Every act of justice must be just and equitable in its application to all citizens. Our democracy has given all of its citizens equal fundamental rights, regardless of their economic status. However, due to incompetence and a lack of awareness, the underprivileged classes are frequently denied justice. Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) assist in the promotion of equality. However, in order to penalize criminals and cheaters, government laws must be properly implemented.
The word ‘Justice’ derives its origin from the Latin word ‘Justitia’, which means “to join” or “to fit together.” It is a relative notion that is primarily concerned with the social structure of society. Equality and justice are at the heart of democracy. “Not just basic equality of man, but his natural right to life, liberty, and property,” as John Locke correctly stated, is the core basis of the democratic value that incorporates justice.
Locke claimed that rulers “are to govern by promulgated established laws, not to be changed in special instances, but to have one rule for rich and poor, for the favorite at court, and the countryman at the plough.” Justice, according to Miller, is a “fair state of circumstances in which each man receives the same benefits and obligations due to him.” A progressive society is marked by justice. In theory, justice can take many forms, including social, legal, economic, and political justice.
“The state shall not deny any person equality before the law and equal protection within the territory of India,” declares Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Aside from this essential safeguard for a person’s inherent right to justice, Article 39A of the Indian Constitution gives equal and free legal aid with appropriate programs to all citizens. However, there are a substantial number of impoverished and marginalized people who have yet to receive justice.
Poverty and Justice
If we live in a democratic country, we can expect justice without prejudice. Every citizen has the right to seek justice and legal assistance, ensuring that no one community is given an undue advantage. Poverty is not a choice; it is a phenomenon that occurs as a result of a lack of resources as well as community marginalization. Many situations exist where the poor are denied or delayed justice; one recent example is a hit-and-run case that took many years to resolve for the victim’s family. The poor’s lack of legal (and political) awareness is one of the key reasons why justice is a far-fetched idea for them.
Poor people who lack access to proper education are unaware of their basic human rights. If they are bullied, mistreated, or victimized, they have no idea that it is a crime due to their status or marginalization. They have the mentality of being okay with being mistreated by individuals with power and money, and as a result, they are unaware of their basic fundamental rights. Even if people are aware that their fundamental rights have been infringed, their basic assumption about courts and justice is that ‘courts take a long time to provide justice and require a lot of money to do it.’ Legal procedures require a significant number of financial resources, in addition to the time required, which causes them to take a step back. When the lawsuit involves a wealthier party, they are forced to return their case and submit it.
Access to Justice and Right to Free Legal Aid
The concept of legal aid can be found in the Magna Carta’s 40th paragraph, which reads as follows: “To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.”
Articles 14, 21, 22(1), 38, and 39 A of the Indian Constitution provide for free legal assistance as a right to people who cannot afford a lawyer for financial or other reasons.
It declares through Article 14 that – “The state shall not deny any person equality before the law or equal protection of laws within the territory of India.” As a result, under Article 14 of the Constitution, every person of India, regardless of his social, economic, or political status, has equal and indiscriminate access to the courts.
According to Article 21 of the Constitution “No person shall be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law.” The mechanism used to limit this basic right must be fair and effective, and it must pass the Article 14 reasonableness test. As a result of this non-arbitrary and fair method, both parties to the dispute can get legal assistance through the court system.
When the state violates fundamental rights, the Constitution offers safeguards in the form of a right to constitutional remedy, i.e., direct access to the Supreme Court or High Courts with extraordinary writ authority under Article 32 and Article 226 respectively. Article 32 is a basic right in and of itself.
The State is obligated under the Constitution’s directive principles to promote and secure justice, as stated in Art. 39A of the Constitution – “The State shall secure that the operations of the legal system promote justice, on the basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice is not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities”.
The above-mentioned Constitutional principles are especially important in our country because the poor and people living in rural and tribal areas are socially and educationally behind. The Supreme Court has expanded the reach of these constitutional provisions, which has benefited the poor and socially disadvantaged, particularly in rural and tribal communities. However, a huge number of such persons continue to be denied access to justice. They continue to believe that the end of justice is out of reach since the means to justice, namely the law and the legal system, present numerous hurdles.
For them, the law is still a mystery, and justice is still out of reach. The rule of law ensures that all citizens have equal access to justice, but these individuals are unaware that law is a social tool created to facilitate access to justice and is unconcerned with the social and economic circumstances of the justice seeker.
