Context
The Supreme Court of India has raised concerns about the implementation of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, citing practical and structural challenges. Designed to decentralize justice delivery in rural areas, the Act aimed to establish 2,500 mobile village courts (Gram Nyayalayas). However, only 314 are operational, reflecting systemic bottlenecks.
Key Concerns Highlighted by the Supreme Court
- Ambiguity in Legal Mandate
- Discretionary Implementation: The Act’s phrasing (“may constitute”) allows states/UTs to treat Gram Nyayalayas as optional, leading to inconsistent adoption. Only 11 states have operationalized these courts, with Maharashtra (195) and Madhya Pradesh (45) leading, while others like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar lag.
- Jurisdictional Overlap: Unclear demarcation of authority between Gram Nyayalayas, Panchayats, and traditional courts creates confusion and resistance from state judiciary bodies.
- Resource Constraints
- Financial Burden: States face challenges funding infrastructure, salaries for judges/staff, and logistical costs (e.g., mobile court vehicles). Many states prioritize existing judicial infrastructure over new setups.
- Human Resource Gaps: Difficulty in appointing qualified judges (Nyayadhikaris) willing to work in remote areas. Social workers and conciliators, critical for dispute resolution, are often under-trained or absent.
- Rising Burden on Higher Courts
- Appellate Overload: Appeals from Gram Nyayalayas (to District Courts) and writ petitions (to High Courts) risk increasing caseloads in higher courts, countering the Act’s objective of reducing judicial backlog.
- Procedural Delays: Poor case management and lack of digitization exacerbate delays, undermining the promise of “speedier justice.”
Features of Gram Nyayalayas
- Mobile Courts: Designed to operate at intermediate Panchayat levels, ensuring physical access to justice in villages.
- Jurisdiction: Handles civil (up to ₹10 lakh) and criminal (max 2-year imprisonment) cases, including SC/ST Act disputes.
- Conciliation-First Approach: Mandates mediation via social workers before formal trials, aiming for socially harmonious outcomes.
- Language Flexibility: Proceedings conducted in local languages to enhance participation.
Implementation Challenges
- State Apathy: Non-binding nature of the Act allows states to deprioritize it. For instance, Kerala and Tamil Nadu have not established a single Gram Nyayalaya.
- Infrastructure Deficits: Lack of courtrooms, digital tools, and transportation for mobile units.
- Awareness Gaps: Rural populations remain unaware of their rights to approach these courts.
Significance of Gram Nyayalayas
- Access to Justice: Reduces travel costs and delays for rural litigants, aligning with Article 39A (equal justice).
- Decongestion: Potential to resolve 60–70% of minor disputes locally, freeing higher courts for complex cases.
- Social Empowerment: Focuses on marginalized groups (e.g., women, SC/ST communities) through inclusive processes.
Government Initiatives & Gaps
- Nyaya Vikas Scheme: Central funds for judicial infrastructure, but poor utilization by states.
- E-Panchayat Projects: Limited integration with Gram Nyayalayas’ digitization needs.
- National Legal Services Authority (NALSA): Minimal coordination for legal aid in rural areas.
Way Forward: SC’s Possible Directions
- Legislative Reform: Amend the Act to replace “may constitute” with “shall constitute,” making Gram Nyayalayas mandatory.
- Financial Incentives: Central grants tied to performance, with penalties for non-compliance.
- Hybrid Model: Combine mobile courts with digital infrastructure (e.g., video conferencing) to cut costs.
- Capacity Building: Train Nyayadhikaris in ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) and deploy law students/NGOs as conciliators.
- Awareness Drives: Collaborate with Panchayats and local media to educate communities.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s scrutiny underscores the need to transform Gram Nyayalayas from a “paper tiger” to a functional pillar of rural justice. Addressing feasibility requires legislative clarity, financial commitment, and grassroots collaboration. Without urgent reforms, the promise of “justice at the doorstep” will remain unfulfilled, perpetuating the urban-rural justice divide.
