The justice system in any democracy is set up, under the Constitution to serve the public without “fear or favour, affection or ill-will” as far as judges are concerned. The Indian Judiciary plays an increasingly important role in the life and the governance of this country.

Present Status of Indian Judiciary:

Issues of Access to Justice:

• Distance factor: Under Article 130, the Supreme Court can sit in other places to deliver justice. In fact, around a decade ago, the Central Government advised the Supreme Court to sit in other places, but, the Supreme Court decided against the idea. It was felt that the authority of the Supreme Court would get diluted.
• Strain on resources: the Supreme Court sitting only in Delhi has resulted in excellent lawyers from other High Courts not appearing before the Supreme Court, possibly because it casts too large a monetary burden on their clients, many of whom are being middle class and lower-middle class.
• Expensive affair: All lawyers, whatever their calibre or competence, who happen to be in Delhi now appear in the Supreme Court. Some of the good lawyers who were able to leave lucrative practices in the High Courts have settled down in Delhi, but they have established a monopoly. As a result, charge unconscionable fees even from charitable concerns sometimes even when they do not appear at the hearing.
• Over-Burdened SC: the Supreme Court in Delhi has been flooded with work and been reduced to a District Court instead of a Court of Final Appeal and Constitutional Court as envisaged under the Constitution.
• Unethical lawyers: Some of the lawyers specialising in victim compensation cases thus take huge money as a percentage of compensation amount awarded towards victim compensation. Such a practice is frustrating the whole purpose of victim compensation. The procedure is similar to that adopted by some advocates dealing with Motor Accident Claim Cases under Section 166 (application for compensation) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
• Ineffective Bar Councils: the disciplinary powers available to Bar Councils both in Delhi and in States are more often than not ineffective. Some are politically motivated and some States do not have disciplinary committees at all.

Measures needed:

• The Supreme Court should reconsider setting up Benches in different States in keeping with the recommendations of the Law Commissions (125th Report and 229th Report).
• The Bar Council of India should exercise its powers under the Advocates Act, 1961 more effectively. If not, the disciplinary jurisdiction must be returned to the judiciary as was the position prior to the Advocates Act, 1961 by repealing the 1961 Act.
• Lawyers should be made irrelevant by referring more cases to trained mediators, as the Supreme Court has done in the Ayodhya dispute.
• Alternate dispute Resolution mechanism can be looked into which reduces the cost, time and efforts.
• Initiatives like Tele-law through CSCs can make legal aid easily accessible to the marginalized communities and citizens living in rural areas.
• Common Service Centre (CSC) can engage Para Legal Volunteers (PLV), who will be the first point of contact for the rural citizens and will help them in understanding the legal issues, explain the advice given by lawyers and assist in further action required in cases as per the advice of the lawyer.

Conclusion:

Self-realisation is the first step towards change. The Supreme Court has an ideal opportunity to brainstorm on this. In this connection, former judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, sitting judges and academic luminaries can be a part of the process.