SC questions feasibility of gram nyayalayas amid regular court infrastructure challenges

The Supreme Court on Wednesday raised critical questions regarding the feasibility of setting up gram nyayalayas (village courts), as mandated by the Gram Nyayalayas Act of 2008.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday raised critical questions regarding the feasibility of setting up gram nyayalayas (village courts), as mandated by the Gram Nyayalayas Act of 2008, highlighting that even the regular courts in the country are struggling with insufficient infrastructure and many of them are forced to operate out of “godowns”. It also recommended that the establishment of such courts be driven by state-specific requirements.

A bench led by justice Bhushan R Gavai, along with justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan, voiced concerns about how state governments, already grappling with limited resources for regular courts, could fund additional gram nyayalayas effectively. (HT Photo)

A bench led by justice Bhushan R Gavai, along with justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan, voiced concerns about how state governments, already grappling with limited resources for regular courts, could fund additional gram nyayalayas effectively.

“You are asking the state governments to give funds for these gram nyayalayas when they do not have or provide funds for regular courts. These courts are working out of rented buildings and even godowns,” commented the bench while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) for effective implementation of the central law.

The 2008 statute was enacted to de-centralise the judicial system, bringing justice closer to rural communities. The Act mandates the establishment of gram nyayalayas at the grassroots level to ensure that no citizen is denied justice due to social, economic or other barriers. The idea was to have accessible, speedy, and affordable justice for the rural populace, providing a simplified judicial process for minor civil and criminal cases.

Monitoring the implementation of the law with assistance from senior advocate Nidhesh Gupta as amicus curiae, the court highlighted the difficulties faced by existing courts, many of which operate out of rented spaces and lack proper infrastructure.

“As it is, it is difficult to have proper infrastructure for regular courts. There are some courts working out of 8x10 feet rooms. We remember when the Kerala government had postponed disbursement of funds for courts saying: ‘Deferred for better times’. This is the ground reality,” remarked the bench.

Expressing concerns over the potential impact of gram nyayalayas on higher judicial bodies, the bench further observed that while the primary objective of these rural courts is to ease the caseload on district and civil courts, they may end up burdening high courts with appeals and writ petitions.

“In an attempt to declog district and civil courts, you may end up clogging high courts. Most of the decisions of these nyayalayas would be challenged before high courts under writ jurisdiction,” the bench cautioned.

Another key issue raised by the Supreme Court was the effectiveness of gram nyayalayas in addressing rural judicial needs, pointing out that while a judicial magistrate in a regular court typically handles thousands of cases over a few years, a gram nyayalaya magistrate in Karnataka managed to hear only 116 cases in four years.

The bench suggested that increasing the number of regular courts and judicial officers might be a more effective way to address judicial backlogs, rather than establishing additional gram nyayalayas that may not serve their intended purpose. “We would rather say there should be more courts, more judicial officers, and better infrastructure,” it commented.

Proposing a more flexible approach to implementing the Gram Nyayalayas Act, rather than a uniform mandate across all states, the bench suggested that the establishment and number of gram nyayalayas should be determined based on specific state needs.

“This can be area-specific. There are some states where you already have enough civil courts and magisterial courts. The Act mandates it, but it can be need-based. Perhaps, the Chief Justice of the High Court and the state government can decide together on this point,” added the court, adjourning the matter to enable the amicus and other lawyers have access to all the affidavits filed by states and high courts giving details of the establishment and functioning of gram nyayalayas within their respective jurisdictions.

The court’s observations came during the hearing of the PIL filed by the National Federation of Societies for Fast Justice and other NGOs. The petitioners highlighted that 16 years after the enactment of the 2008 Act, only a fraction of these rural courts are operational. They urged the court to direct both the central and state governments to take concrete steps towards the establishment and functioning of gram nyayalayas, as envisaged by the Act.