ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR MARGINALIZED
COMMUNITIES: A SOCIO LEGAL PERSPECTIVE
This Article is written by - Supriya Chandra, 1st
year (2nd semester) from SS Khanna Girls’ Degree College, UoA,
Prayagraj
Abstract
Access to justice is a keystone of the
rule of law and an essential component of a functional democracy. However, for
marginalized communities in Indiasuch as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,
women, religious minorities, persons with disabilities, and the economically
deprived, access to justice remains a distant ideal. This article explores the
multifaceted challenges that hinder these communities from obtaining equal
justice and examines the role of law and the judiciary in addressing this
social imbalance. By adopting a socio-legal lens, the article integrates statutory
analysis, judicial pronouncements, and policy perspectives to demonstrate how
systemic exclusion can be countered. It argues for inclusive legal reforms,
proactive institutional mechanisms, and greater societal awareness to make
justice accessible and meaningful for all.
| Keywords |
Access to Justice, Marginalized
Communities, Legal Aid, Socio-Legal Perspective, Public Interest Litigation,
Social Justice, Caste Discrimination, Gender Justice, Legal Empowerment, Rule
of Law.
Introduction
"The first duty of society is
justice."
— Alexander Hamilton
Justice lies at the heart of any
democratic society, and its equitable delivery is essential to the legitimacy
of constitutional governance. In India, while the Constitution guarantees
justice: social, economic, and politicalunder its Preamble, this promise
remains largely unfulfilled for marginalized communities. Legal structures
appear sound on paper, yet their accessibility is severely hindered by
socio-economic and institutional barriers.
Access to justice extends beyond the
right to enter a courtroom; it includes the ability to secure fair
representation, timely redress, and equal protection under the law. For
communities marginalized by caste, class, gender, disability, or geography,
these rights often remain out of reach due to poverty, lack of legal literacy,
systemic discrimination, and procedural delays. Despite progressive judicial
pronouncements and legislative developments, the justice system frequently
fails to serve the interests of the most vulnerable.
Viewing law through a socio-legal
perspective highlights its interaction with societal dynamics, prompting
reflection on how formal rights are experienced in everyday life. It reveals
that justice is not merely a legal entitlement but a social good, requiring
inclusive institutions and participatory governance. Legal aid, although
constitutionally mandated, is often tokenistic and under-resourced,
highlighting the need for substantial reform.
This article explores the challenges
that hinder access to justice for India’s marginalized groups, critically
examining the role of the judiciary, the limitations of existing legal aid
mechanisms, and the need for systemic transformation. Achieving meaningful
justice necessitates not only legal reform but also a societal commitment to
empathy, equity, and empowerment.
Understanding Marginalization and
Justice
Marginalized groups in India include
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, religious and linguistic minorities,
women, transgender persons, persons with disabilities, and economically weaker
sections. The effects of this exclusion manifest not only in their everyday
lives but also in their restricted ability to access legal remedies when their
rights are violated.
Access to justice involves more than
mere entry into a courtroom. It includes legal awareness, accessibility,
affordability, timely resolution, and enforceable decisions. Without these
elements, justice becomes a theoretical concept rather than a lived reality. In
practical terms, individuals from marginalized communities often lack awareness
about their rights, cannot afford legal services, or fear reprisal from
dominant social groups.
Further, the lack of legal identity
documents such as Aadhaar or ration cards frequently becomes a barrier for
economically disadvantaged persons to even register a complaint or approach a
government authority. This issue particularly affects nomadic tribes, street
dwellers, migrant workers, and internally displaced populations.
Constitutional and Legislative
Framework
The Indian Constitution provides robust
guarantees for access to justice. Article 14 guarantees equal legal
status and protection of all. Article 15 prohibits discrimination on
various grounds including caste, religion, and sex. Article 21
guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which the judiciary has
interpreted to include the right to legal aid and fair trial. Article 39A,
added by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, explicitly directs the State
to promote justice by providing free legal aid.[1]
Numerous statutes have operationalized
these constitutional guarantees. The Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987
established a systematic framework for delivering free legal aid by setting up
NALSA and corresponding state bodies.Statutes like the Protection of Civil
Rights Act, 1955, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, play an essential role in confronting caste-based
discrimination and shielding marginalized communities from systemic injustices.[2]
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 offers civil remedies
and speedy relief mechanisms to women victims of abuse.[3]
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 ensures access to courts and
legal institutions through barrier-free infrastructure and communication.[4]
Another critical piece of legislation is
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which ensures
child-friendly procedures and sets up dedicated mechanisms for child welfare, reinforcing
the child’s right to access justice in a fostering environment.
