Constitutional vision to access to justice in India
What justice is? and why one wants access to it? are important question which need to be addressed in introductory part of the literature. Justice is a concept of rightness, fairness based on ethics, moral, religion and rationality. Laws made by sovereign body strive for achieving justice to various section of the society; courts are established for eradicating injustice by reprimanding for violation of this laws and in some cases providing remedy to aggrieved person

When we talk of Access to justice in its general term, it means that individual’s access to court for getting justice. It has some fundamental elements such as identification and recognition of grievance, awareness and legal advice or assistance, accessibility to court or claim for relief, adjudication of grievance, enforcement of relief, of course this may be the ultimate goal of a litigant public.

Justice is important, as it restores a sense of equal citizenship and humanity, forces acknowledgement of the suffering, and prevents recurrence. To work in order to secure justice to each and every section of the society is one of the most important goal of a successful state . In Indian context securing justice to the citizens has been kept on supreme priority, since constitution is drafted by the peoples which lays down the formation of state and direct it to do its function keeping in mind basic principles enshrined in the constitution. Preamble to the Indian constitution also talks about achieving social economic political justice as its goal.

Constitutional provisions for securing justice
India became free from British rule after a long battle for independence, and finally we attained our long-awaited desire for self-rule. Our founding father drafted for us basic rule for governance of the country in the form of constitution. Major task of constitution assembly was to provide to us a vehicle of national progress which reflects best from past experience, catering the need of present and also at the same time having enough resilience to cope up with the demand of coming future.

Framers of the constitution while keeping in mind bitter experience of the past made ample provisions for achieving social, economic and political justice to all the section of society, for the same reason they devoted chapters on fundamental right and directive principle in the constitution. Social justice was the major plank for Dr. Ambedkar, and even while introducing the draft of Constitution in the Constituent Assembly, he pointed out that with this Constitution we are entering the era of ‘one man one vote’, i.e. political democracy, but the social democracy seems to be still a goal not very easy to achieve.

The Preamble aims at securing to all citizens Justice: social, economic and political. Though it is not easy to give a precise meaning of the term justice, by and large, it can be stated that the idea of justice is equated with equity and fairness. Social justice, therefore, would mean that all sections of society, irrespective of caste, creed, sex, place of birth, religion or language, would be treated equally and no one would be discriminated on any of these grounds. Similarly, economic justice would mean that all the natural resources of the country would be equally available to all the citizens and no one would suffer from any undeserved want. Similarly, Political justice entitles all the citizens equal political rights such as right to vote, right to contest elections and right to hold public office etc.

Fundamental rights mentioned in the third chapter include in its content certain basic rights which every individual enjoys being a part of free nation, it tries to ensure that minimum standards that are required for survival with dignity and respect are not taken away.

Directive principle of state policy were formulated to lay down directives for the state. In word of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar

Because we did not wanted merely a parliamentary form of Government to the instituted through the various mechanisms provided in the Constitution, without any direction as to what our economic ideal, as to what our social order ought to be, we deliberately included the Directive Principles in our Constitution The word 'strive' which occurs in the Draft Constitution, in judgment, is very important. We have used it because our intention is even when there are circumstances which prevent the Government, or which stand in the way of the Government giving effect to these Directive Principles, they shall, even under hard and unpropitious circumstances, always strive in the fulfillment of these Directives. That .is why we have used the word 'strive'. Otherwise, it would be open for any Government to say that the circumstances are so bad, that the finances are so inadequate that we cannot even make an effort in the direction in which the Constitution asks us to go.

The judicially enforceable fundamental rights provisions of the Indian Constitution are set forth in part III in order to distinguish them from the non-justifiable directive principles set forth in part IV, which establish the inspirational goals of economic justice and social transformation. It means Constitution does not provide any judicial remedy when directive principles are not followed but in the word of Dr. Ambedikar

State may not have to answer for their breach in a Court of Law. But will certainly have to answer for them before the electorate at election time.

One of our directive principle also talks about free legal aid it says, state shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a 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 are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. Such provision became part of our constitution keeping in view immense poverty in the country, where significant portion of population find it difficult to arrange for their basic needs such as food and clothing, in such situation how could the peoples think of indulging in costly and time taking litigation when their rights are violated .

