Justice in India: Cost, language, and distance keep millions unheard

Justice in India remains unequal as cost, language, and distance exclude millions - but reforms in legal aid, technology, and regional languages can make the system more inclusive

Justice in India is meant to be equal for all, but in reality, economic and linguistic barriers still lock out a large section of citizens. Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, in a recent lecture, underlined how geographical, economic, and linguistic barriers continued to exclude the poor and marginalised from courts and legal education. In rural and remote areas, the nearest court may be hours away. For those who do reach the system, the burden of cost and language often makes justice inaccessible. Research shows how just access to information can change this picture. A 2024 paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research specifically studied Indian Kanoon, a free legal search-engine launched in 2008, and examined its impact across states between 2005 and 2015 on firm-related cases. The findings were striking. The platform’s rollout led to more case filings and resolutions in district courts, without worsening backlogs or delaying judgments. Decision quality did not decline; appeals and reversals in higher courts remained stable. Also at high-court level, it reduced frivolous or misdirected filings and encouraged alternative dispute resolution, thereby improving efficiency. In short, free access to legal information reduced bottlenecks, raised efficiency, and even improved economic outcomes. 

Language exclusion is equally stark. Of India’s 25 high courts, only four — Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Allahabad, and Patna — use Hindi in their proceedings. Despite constitutional provisions for Indian languages, English remains the default. As a result, many litigants leave the courtroom without understanding what has been argued in their own cases. Legal processes in unfamiliar languages perpetuate alienation instead of empowerment. Justice Surya Kant recently captured this truth well: “The lawyer of 2047 must be fluent in two languages — the language of the law, and the language of the people.” Besides, there are capacity constraints, as underscored by “The India Justice Report 2025”. Case backlogs have crossed 50 million nationwide, with subordinate courts still facing about 20 per cent judicial vacancies. Legal aid, the primary channel for the poor, is under strain: The number of paralegal volunteers has dropped by 38 per cent since 2019. Over 20 states report that more than one-fifth of undertrials are detained for one to three years before trial. These figures show that barriers to justice are not just about cost or language but also about systemic under-capacity. 

What can be done? First, legal education and practice in regional languages must expand. Translations, local-language instruction in law schools, and the use of interpreters in courts can close the gap between the law and its users. Second, legal aid needs urgent strengthening through more funding, full-time legal aid defenders, and outreach in rural areas. Third, digital platforms like Indian Kanoon can be expanded with user-friendly interfaces in multiple languages, enabling citizens to understand and use the law. Finally, infrastructure must be responsive: Increased judicial capacity, online hearings, and more local-level facilities can help bridge geographical distances. Justice is not real when it is limited by wealth, proximity, or fluency in English. It becomes meaningful only when cost, distance, and language no longer decide who can claim rights.