Restrictions on the Right to Seek Justice

The Supreme Court of India recently imposed a fine on a petitioner for engaging in forum shopping and filing frivolous litigation, emphasizing the misuse of judicial resources. The petitioner persistently challenged his dismissal from service by approaching multiple judicial bodies, including the Industrial Tribunal, High Court, and Supreme Court, despite repeated rejections.

Recognizing this as an abuse of the legal system, the Supreme Court dismissed the case and penalized the petitioner, reaffirming that while the right to access justice is a fundamental right (Article 21), it is not absolute. The Court held that baseless petitions burden the judiciary, delay genuine cases, and undermine the legal system’s credibility.

Supreme Court’s Interpretation of the Right to Access Justice
In its rulings, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld access to justice as a constitutional right while emphasizing responsible use of judicial mechanisms.

• Anita Khushwa v. Pushpa Sadan (2016): The Court established that access to justice is an essential right under Articles 21 and 14 and outlined four key elements:
  1. Effective adjudicatory mechanisms
  2. Reasonable accessibility (ensuring courts are not out of reach)
  3. Timely resolution of cases
  4. Affordability in legal proceedings
• Buddhi Kota Subbarao v. K. Parasaran (1996): The Court dismissed the petitions of a retired Navy captain accused of espionage, stating that higher court decisions cannot be repeatedly challenged without substantial new evidence. The ruling reinforced the finality of judicial decisions and discouraged excessive litigation.

• Article 14 (Right to Equality): Guarantees equal protection of the law and prohibits discrimination in access to justice.
• Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty): Ensures individuals can seek judicial remedies for the protection of their rights.
• Article 39A (Free Legal Aid): Mandates free legal aid for economically disadvantaged individuals to ensure equal access to justice.
• Articles 32 and 226: Empower citizens to approach the Supreme Court or High Courts directly for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

• The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987: Established the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to provide free legal aid to marginalized groups, including women, children, Scheduled Castes/Tribes, disabled individuals, and those with low income.
• Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanisms:
  • Lok Adalats offer an efficient and cost-effective method for resolving disputes.
  • Tele-Law and E-Lok Adalats extend legal assistance to people in remote areas.
• Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Expanded the concept of locus standi, allowing individuals and organizations to file cases on behalf of affected communities.
  • Example: MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987)—India’s first PIL on environmental pollution, which led to stricter environmental regulations.

Mind Sprint