The Supreme Court on Wednesday critically addressed the practicality of establishing gram nyayalayas as outlined by the 2008 Gram Nyayalayas Act, due to the existing infrastructure woes plaguing regular courts, some of which are reportedly operating out of makeshift facilities like “godowns”. The court emphasized the need for state-specific adaptations in setting up these courts.
Presided by Justice Bhushan R Gavai, along with Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan, the bench scrutinized the financial feasibility for state governments to fund these new rural courts when many are already struggling to support the existing judicial infrastructure.
During a public interest litigation hearing aimed at the effective implementation of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, the justices pointed out, “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.”
Originally enacted to decentralize the judiciary and bring justice closer to rural communities, the Gram Nyayalayas Act intended to make justice accessible, quick, and affordable for rural residents by simplifying the process for minor civil and criminal matters. However, the actual rollout has been sluggish; of the targeted 2,500 gram nyayalayas, fewer than 500 have been established, with just 314 active across the country, as per the latest statistics from the Department of Justice.
The court, aided by senior advocate Nidhesh Gupta as amicus curiae, lamented the inadequate infrastructure of existing courts, some confined to tiny 8×10 feet rooms. Justice Gavai recounted, “We remember when the Kerala government had postponed disbursement of funds for courts saying: ‘Deferred for better times’. This is the ground reality.”
The bench also expressed concerns about the possible overload on higher judicial levels, noting that while gram nyayalayas aim to reduce the caseload on district and civil courts, they might inadvertently increase the burden on high courts due to appeals and writ petitions.
Moreover, comparing the operational efficiency, the justices highlighted that a regular judicial magistrate handles thousands of cases over a few years, whereas a gram nyayalaya magistrate in Karnataka only managed to hear 116 cases in four years. They suggested that expanding the number of regular courts and judicial officers might be a more efficient approach to tackling judicial backlogs than establishing more gram nyayalayas.
Proposing a tailored implementation of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, the bench suggested that the establishment and quantity of gram nyayalayas should align with specific state needs, possibly coordinated by the Chief Justice of the High Court and the state government.
The court has adjourned the matter, allowing time for the amicus and other lawyers to review all affidavits submitted by states and high courts concerning the establishment and functioning of gram nyayalayas. This hearing was part of a PIL led by the National Federation of Societies for Fast Justice and other NGOs, who, 16 years post-Act enactment, are pushing for actionable steps towards the envisioned setup of these rural courts.