Judicial Approachto Accessto Justice
The judiciary has played a pivotal role
in enhancing access to justice. In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of
Bihar (1980), the Supreme Court declared that the right to free
legal aid and speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21.[5] In
Khatri v. State of Bihar(1981), the Court held that the
State must provide legal aid to indigent accused persons even if they do not
demand it.[6]
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has
emerged as a key tool to ensure justice for those who cannot afford to approach
the courts. In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India
(1982), the Court recognized the right of workers to minimum wages
and safe working conditions, emphasizing that non-enforcement of statutory
rights is a denial of constitutional rights.[7]
Similarly, in Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986), the
Court laid down procedural safeguards for children in custodial institutions,
asserting that justice must be humane and responsive.[8]
Another landmark case, Bandhua
Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, focused on bonded labourers and
redefined the scope of Article 21 by emphasizing dignity and humane
working conditions. The Court used socio-legal surveys and NGO reports as
evidence, marking a departure from strict evidentiary norms. This demonstrated
the Court’s flexibility when dealing with underrepresented voices and is a
model for future inclusive jurisprudence.
Challenges Faced by Marginalized
Communities
Despite constitutional and statutory
safeguards, significant barriers to justice persist. Economic constraints are a
major hurdle. Legal proceedings often require substantial financial resources,
which many marginalized individuals cannot afford. Apart from court fees and
lawyer charges, the indirect cost of time spent away from work further deters
legal recourse.
Legal illiteracy
compounds the problem. A large section of the marginalized population remains
unaware of their legal rights or the procedures to assert them. This ignorance
is perpetuated by low literacy rates and limited outreach of awareness
campaigns, especially in rural and tribal areas.
Institutional discrimination
also plays a role. Caste, gender, and religious biases continue to pervade the
functioning of police, judicial officers, and even legal aid lawyers. For
instance, Dalit complainants often face hostility or indifference at police
stations and courts.
Procedural complexities
further discourage access to justice. The formal and adversarial nature of
legal proceedings, complicated documentation, and the use of English or Hindi, languages
not always understood by local populations, act as barriers to entry.
Infrastructure deficiencies
in lower courts, such as inadequate staffing, delayed hearings, and lack of
digital access, prolong disputes and increase the emotional and financial
burden on litigants. This is especially problematic in remote areas where the
nearest court may be miles away.
Fear of reprisal
is another major deterrent. Victims of caste-based violence, communal attacks,
or gender-based crimes often refrain from filing complaints due to threats or
social boycotts by dominant groups.
Role of Civil Society and Non State
Actors
Civil society organizations have been
instrumental in supplementing the State's efforts to ensure access to justice.
NGOs have provided legal representation, conducted awareness campaigns, and
documented rights violations. Community-based paralegals trained by NGOs serve
as a vital bridge between marginalized communities and formal legal systems.
These paralegals help people file First Information Reports (FIRs), draft legal
notices, and navigate local dispute resolution forums. Their grassroots presence
and familiarity with local socio-cultural dynamics enable them to operate in
spaces where formal actors often fail to reach.
Moreover, civil society advocacy has
influenced lawmaking. Campaigns around domestic violence, child labour, and
custodial torture have led to the enactment of progressive legislations and
judicial guidelines. However, the sustainability of such efforts depends on
funding, community participation, and political will.
International Commitments and
Comparative Perspectives
India’s commitment to access to justice
is rooted in its international obligations, including Article 8 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees the right to effective
remedies. The ICCPR ensures fair hearings and legal aid.As a signatory to CEDAW
and UNCRPD, India must eliminate legal discrimination and ensure accessibility
for women and persons with disabilities.Globally, models like South Africa’s
Community Advice Offices, Brazil’s Defensoria Pública, and Kenya’s Huduma
Centres provide inclusive legal services, especially for underserved
populations. These decentralized frameworks offer valuable insights for
improving India’s justice delivery systems.
