Recently, the Supreme Court observed that establishing Gram Nyayalayas under a uniform framework across the country may not be practical, as the feasibility varies from state to state. The Court, while examining the Gram Nyayalayas Act 2008, emphasized that state-specific circumstances should guide the establishment of these grassroots-level courts aimed at providing accessible justice. The Court further cautioned states against undue delays in implementing this legislation, reiterating the importance of access to justice for all citizens.
The Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, was enacted by Parliament to bring justice closer to rural citizens, ensuring no one is denied legal remedies due to social or economic barriers. The Act mandates the establishment of Gram Nyayalayas, led by Nyayadhikaris, in consultation with respective state high courts. Despite its statutory basis, many states have delayed or refrained from implementing this Act, citing infrastructure challenges or non-mandatory provisions.
The case arose from a plea filed by the NGO National Federation of Societies for Fast Justice, seeking directions to the Centre and all states to establish Gram Nyayalayas as envisioned under the Act. The petitioner argued that the lack of implementation has deprived rural citizens of accessible justice.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, contended that the non-establishment of Gram Nyayalayas contradicts the legislative intent behind the Act. Highlighting the severe backlog of cases across courts in India, he argued that no state could claim its existing judicial infrastructure is adequate to meet the growing caseload. Bhushan emphasized the need for immediate directions to states to comply with the statutory provisions and establish functional Gram Nyayalayas without further delay.
The Supreme Court bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan acknowledged the petitioner’s concerns but highlighted the challenges of implementing Gram Nyayalayas uniformly across states. The bench underscored that “a straitjacket formula” cannot apply to the entire country due to significant differences in state-specific circumstances. The Court observed that the practicality of establishing Gram Nyayalayas varies greatly between states, it noted, “The situation will depend from state to state. For instance, in some north-eastern states, alternative traditional justice systems exist, and the workload of formal courts may not justify additional infrastructure”. The bench further remarked that in areas where such traditional systems are effective, the workload may not necessitate new courts under the Gram Nyayalayas Act.
Regarding the national capital, the Court noted the unique challenge of having no gram panchayats which form the basis for Gram Nyayalayas. The bench highlighted, “The counsel appearing for the Delhi government stated that Gram Nyayalayas are not required to be established here as there are no gram panchayats in the national capital”. This observation reflects the Court’s acknowledgement of the practical impossibility of implementing the Act uniformly in such regions.
The Court observed that several states have cited various reasons for not implementing the Act. Some states argued that the Act was not mandatory, and therefore, they were not obligated to establish Gram Nyayalayas. Others contended that their existing judicial infrastructure was sufficient to handle the current caseload, making additional courts unnecessary, the Court remarked, “While some states have claimed that the Act is not mandatory, others have submitted that their infrastructure suffices, negating the need for additional Gram Nyayalayas. These submissions require careful examination based on state-specific realities”. The Court stressed the need for accountability and directed states to provide detailed information regarding judicial infrastructure and population coverage. It emphasized, “We clarify that in the event any of the state governments fail to comply with the aforesaid directions within a period of 12 weeks from today, we shall be constrained to take serious view of the matter and take such action as deemed appropriate against the chief secretary of the state concerned”.
The Top Court directed the chief secretaries of all states to file affidavits within 12 weeks, detailing district-wise judge-to-population ratios and other information outlined in the questionnaire prepared by the amicus curiae. The Court reiterated that the responsibility for implementing the Gram Nyayalayas Act rests with the states in consultation with their respective high courts. The matter has been adjourned for further consideration after 14 weeks, allowing time for states to submit their compliance reports and address the pending issues.
Picture Source :