Constitution provided for safeguards when the provisions of fundamental right are violated by the state in the form of right to constitution remedy to move directly to the Supreme court or High courts under article 32.This is most unique feature of the Indian Constitution. The provision of the article states that:

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part [Part-III] is guaranteed.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.

In the Constituent Assembly Debates Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar once said, ‘if I am asked which is the most important provision of the Indian Constitution, without which the Constitution would not survive I would point to none other than article 32 which is the soul of the Indian Constitution. In addition to this Constitution includes Article 226 which gives claimant the opportunity to file suit in high court, when there is a violation of fundamental right or a right guaranteed by statute.

In our constitution scheme High court and Supreme court have been depicted as guardian of fundamental right they have been bestowed with power to make void any law passed by state and union legislature violating any fundamental right as per article 13 enshrined in the constitution.

Inclusive growth demands that all social groups have equal access to the services provided by the State and equal opportunity for upward economic and social mobility, it is also necessary to ensure that there is no discrimination against any section of the society. In India, certain social groups have remained disadvantageous while drafting the constitution due deliberation was done on the topic and suitable safeguards have been incorporate

Ever since the introduction of the constitutional reforms of 1909, which instituted separate electorates for Muslims, religious minorities had been the prime beneficiaries of the colonial state’s policies of group preference. In constitutional drafts and deliberations, political safeguards encompassed provisions for reserved seats in legislatures, quotas in government employment, reserved posts in the cabinet and the creation of administrative machinery to ensure supervision and protection of minority rights. All the minority groups hitherto preferred were included within the ambit of these provisions in the initial proposals and in the first draft of the Constitution, published in 1948. In a remarkable reversal, however, by the final draft religious minorities were excluded from the purview of all political safeguards, which came to be restricted mainly to the ‘scheduled castes’ and the ‘scheduled tribes’ and were regarded as legitimate only for the specific purpose of ameliorating the social and economic disabilities of backward sections. As the maintenance of a political balance between different communities was regarded as an unacceptable basis for minority safeguards in the Congress nationalist vision, the case for safeguards for religious minorities became weakened.

Even though political safeguard were not provided to the minority, various provisions were made to safeguard their interest, some specific fundamental rights were formulated to secure their existence with dignity. The Preamble to the Constitution declares the State to be ‘Secular’ and this is a special relevance for the Religious Minorities.

The individual and collective growth can only be ensured with improving the surroundings and providing clean drinking water, toilets and educational opportunities. The Constitution of India guarantees protection from social injustice and all forms of exploitation (Art. 46). It guarantees equality before law (Art. 14), and enjoins upon the State not to discriminate against any citizen on grounds of caste (Art. 15 (1)). Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden (Art. 17). The Constitution mandates that no citizen shall, on grounds only of caste or race, be subjected to any disability and restriction (Art. 15 (2)). It empowers the State to make provisions for reservation in educational institutions (Art. 15 (4) and 15(5)), and in appointments for posts in favour of SCs (Art. 16 (4), 16(4A), 16(4B) and Art. 335). Reservation of seats for SCs in the Lok Sabha is provided under Article 330, in the State Assemblies under Article 332 and in the Local Self-Governments bodies under Articles 243D and 340.

Where we have reached
Unlike the experience of many other newly independent countries, the prospects for democracy in India have not shrunk but grown since Independence, number of legislation and judicial pronouncement have came into picture which tries to secure sprite of justice enshrined in the constitution. However, most of the conflicts and crises in our system can be traced to this fundamental contradiction: political democracy coexisting with concentration of wealth and economic inequalities.

In the early years after Independence, the vision set out in the Constitution was articulated by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru whose contribution to the building of a modern, secular country was a pivotal one, even though the Congress party today pays scant heed to his legacy. Nehru set out the test for public policy: The first thing is the good of the Indian masses and everything will be judged by that standard. How do the millions of India benefit or prosper? —that is the real test of any policy, economic, political or otherwise, that we may put forward.

But the Nehruvian vision, however sincere and relevant, foundered on the class realities of developing capitalism without a democratic social transformation. The failure to implement land reforms and confront head-on the feudal forces was one glaring instance. It crippled the possibilities of creating a socially just economic order. Six decades after Independence, this unfinished task perpetuates the grossly exploitative socio-economic order in the countryside. India has the largest mass of rural poor in the world, who are trapped in the blighted cycle of poverty, malnutrition, disease, and deprivation. The political system today, which has increasingly distorted the original vision of the freedom movement, is more or less indifferent to the spectacle of peasant suicides, growing malnutrition with falling per capita intake of food grains, and the looming threat to food security.