Legal Aid and Alternative
Mechanisms
Legal aid services have been
institutionalized through the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. NALSA and
its state counterparts are mandated to provide legal aid to SC/STs, women,
children, and persons with disabilities, among others. However, implementation
has been inconsistent. Many eligible beneficiaries remain unaware of their
entitlements, and the quality of legal representation is often inadequate.
To bridge the justice gap, alternative
dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms like Lok Adalats and mediation have been
encouraged. Lok Adalats have proven effective in settling minor civil and
criminal matters swiftly and without cost. Yet, their utility is limited in
cases involving complex legal issues or deep social injustice, where mere
compromise is insufficient.
Legal aid clinics in law universities
and the deployment of paralegal volunteers in communities are positive steps,
but they need to be scaled up and monitored rigorously for quality and
outreach.
Recommendations
Addressing the justice gap requires a
multi-dimensional strategy. These are
1. Strengthen
Legal Aid: Ensure legal aid services are
adequately funded and staffed with trained professionals capable of providing
competent and empathetic representation, particularly in cases involving caste,
gender, and disability.
2. Enhance
Legal Literacy: Intensify awareness
campaigns through collaborations between the government and NGOs, using local
media, schools, and community groups to spread information in regional
languages.
3. Sensitize
Legal Institutions: Conduct regular
training for judges, police, and lawyers on social justice and sensitivity to
reduce bias and build a more inclusive legal system.
4. Leverage
Technology: Use regional language mobile
apps, helplines, and online grievance portals to make legal services more
accessible to marginalized communities.
5. Empower
Communities: Enable local bodies like women’s
groups and tribal councils to handle minor disputes, fostering community
participation and improving grassroots justice delivery.
Conclusion
“Justice too long delayed is justice
denied.”
-Martin Luther King Jr.
Access to justice is not just a
constitutional mandate but a moral and democratic imperative that upholds the
ideals of equality, dignity, and fairness. Despite having a robust legal
architecture and active judicial pronouncements in favour of inclusivity, the
reality for India’s marginalized communities remains grim. Structural
inequalities, socio-economic vulnerabilities, and institutional barriers often
restrict the ability of disadvantaged groups to meaningfully engage with the
legal system. While the Constitution guarantees legal rights and protections,
the lived experiences of marginalized individuals highlight a significant gap
between theoretical entitlements and practical access.
Justice, from a socio-legal view, must
reflect the lived struggles of the marginalized, not just legal texts.Even
though the courts have interpreted Article 21 to cover things like legal
aid and fair trials, on the ground, that support often feels more like a
promise on paper than a reality people can count.True reform needs joint action
by the State and civil society. Making the justice system more accessible and
accountable through legal awareness, community paralegals, and institutional
reforms is essential to ensure meaningful access to justice.
To truly embody the egalitarian vision
enshrined in the Constitution, India must commit to sustained and inclusive
efforts that dismantle structural inequities. Access to justice should not
remain a distant aspiration; it must become a lived and tangible reality for
every citizen, regardless of their social or economic background.
References
1. https://www.justice.gov/doj/doj-strategic-plan/objective-34-expand-equal-access-justice(Last
visited June 24, 2025).
2. https://blog.ipleaders.in/access-justice-marginalised-section-india/
(Last visited June 24, 2025).
3. https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/publications/edited-volumes/marginalized-communities-and-access-justice
(Last visited June 23, 2025).
[1] INDIA CONST. art.
39A.
[2]The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, No. 33 of 1989, INDIA CODE.
[3]Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, No. 49 of 2016, INDIA CODE.
[4]The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, No. 49 of 2016, INDIA CODE
[5]Hussainara Khatoon v.
State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81.
[6]Khatri v. State of Bihar,
(1981) 1 SCC 627
[7]People’s Union for
Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) 3 SCC 235
[8] Sheela Barse v. Union
of India (1986) 3 SCC 596
Hashtags:-
#AccessToJustice
#MarginalizedVoices
#SocialJustice
#LegalEmpowerment
#HumanRights
#InclusiveJustice
#SocioLegal
#JusticeForAll
#LawAndSociety
Post a Comment