Since gaining independence in 1947, India has established itself as a democratic republic where the judiciary is entrusted with the responsibility of upholding constitutional values and ensuring the realization of justice for all. The Indian judiciary has been instrumental in creating pathways for disadvantaged groups to access justice. By interpreting constitutional provisions expansively, introducing Public Interest Litigation (PIL), and emphasizing human rights and procedural justice, the judiciary has fostered inclusivity and equity in legal processes.

Access to justice, a cornerstone of the rule of law, is integral to democracy. This essay explores the judiciary's efforts in removing procedural, financial, and systemic barriers to justice while reflecting on its significant achievements and ongoing challenges.

Constitutional Foundation

The Indian Constitution provides the bedrock for a just legal order, emphasizing justice as a core value in its Preamble. It guarantees fundamental rights, enshrined in Part III, which include the right to equality (Article 14), freedom of speech and expression (Article 19), and protection of life and liberty (Article 21). Together, these articles create a framework where justice is accessible, impartial, and nondiscriminatory.

Article 39A, introduced by the 42nd Amendment in 1976, specifically mandates the state to provide free legal aid and promote justice on the basis of equal opportunity. This provision was aimed at addressing systemic inequalities that hinder access to courts for marginalized communities.

The judiciary's interpretation of these provisions has been instrumental in broadening their applicability. For instance, in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976), the Supreme Court emphasized substantive equality, recognizing the need for affirmative action to ensure equitable access to justice.

Expanding the Scope of Article 21Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, has undergone a remarkable evolution through judicial interpretation. Initially, its scope was limited to protection against executive overreach. However, landmark judgments transformed this right into a repository of various human rights.

1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This case redefined personal liberty by emphasizing the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness in government actions. The Court's decision underscored the interrelationship between Articles 14, 19, and 21, laying the groundwork for a broader understanding of justice.
    
2. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): The Court recognized the right to livelihood as an essential part of the right to life, emphasizing that economic deprivation cannot justify state action that undermines basic human dignity.
    
3. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): The judiciary declared the right to privacy as an intrinsic aspect of personal liberty under Article 21, showcasing its adaptability to contemporary challenges like digital privacy.

Judicial Activism and PIL

Judicial Activism is also alleged to have taken the form of judicial legislation. But it is through this tool, the judiciary has also taken up the Responsibility to fill the legislative vacuum to uphold the rule of law. The silence of the Constitution and the abeyances left to be filled by the growth of conventions within the meaning of the enacted provisions.

This exercise has been performed by the Supreme Court of India in consonance with the constitutional scheme. The progress of the Society is dependent upon proper application of law to its needs and The judiciary must mould and shape the law to deal with such rights and obligations. Initially, the court followed a policy of adhering to a narrow principle and shy away from the law's progress. However, the mere existence of a particular piece of beneficial legislation cannot solve the problems of society at large unless the judges interpret and apply the law to ensure its benefit to the benefactors.

The introduction of PIL in the late 1970s marked a transformative shift in Indian jurisprudence. This mechanism allowed individuals or organizations to approach the courts on behalf of those unable to do so themselves, breaking the barriers of locus standi.

• Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979): This case highlighted the deplorable conditions of undertrial prisoners and led to the enforcement of speedy trials as a component of the right to life.
• Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984): The judiciary intervened to ensure the rehabilitation and freedom of bonded laborers, reaffirming its commitment to socio-economic justice.
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): This landmark case resulted in the establishment of guidelines for preventing workplace sexual harassment, illustrating the judiciary's proactive stance in addressing systemic discrimination.