The secular principle of the Indian state, which is also embedded in the democratic political system, has been under serious assault since the fifth decade of Independence. This challenge mounted by the Hindutva forces still exists given the penetration of these forces in the institutions of the state during their stint in power. As a consequence of this erosion of secularism, large sections of the minorities have never felt fully secure and have been subjected to periodic violence. The political system has survived such anti-secular assaults but creeping communalism continues to weaken its secular basis.

The Constitution treats all citizens as being equal and provides them equal protection under the law. Yet, Illiteracy, lack of financial resources and social backwardness hinder common person from accessing justice. There are other invisible barriers: lack of courage to exercise legal rights, the proclivity to suffer silently the denial of rights, and geographical and spatial barriers are examples. Such barriers keep people disempowered and subjected to exploitation by powerful people. One of the reason why most of the people in our country are unable to access justice is due to slow and sluggish speed of disposal of litigation.

One more reasons for popular dissatisfaction with the administration of justice is the uncertainty of law which sometimes results in miscarriage of justice. The multiplicity of interpretations, the inadequacies of legislative drafting, ambiguities in policies and the variety of languages in which transactions are made add to the confusion and make repeated litigation inevitable. The use of simple English is now being canvassed in Common Law countries for legislative drafting and legal documentation. In the United States, complex and ambiguous laws have been simplified, codified and re-stated by the American Law Institute for the convenience of the legal community and the litigant public. In India, the problem persisted, alienating people from the law itself and providing litigants and advocates their heyday to often delay and manipulate the process to their advantage.

Recent developments to secure justice in society
Till now we have not stood on the aspiration of the millions of the peoples who while drafting the constitution wanted society to be free from all modern day evils like corruption, communalism etc. Our position in terms of providing access to justice to all the section of society is detrimental, there is rampant need to take steps which can rescue our country from the worsening situation and helping in regaining faith of millions of our population.

Right to Speedy Trail
Speedy trial is the essence of criminal justice and delay in trial by itself constitutes denial of justice. It is interesting to note that in the United States speedy trial is one of the constitutionally guaranteed rights, beside this Speedy Trail Act 1974, was also enacted for imparting speedy justice.

The justice P.N. Bhagwati in Kadra Pehadiya vs. State of Bihar said ``It is a crying shame upon our adjudicatory system which keeps men in jail for years on end without a trial.'' The court in a compassionate expression observed ``... no one shall be allowed to be confined in jail for more than a reasonable period of time, which we think cannot and should not exceed one year for a session trial ... we fail to understand why our justice system has become so dehumanised that lawyers and judges do not feel a sense of revolt at caging people in jail for years without trial.''

Justice Krishna Iyer while dealing with the bail petition in Babu Singh v. State of UP, remarked, "Our justice system even in grave cases, suffers from slow motion syndrome which is lethal to 'fair trial' whatever the ultimate decision. Speedy justice is a component of social justice since the community, as a whole, is concerned in the criminal being condignly and finally punished within a reasonable time and the innocent being absolved from the inordinate ordeal of criminal proceedings."

In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar which formed the basis of the concept of the Speedy Trial, it was held that where under trial prisoners have been in jail for duration longer than prescribed, if convicted, their detention in jail is totally unjustified and in violation to fundamental rights under article 21. Court said, expeditious rights is a basic right to everybody and cannot be trampled upon unless any of the parties can be accused of the delay, delay in trial unnecessarily confers a right upon the accused to apply for bail.

Under sec. 482 read with 483, Cr. P.C lays that every possible measure to be taken to dispose off the case within 6months. No adjournments to be granted until and unless circumstances are beyond the control of judiciary. It is the responsibility of the judiciary to keep a check on under trial prisoners and bring them to trial. Overcrowded courts, inadequate resources, fiscal deficiency cannot be the reasons for deprivation of a person.

In the case Katar Singh v. State of Punjab it was declared that right to speedy trial is an essential part of fundamental right to life and liberty. In the case Abdul RahmanAntulay v. R.S. Nayak , the bench declared certain aspects and guidelines regarding the speedy trial and quashing of cases should depend upon nature of the case.