In such conditions, the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) sought to include this right as a fundamental right in the Constitution as Art. 30A, with the following provisions – “Access to Courts and Tribunals and Speedy Justice“
(1) Everyone has a right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before an independent court, or where appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or forum.
(2) The right to access to courts shall deem to include the right to reasonably speedy and effective justice in all matters before the courts, tribunal or other forum and state shall take all reasonable steps to achieve the said objectives.”
This right is crucial in a welfare state where the legislation is complex and people from marginalized populations often struggle to understand their rights and how to defend them in court. This right has been evolved not only through the Constitution but also through case laws. In the case of MH Hoskot, Justice Krishna Iyer declared that this right has been enhanced by the Supreme Court “If a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment is virtually unable to exercise his constitutional and statutory right of the appeal inclusive of special leave to appeal (to the Supreme Court) for want of legal assistance, there is implicit in the Court under Article 142 read with Articles 21 and 39-A of the Constitution, power to assign counsel for such imprisoned individual ‘for doing complete justice.”
In Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, Justice P.N. Bhagwati made the following observations – “We do not think it is possible to reach the benefits of the legal process to the poor to protect them against injustice and to secure to them their constitutional and statutory rights unless there is a nation-wide legal service program to provide free legal services to them.”
He stated further in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar – “This is a constitutional right of every accused person who is unable to engage a lawyer and secure legal services, on account of reasons such as poverty, indigence or incommunicado situation and the State is under a mandate to provide a lawyer to an accused person if the circumstances of the case and the needs of justice so require, provided of course the accused person does not object to the provision of such lawyer.”
In order to fulfill its constitutional obligations, the State enacted appropriate legislation, such as the NALSA (National Legal Service Authorities) Act 1987, which addresses issues such as legal aid, legal literacy, and legal awareness. The legal aid system assumed that the victim was aware of her rights and how to approach the court, that legal aid offices were located in remote villages and tribal areas, and that the lawyer assigned was qualified to handle the job in a way that was appropriate for the needs of the rural/tribal population. These assumptions did not pan out, and the underprivileged population became dissatisfied.
National Legal Services
Some judges took the initiative to bring justice to the poor to alleviate the burden of our society’s economically deprived parts and all those who are unable to access justice. Although the khap panchayats are in charge of resolving local conflicts at the panchayat level, the difficulty with this system is its informality and incomplete judgments.
As a result, guidelines were prepared for the 1960s onward in India after realizing the necessity for quick trials and economic legal services. In 1973, Justice Bhagwati chaired an expert committee on legal aid called ‘Processual Justice to the People.’ As a result, the National Legal Services Authority Act was enacted (NALSA). It moved on to establish Legal Assistance Schemes for the Poor, which institutionalized legal aid in India, along with Justice Krishna Iyer.
The National Legal Services Authority Act, chaired by A.S. Anand was signed into law on December 5, 1995. However, people’s basic preconceptions about the judiciary did not provide it with the necessary boost. Public Interest Litigation and Lokadalats for offering citizens rapid, fair, and affordable justice strengthened the foundations of legal aid in India. It became known among the general public as a low-cost, easily accessible, formal dispute settlement process.
Lok Adalats were sought as an alternative to formal courts for resolving conflicts swiftly, with the parties’ assent, and without the need for court expenses or heavy lawyer fees. In India’s rural areas, Public Interest Litigation has grown in prominence and popularity. It has become a popular instrument for the poor and villages to seek justice that provides them with equal rights and a voice in the process.
It is not only a one-way process in which justice must reach the poor, but it is also a two-way process in which people must be eager to seek justice and profit from the court system in order to obtain prompt and affordable justice and not to avoid it. When justice is delayed or denied, it is true poverty.
Conclusion
The state has a responsibility to give legal aid to the poor and disenfranchised members of society who require legal assistance but are unable to obtain it from a lawyer owing to financial or other constraints. Legal aid is not a charity; rather, it is a kind of distributive justice that aims to ensure the effective application of welfare benefits while also eliminating social and structural discrimination against the poor. The Legal Services Authority Act of 1987 establishes a framework for the proper implementation of legal aid programs and the provision of justice to the impoverished and vulnerable.
Equal justice is provided through Legal Aid in accordance with the Indian Constitution, not only in words but also in its genuine text and spirit. Despite this, there are flaws in the proper and effective administration of the legal aid scheme due to issues such as lack of information about it and a shortage of effective lawyers because eminent lawyers are less interested in pro-bono cases. New dimensions must be explored in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of legal aid and justice delivery systems for the poor and vulnerable.