PIL has extended its reach to diverse issues, including environmental protection, human rights violations, and gender justice, making it a vital tool for democratizing access to justice. Now, any public-spirited citizen can move/approach the court for the public cause (in the interests of the public or public welfare) by filing a petition:

• In the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India;
• In the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;
• In the Court of Magistrate under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Doctrine of Separation

The majority opinion, however, imported the 'essence' of the doctrine of separation of powers and the doctrine of constitutional limitation and trust implicit in the constitutional scheme. A necessary corollary of this principle, as later predicated in Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh was the separation and independence of the judicial branch of the state. Again, in the famous case of Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain37, the doctrine of separation of powers were elevated to the position of a basic feature.

Quasi-Judicial Bodies

A quasi-judicial body is a body which has powers and procedures resembling those of a court of law or judge such as an arbitrator or tribunal board. It is obliged to objectively determine facts and draw conclusions from them to provide the basis of an official action. Their powers are usually limited to a specific area of expertise and authority, such as land use and zoning, financial markets, public standards etc. National Human Rights Commission, National Commission for Women, National Commission for Minorities, etc. are examples of quasi-judicial bodies.

Legal Aid and Procedural Innovations Recognizing that financial constraints often bar access to courts, the judiciary has consistently advocated for free legal aid as a constitutional obligation. In Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the state's responsibility to provide legal assistance to those in custody who cannot afford it, thereby operationalizing Article 39A.

Additionally, procedural innovations such as the relaxation of the locus standi rule have enabled NGOs, social activists, and individuals to file cases on behalf of vulnerable groups. This procedural flexibility ensures that justice is not confined to those with legal expertise or financial resources.

Promoting Human Rights:

The judiciary's role in safeguarding human rights has been pivotal. Cases like Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) addressed the inhumane conditions in prisons, emphasizing rehabilitation over retribution. Similarly, the judiciary has intervened to uphold the dignity of marginalized groups, including women, children, and minorities.

In environmental cases like MC Mehta v. Union of India, the judiciary has underscored the right to a clean and healthy environment as an extension of the right to life. These interventions reflect the judiciary's holistic approach to justice, encompassing not only civil liberties but also socio-economic and environmental concerns.

Environmental and Socio-Economic Justice:

The Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in integrating environmental justice into mainstream legal discourse. In the Oleum Gas Leak case (MC Mehta v. Union of India), the Court introduced the principle of absolute liability, ensuring that industries bear the full burden of environmental damage. This judgment established a precedent for balancing industrial growth with environmental sustainability.

Similarly, the judiciary has intervened in cases addressing socio-economic disparities, such as ensuring the distribution of food grains during times of scarcity, thus directly impacting the lives of the underprivileged.

Challenges and Critiques Despite its achievements, the Indian judiciary faces several challenges in expanding access to justice:

• Judicial Delays: A significant backlog of cases undermines timely justice, disproportionately affecting those who cannot afford prolonged litigation.
• Encroachment Concerns: Critics argue that excessive judicial activism risks encroaching upon the legislative and executive domains, potentially upsetting the balance of power.
• Infrastructure Deficiencies: Inadequate infrastructure and lack of technological integration hinder the judiciary's efficiency, especially in rural areas.

Conclusion
The Indian judiciary has been a steadfast guardian of constitutional values, working tirelessly to expand access to justice for all citizens. By reinterpreting fundamental rights, introducing procedural reforms, and addressing socio-economic inequalities, it has made justice more inclusive and equitable. Thus, while the judiciary has made important and necessary judicial reform interventions to increase access, the focus of its interventions betrays a partial and incomplete understanding of access to justice under the constitutional scheme. By focusing primarily on access to courts, and on questions of resources, the court loses the opportunity to meaningfully engage with the constitutional mandate of creating a just social order.

Rather than viewing access to courts as the be-all securing access to justice, the judicial conceptualization of access to justice should be that of a means to the end of securing social justice. As a way to achieve this ideal, the judiciary should view access to justice not as a goal, progress towards which can be measured in concrete numbers or input/output variables, but as a perspective that should inform all aspects the judicial function — from decision-making on substantive rights, to construction of procedural norms, to fashioning remedies, to the very administration of the judicial set-up.