executive dominance.
      • Opportunities: Strengthening legal frameworks, adopting technology for targeted restrictions.