Right to free legal aid
Concept of legal aid can be witnessed in the 40th paragraph of the Magna Carta, which says
To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.

Our constitution provides for free legal aid as a right of every individual who due to financial or any other reason can not afford lawyer. In this regard following article of the constitution can be cited-
Article 14 guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws. Equality before law necessarily involves the concept that all the parties to a legal proceeding must have an equal opportunity of access to the court and of presenting their cases to the court. For the indigent, who are unable to meet their economic needs, the justice access to the court would remain a myth because their inability to pay court fee and lawyer's fees etc. would also deny him access to the court. Therefore, under Article 14, rendering legal services to the poor litigant is not just a problem of procedural law but a question of a fundamental character. The inequality, instead of being lessened, has enormously increased in a welfare State which has spawned legislation of such complexity that the citizen often finds it difficult to know what his rights are and even more difficult, unless he has ample means, to defend them in a court.

Article 21 asserts the right to life and personal liberty. This right cannot be taken away except by procedure established by law. Procedure should be just fair and reasonable. Right to hearing is an integral part of natural justice. If the right to counsel is essential to fair trial then it is equally important to see that the accused has sufficient means to defend themselves. It has been observed and re-observed by the Apex Court of the Country that an accused person at least where the charge is of an offence punishable with imprisonment is entitled to be offered legal aid, if he is too poor to afford counsel. Further counsel for the accused must be given time and facility for preparing the defense. Breach of these safeguards of fair trial would invalidate the trial and conviction, even if the accused did not ask for legal aid.

Article 22(1) provides that a person arrested should not be detained in custody without being informed of the grounds for such arrest and should not be denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L.Dani is an important case on this proposition.

Article 38 urges that the State should strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may be a social order in which justice: social, economic and political shall inform all the institutions of national life.

Article 39A of the Constitution, provides for equal justice and free legal aid. It commands the state to secure that the operation of legal system promotes justice, on a 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 the opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason economic or other disabilities. Article 39 A of the Constitution of India provides for equal justice and free legal aid. It is, therefore clear that the State has been ordained to secure a legal system, which promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity. In M.H.Hoskot’s case the Supreme Court did not hesitate to imply this right in Article 22(1) and Article 21 jointly while pressing into service application of a Directive Principle of State Policy under Article 39-A of Equal Justice and free legal aid.

After Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, courts in India widened their perspective with respect to the civil liberties. While disclosing shocking state of affairs and callousness of our legal and judicial system causing enormous misery and sufferings to the poor and illiterate citizens resulting into totally unjustified deprivation of personal liberty, Justice P.N. Bhagwati, made following observations:-"This unfortunate situation cries aloud for introduction of an adequate and comprehensive legal service programmes, but so far, these cries do not seem to have evoked any response. 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 programme to provide free legal services to them."

In the opinion of justice Bhagwati in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar The procedure under which a person may be deprived of his life or liberty should be 'reasonable fair and just.' Free legal services to the poor and the needy is an essential element of any 'reasonable fair and just' procedure. Article 39A also emphasizes that free legal service is an inalienable element of 'reasonable, fair and just’ procedure for without it a person suffering from economic or other disabilities would be deprived of the opportunity for securing justice. The right to free legal service is therefore, clearly an essential ingredient of 'reasonable, fair and just' procedure for a person accused of, an offence and it must be held implicit in the guarantee of Art. 21. 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.

Justice Bhagwati in the same case directed government of introducing a dynamic and comprehensive legal services program , since this is not only a mandate of equal justice implicit in Art. 14 and right to life and liberty conferred by Art. 21 but also the compulsion of the constitutional directive embodies in Art. 39A.

Other provisions relating to legal aid can also be seen in our country they are-
1 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 304 provides that where in a trial before the Court of Session, the accused is not represented by a pleader and where it appears to the court that the accused has not sufficient means to engage a pleader, the Court shall assign a pleader for his defence at the expense of the State; and the section further empowers the State Government to extend the application of the above provision in relation to any class or trials before other courts in the State.

2. Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 33 provides for filing of suits by indigent persons. It enables persons who are too poor to pay court-fees and allows them to institute suits without payment of requisite court fees.

3. Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 8. Everyone has the right or an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted by the Constitution or by law.

4. International Covenant on Civil and Political Right
Article 14(3) guarantees to everyone:
The right to be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of his right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him in any case where the interests of justice shall require, and without payment by him any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it.

