Right to Access to Justice Not Absolute

Right to Access to Justice Not Absolute

Recognizing the right to access justice as a fundamental pillar of democracy, the Supreme Court (SC) recently imposed a penalty on a petitioner for filing numerous frivolous lawsuits that burden the judicial system.

A frivolous litigation is one that lacks merit, either legally or factually, and is intended to harass or delay the judicial process.This issue was previously addressed by the apex court in notable cases such as Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India (2014), Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010), and K.C. Tharakan v. State Bank of India (2023).

Right to Access to Justice: 
The right to access justice is a fundamental principle under the rule of law, ensuring that individuals can seek and obtain remedies for their grievances through formal or informal justice systems. In Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan (2016), the SC affirmed that access to justice is a fundamental right under Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).

Related Constitutional Provisions:

• Preamble: Ensures social, economic, and political justice.
• Directive Principles of State Policy (Article 39A): Guarantees the right to free legal aid.
• Article 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies): Provides individuals the right to approach the SC for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
• Article 226: Empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of rights.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL):
This concept has relaxed the rule of locus standi, enabling public-spirited individuals or organizations to file cases for the enforcement of rights, even if they are not directly aggrieved.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR):
These mechanisms provide a more accessible, cost-effective method of resolving disputes with less formality, promoting quicker grievance redressal.

Mind Sprint