LLM Notes: Case Analysis of landmark Supreme Court Judgment on access to justice : Anita Kushwaha v. Pushpa Sadan (2016) in IRAC format

 This landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India established "access to justice" as a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Below is the analysis of the case using the IRAC method.

Issue

The primary issue in this case was:

• Whether "access to justice" is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, and if so, what are its essential components?

• Whether the denial of access to justice infringes upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (right to life) of the Constitution.

Rule

The Supreme Court laid down the following principles:

1. Access to Justice as a Fundamental Right: The Court held that access to justice is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 and equality before law under Article 14.

2. Four Essential Components of Access to Justice:

   • Effective Adjudicatory Mechanisms: The state must ensure that legal frameworks for dispute resolution are in place.

   • Reasonable Accessibility: Courts and adjudicatory mechanisms must be geographically accessible to citizens.

   • Speedy Adjudication: Delays in justice delivery undermine the rule of law; hence, timely resolution is critical.

   • Affordability: Legal processes must be economically feasible for all, ensuring inclusivity.

The Court emphasized that these principles are essential for upholding the constitutional promise of justice for all.

Analysis

Facts of the Case

The case arose from several transfer petitions filed before the Supreme Court seeking transfer of civil cases from or to Jammu and Kashmir due to difficulties faced by litigants in accessing justice in that region. These difficulties included geographical remoteness, lack of infrastructure, and delays in adjudication.

Court's Observations

1. The Court observed that "life" under Article 21 is not limited to physical existence but includes a bundle of rights that make life meaningful. Denial of access to justice adversely affects these rights.

2. It noted that Article 14 guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws, which includes access to courts and adjudicatory mechanisms.

3. The Court highlighted systemic barriers such as geographical distance, procedural delays, and high litigation costs, which obstruct access to justice for many citizens.

Precedents Cited

• Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979): The Court had previously recognized speedy trial as an integral part of Article 21.

• Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1988): Emphasized that procedural fairness is essential for access to justice.

Impact

The judgment established a near-exhaustive definition of access to justice, linking it directly with constitutional guarantees. It also reinforced the state's obligation to ensure affordable and effective judicial systems.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court concluded that access to justice is indeed a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It directed that judicial systems must be effective, accessible, speedy, and affordable to fulfill this constitutional mandate. This judgment serves as a cornerstone for judicial reforms aimed at removing systemic barriers and ensuring inclusivity in India's justice delivery system.

By recognizing access to justice as a constitutional right, this case has significantly strengthened the framework for protecting citizens' rights against systemic inequities in legal processes.

Print Page