Making the law clear and unambiguous
Recently released three Restatement volumeson three different legal subjects prepared by a committee headed by senior Supreme Court judge R.V. Raveendran (since retired) and published by the Indian Law Institute. The volumes are on various themes which have for long been discussed in the public domain without any clarity or certainty on where the law stands for guidance of the people who are supposed to know it in any case.

The Restatement Series, which the Supreme Court started with, included Legislative Privileges, Contempt of Court and Public Interest Litigation. The event marked a quiet revolution in the simplification, clarification, consolidation and dissemination of the law authoritatively. It is all the more significant that the project was initiated without any public funding and through the voluntary contribution of time and expertise by the contributors, consultants, editors and publishers. Restatement is intended to be an authoritative neutral statement of the law on the subject, identifying and removing uncertainties and ambiguities surrounding the legal principles and clarifying the current law for its better adaptation to the needs of society. The subjects are areas of Indian law where there is need for clarity and simplicity benefiting not only the legal community but, more importantly, civil servants and the general public. Care is taken to avoid views and opinions on what the law ought to be and to make the propositions purely based on statutes and judicial pronouncements so that the Restatement is an authoritative reproduction of current law which can be acted upon by lawyers and judges whenever differing judgments from different jurisdictions offer diverse interpretations on the same issue. Thus, it can save judicial time and expedite disposal of cases. Lawyers may not have to carry or cite multiple decisions or run the risk of overlooking judgments; nor need judges be afraid of being misguided by overruled propositions or amended statutory provisions.

Such kind of steps are very important for government to undertake since they will help in making the law clear and certain and will hence play an important role in enhancing access to justice to various section of the society.

Making access to justice as Fundamental Right
Access to justice is recognized as a prominent and fundamental right, in several international documents. In India, the National Commission to Review the Working of Constitution (NCRWC), constituted in the 50th year of Independence, in its final report suggested for incorporation of this right as fundamental rights by incorporating Art.30 A, in the Constitution, in following terms,

30 A. 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 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 deemed to include the right to reasonably speedy and effective justice in all matters before the courts, tribunal or other for and state shall take all reasonable steps to achieve the said objectives.

Conclusion
Every government has one major role to play in democracy that is to protect the rights of all its citizens. In our country also steps are been taken by both parliament and judiciary to secure justice. Many Government schemes were started for removing poverty across the country, Scholarships were given to weaker section of society so that they can pursue their education without any financial burden, many important legislation were passed. Indian judiciary which is well regarded domestically and internationally for its progressive role in interpreting various provisions of the Constitution also took its work remarkably with a view to promote social, economic and political justice to all the sections of the society. Expanding the interpretation of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, overcoming restrictions based on rules relating to locus standi, creating new avenues for seeking remedies for human rights violations through public interest litigation pleas and promoting genuine judicial interventions in the areas of child labour, bonded labour, clean and healthy environment, and women’s rights are a few examples of successful judicial intervention to uphold the rule of law and ensure justice. Despite of all this effort, at the same time it can’t be denied that intention of constitution to achieve social, economic and political justice is yet unfulfilled.

In conclusion it will be important to stress, that India has not the shortage of laws for securing justice, it has only the shortage of commitment for implementation of the laws. It will be very beneficial for political elite to understand that no country can be called as developed in true sense until it secure justice to each and every section of society. It should also be remembered that it is not only the responsibility of political elite to work for achieving justice to all the section of the society, in fact it is duty of every Indian to assist his country man so that justice can be secured to every section of the society.

End-Notes
# NCERT Book on Indian Constitution
# Dated 19th November 1948 during constitution assembly debate:
# Constitution assembly debate 4th may 1948
# In addition to this, Parliament has enacted the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, renamed as Protection of Civil Rights Act, in 1976. To check and deter atrocities against SCs, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has also been enacted.
# AIR 1981 SC 939 b, 1981 (29) BLJR 300, 1981 CriLJ 481
# 1979 AIR 1369, 1979 SCR (3) 532
# As per the judgment in Meneka Gandhi v UOI.
# Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar
# A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1025.
# Inserted by 42nd Amendment of the Constitution in 1976
# A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1548.
# AIR 1978 SC 597
# 1979 AIR 1369, 1979 SCR (3) 532
# Released On October 11 2011 by Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia