‘Making justice accessible requires a systemic approach beyond formal equality’

1. At a Glance

• Access to justice goes beyond formal legal equality (equal right to approach courts) to substantive equality — removing structural, physical, financial, and representational barriers that prevent actual use of justice systems. [3]
• Key mechanisms in India: Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (free legal aid via NALSA/SLSAs) [1] and Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (mandates non-discriminatory, accommodated access to courts/tribunals) [1].
• UPSC relevance: tests GS-II (Judiciary, Constitutional bodies, Welfare schemes) and GS-I (Social Justice) intersections — a recurring theme given persistent under-representation of SC/ST/OBC/women/PwD in higher judiciary. [2]

2. Why in the News

• At "Justice Unplugged 2026" (reported by The Hindu, 1 March 2026), Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Sanchita Ain and Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy discussed how formal legal equality does not guarantee real access — citing her own experience navigating disability accommodation in litigation and a 2023 case where a hearing-disabled lawyer, Sarah Sunny, had to fight for a sign-language interpreter as a matter of right, not favour [4].
• Discussion moderated by Kunal Shankar (The Hindu) raised whether greater Bench diversity (gender, caste, disability) is needed to structurally improve access to justice, referencing under-representation of marginalised groups in higher judicial appointments [4].

3. Background & Evolution

• 1987: Legal Services Authorities Act enacted — established NALSA (1995) and State/District Legal Services Authorities to provide free legal aid to weaker sections under Article 39A (Directive Principle) and Articles 14, 21. [1]
• 1995: Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act — first disability rights law, later repealed. [1]
• 2016: Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act replaced the 1995 Act, aligning India's law with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD); Section 12 mandates access to justice for PwDs without discrimination. [1]
• Ongoing: Judicial appointments reform debate — Collegium system criticised for lack of transparency and diversity outcomes since inception (post-1993 Second Judges Case). [2]

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Detail
Enabling Act (legal aid)	Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
Enabling Act (disability access)	Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — Section 12 ("Access to Justice") [1]
Nodal body (legal aid)	National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), State/District Legal Services Authorities
Constitutional basis	Article 39A (free legal aid, DPSP), Article 14 (equality), Article 21 (life & liberty)
Predecessor disability law	Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 (repealed by 2016 Act) [1]
SC/ST representation in HC judges (since 2018)	SC: ~3%, ST: ~1.5% [2]
Judicial appointment mechanism	Collegium system (judges appointing judges)

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Social

• Formal equality (equal right to sue/be heard) does not equal substantive access when litigants face physical, linguistic, or economic barriers — e.g., absence of sign-language interpreters, inaccessible court infrastructure. [4]
• Bench diversity (gender, caste, disability) argued to shape empathetic and informed adjudication on marginalised litigants' concerns. [4]

Legal/Constitutional

• RPwD Act, 2016, Section 12 makes "reasonable accommodation" a right, not discretionary courtesy — reframes access to justice as a statutory entitlement. [1][4]
• Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 institutionalises the DPSP under Article 39A into enforceable machinery (NALSA/SLSAs). [1]

Governance/Administrative

• Persistent "court bureaucracy" cited as forcing PwD litigants/lawyers to seek accommodations informally rather than as entitlements. [4]
• Collegium's opacity flagged as a barrier to correcting diversity deficits in higher judiciary appointments. [2]

Ethical

• Distinction drawn between "sympathy" and "institutional accommodation" — access should not depend on individual goodwill of officials but on systemic guarantees. [4]

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• 1 March 2026: The Hindu reports on "Justice Unplugged 2026" panel discussion on judicial diversity and access to justice (Sanchita Ain, Karuna Nundy, Kunal Shankar). [4]
• 2023 (referenced in the 2026 discussion): Sanchita Ain represents Sarah Sunny, a hearing-disabled lawyer, and secures sign-language interpreter access at the Supreme Court after administrative pushback. [4]
• May 2026: Central Ordinance on Supreme Court (Number of Judges) — indicates ongoing legislative activity around judicial strength/composition. [1]

7. Prelims Hooks

• Legal Services Authorities Act enacted in 1987; NALSA established under it in 1995.
• Free legal aid to weaker sections flows from Article 39A (Directive Principle of State Policy).
• RPwD Act, 2016 replaced the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
• RPwD Act, 2016 aligns India's law with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).
• Section 12 of the RPwD Act, 2016 deals specifically with "Access to Justice".
• Since 2018, SC representation among High Court judges stood at approximately 3%, and ST at 1.5%.
• Judges to the Supreme Court/High Courts are appointed via the Collegium system, not a statutory appointments commission (NJAC struck down in 2015).
• "Justice Unplugged 2026" is a panel event covered by The Hindu on judicial diversity/access to justice (1 March 2026 issue).
• NALSA operates through a three-tier structure: National, State, and District Legal Services Authorities.
• Reasonable accommodation for PwDs in judicial processes is a statutory right, not a discretionary grant, under the RPwD Act, 2016.

8. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Polity/Governance — "Structure, organization and functioning of the Judiciary"; "Welfare schemes for vulnerable sections"; "Mechanisms, laws, institutions and Bodies constituted for the protection of vulnerable sections."
• GS-I: Social Justice dimensions — role of women, disabled, and marginalised groups in institutions.
• Possible Mains stems: 1. "Formal equality before law does not guarantee substantive access to justice." Examine this statement with reference to persons with disabilities in India. (GS-II, 15 marks) 2. Discuss the need for greater diversity in judicial appointments in India. How can the Collegium system be reformed to address this? (GS-II, 15 marks) 3. Critically evaluate the effectiveness of NALSA and the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 in ensuring access to justice for weaker sections. (GS-II, 10 marks)

9. Related Topics to Study Next

• NALSA v. Union of India (2014) — landmark SC judgment recognising transgender rights; also relevant to NALSA's institutional role.
• Collegium System vs NJAC — appointments process debate, transparency concerns.
• Article 39A and DPSPs — constitutional basis for legal aid.
• UNCRPD — international treaty framework India is bound by for disability rights.
• Reservation in judiciary debate — proposals for SC/ST/OBC/women quotas in judicial appointments.
• E-Courts Mission Mode Project — technology-driven access to justice initiative (reduces geographic/procedural barriers).
• Lok Adalats & Alternative Dispute Resolution — informal/faster access mechanisms under the 1987 Act.

10. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Confusing Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 (repealed) with the currently operative RPwD Act, 2016 — a frequent Prelims trap on "which Act is in force."
• Conflating NALSA (National Legal Services Authority) with NCPCR or NHRC — different mandates.
• Assuming free legal aid is a Fundamental Right — it is rooted in Article 39A, a Directive Principle, made justiciable via the 1987 Act and Article 21 jurisprudence.
• Mixing up Collegium system with a statutory appointments commission — the NJAC (99th Amendment) was struck down by the SC in 2015; Collegium remains the operative mechanism.
• Assuming reasonable accommodation for PwDs in courts is discretionary — it is a codified right under Section 12, RPwD Act, 2016.