Access to Justice in India: The Jurisprudence (and Self-Perception) of the Supreme Court

Abstract

The Supreme Court of India prides itself on ensuring the widest possible access by mitigating the need for standing. And it has done so through the jurisprudence it crafted on access to justice. If justice is a key end goal of the process of going to court, then accessing the courts that enable justice must be explored. Therefore, the primary aim of this chapter is to examine the jurisprudence of access to justice as evolved by the Indian Supreme Court.While doing so, the chapter will explore three patterns. First, how has the court ensured such access by reformulating traditional principles of “standing”? Second, how has it then applied progressive strands within both constitutional text and constitutional jurisprudence to its conceptions of access to justice? And finally, have there been certain kinds of cases in which the Court has applied expanded standing to ensure access to justice, as opposed to other classes of cases in which it has not? This chapter argues that the Court has enhanced access by doing away with the traditional understanding of locus standi and bringing in public interest litigation (PIL). Second, whereas the court has been enthusiastic about applying its jurisprudence of enhanced access to just outcomes in large constitutional cases where there is perceived to be larger public interest, it has been less willing to apply this to ordinary cases.