COVID-19's Unseen Impact: How Access to Justice in India is Suffering
By Amartya Sahastranshu Singh and Atika Chaturvedi
Pandemic-induced unemployment has deteriorated economic conditions of the Indian people, which has led to a rise in criminal activities across the country. Recent research by Granthalayah revealed how people resort to criminal activities for their own survival. Even offenses such as domestic violence, cyber-crimes, child abuse, and counterfeiting medical products have escalated substantially. The nation’s capital itself witnessed a 63% rise in crime against women and a 30-40% rise in street and motor vehicle crimes. However, the administration was inefficient in addressing the issue. The failure of governing and adjudicating the matter led to the debacle of the “right to access of justice” of the people, which is their fundamental right, namely the Right to Equality and Right to life.
To begin with, the filing of First Information Reports (FIRs) was a problem. FIR is the initial document recorded by a police officer from an aggrieved person or any other person about the commission of an alleged offense. During lockdown, the lack of transportation services, contamination of public areas, and fear of disease made it tough for people to file complaints in police stations. This was substantiated in research conducted by Prof. Upendra Baxi in a village where he examined the Lok Adalat system (local alternate dispute resolution system authorized under the Legal Services Authorities Act (1987). He found that there were no sustainable support systems that helped people in reaching out to police or courts for their grievances. Moreover, the online facility of FIRs was also questionable as the Unstarred Question No. 2737 (2021), addressed to the Union Home Minister (in the lower house), mentioned that in the cases of cyber-crimes, only 5,771 FIRs were filed against 317,439 complaints.
Additionally, the courts suspended in-person matters, later resuming for virtual hearings in the matters of “extreme urgency” only. Although the virtual courts were set up per the tabulated recommendations of the 103rd report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee, there was no consensus stipulating the parameters of what constitutes urgency. The discretion to discern the “urgency of a case” was bestowed upon the presiding judge. Also, no record was kept for the number of petitions that had requested for urgent hearing, which added to the ambiguity in the court’s functioning. This arbitrariness was even emphasized by the Bar Council of India via a letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India, pointing out that only 2% of the cases petitioned by the lawyers under the “urgent” category were listed for a virtual court hearing, the criteria for which was unknown.
Furthermore, the shift from physical to virtual courts was not well received. The lack of civilian digital literacy coupled with poor quality of internet access, power cuts, inadequate audio and video facilities, and other technological glitches severely handicapped the judicial machinery. The Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association (SCAORA) also expressed their concerns to the Chief Justice. While these problems have been acknowledged, no progressive steps have been taken to resolve them yet.
Apart from this, the economic crunch made it hard for people to finance a case for judicial redress. In this time of need, free legal aid would have helped many. Even Article 39A of the Indian Constitution calls for free legal aid to the weaker section of society, ensuring justice to all. However, with no steady support from the government and most of the courts shut down while only hearing “urgent” matters, it became difficult for various lawyers to subsist this economic turmoil. Research reveals that previously, the problem with free legal aid was the under-utilization of resources allotted for it. But in recent times, the issue lies in the deficient state funding due to the crushed economy. It has resulted in legal aid lawyers frequently not showing up for hearings or forcing the aggrieved party to pay money.
In conclusion, access to justice was unavailable during Covid-19. The suspension of in-person court proceedings, improper functioning of virtual courts, and arbitrary approach to “urgent” cases, were exacerbated by a lack of legal aid support, culminating in a facade of justice. Thus, the steps taken by the courts, as well as the government, were insufficient and led to the violation of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution (the guaranteed right to equality and life respectively). People would have received better access to justice if the courts had properly defined the criteria for urgent cases, more focus were given towards legal service funding and corporate social responsibility, and if the state encouraged services like tele-law and mobile courts. Though some states like Bihar and Maharashtra did implement these reforms, justice was unavailable in most parts of the country. The result is a gross violation of fundamental and constitutional rights of people across the country not only by the government authorities but also by the protector and guardian of our constitution, the judiciary.
Amartya Sahastranshu Singh is a Third Year Student in National University of Study and Research in Law at Ranchi, India. His research interests lie in Criminal and Constitutional Law.
Atika Chaturvedi is a Fourth Year Student in National University of Study and Research in Law at Ranchi, India. Her research interests lie in International and Criminal Law.
Photo is by “My Dream Collection” and is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0
