SC emphasises access to justice for marginalised litigants

The court made these observations while condoning a delay of 225 days in a second appeal filed by a woman seeking legal recognition as the wife of her deceased husband

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has underscored the need for constitutional courts to consider the socio-economic realities of litigants while balancing the scales of justice, as it highlighted that a large proportion of litigants in India hail from disadvantaged backgrounds and rely entirely on legal counsel to navigate the judicial process.

The woman had approached the Supreme Court after the Orissa high court dismissed her regular second appeal (RSA) on January 10, 2023, solely on the ground of delay (HT Photo)

A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta emphasised the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensuring access to justice for litigants who face systemic and economic barriers, pointing out that procedural delays should not impede substantive justice, particularly for those from marginalised backgrounds.

The court made these observations while condoning a delay of 225 days in a second appeal filed by a woman seeking legal recognition as the wife of her deceased husband. She had sought the declaration since another woman also claimed to be the wife of the man, who had died intestate.

The woman had approached the Supreme Court after the Orissa high court dismissed her regular second appeal (RSA) on January 10, 2023, solely on the ground of delay. The top court, however, ruled in her favour, noting the hardships faced by litigants from underprivileged backgrounds.

The bench pointed out that many litigants are disadvantaged and depend entirely on lawyers in approaching courts.

“Balancing of scales of justice becomes imperative when it comes to such matters, especially given the socio-economic background of a large number of India’s population who approach these doors of justice as litigants,” the court held in its January 31 order, released on Thursday.

The appellant, a homemaker, had initially filed a civil suit in 2013 before the senior civil judge in Chatrapur, seeking a declaration that she was the legally wedded wife of her deceased husband and that they had four children together. Her suit was dismissed in 2016, leading her to file an appeal before the additional district judge, which also dismissed in October 2021.

Following this, she approached the Orissa high court in August 2022 but faced rejection due to the delay in filing. In her plea, she contended that she was only informed about the dismissal of her first appeal in July 2022 and that the delay was due to the negligence of her counsel, not any deliberate action on her part.

The Supreme Court referenced its 1981 ruling in Rafiq and Another Vs Munshilal and another, where it had recognised that many litigants, particularly from rural and economically weaker sections, remain entirely dependent on their advocates for legal proceedings.

“Even though the above-quoted case law is from the year 1981, we cannot deny the fact that the ground reality of a considerable proportion of litigants being completely dependent on their counsel remains the same, especially in regions with lower economic and educational prowess,” the court noted.

Considering the circumstances, the bench found that the woman had sufficiently explained the reasons for the delay and had acted promptly once she became aware of the dismissal of her first appeal. Consequently, it ruled that the delay deserved to be condoned.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court directed that the appellant’s RSA be restored and considered on its merits. The bench also urged the Orissa high court to expedite the matter.