Access to justice is not merely a constitutional promise; it is the bedrock on which democratic governance rests. The concept of Gram Nyayalayas was conceived precisely with this spirit-to take justice to the doorstep of the common citizen, especially the poor, marginalised, and those living in rural and remote areas. Yet, more than five years after their notification and nearly six years after the abrogation of Article 370, Gram Nyayalayas in Jammu & Kashmir remain only on paper, exposing a troubling gap between intent and implementation.
India’s judicial system follows a multi-tier structure, consciously designed to ensure justice is accessible at different levels. From the Supreme Court at the apex to High Courts, district courts, and subordinate judiciary, each tier has a defined role. Gram Nyayalayas were introduced through the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, as the lowest rung of this structure-local courts meant to resolve petty civil and criminal disputes swiftly and inexpensively. Their objective was clear: reduce the burden on higher courts, prevent unnecessary litigation, and ensure that justice is neither delayed nor denied due to lack of resources. For vast sections of society, particularly the rural poor, approaching district courts is not just legally intimidating but economically crippling. Travel costs, legal fees, loss of daily wages, and prolonged litigation often discourage people from pursuing legitimate grievances. Gram Nyayalayas seek to correct this imbalance by offering simplified procedures, flexible working, and adjudication within the community itself. In doing so, they strengthen faith in the rule of law and promote social harmony by resolving disputes at the grassroots level.
The delay in operationalising Gram Nyayalayas in J&K assumes greater significance when viewed against the region’s unique socio-economic realities. A largely rural population, scattered habitations, difficult terrain, and limited financial capacity make access to conventional courts particularly challenging. Ironically, these are precisely the conditions that make Gram Nyayalayas most relevant. Nonetheless, despite repeated reminders from Parliament, strong observations by the Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, and direct responses from the Union Law Ministry, no Gram Nyayalaya has become functional in the Union Territory.
It is true that Jammu & Kashmir was outside the purview of the Gram Nyayalayas Act until 2019 due to Article 370. However, this explanation loses relevance six years after the constitutional reorganisation. A notification was issued in June 2020, deeming the earlier identified Dehi Adalat headquarters as the Gram Nyayalaya headquarters. Beyond that, progress has stalled completely. Infrastructure remains undeveloped, manpower has not been sanctioned, and appointments of Nyayadhikaris, prosecutors, and supporting staff have not been made. The administration often cites a shortage of judicial officers and staff as a constraint. While manpower challenges are real, they cannot justify perpetual inaction. If resources are limited, a phased approach could be adopted, beginning with select districts and gradually expanding coverage. What is missing is not capacity alone, but administrative resolve.
The benefits of Gram Nyayalayas extend beyond dispute resolution. Their establishment would generate new employment opportunities for educated youth-judicial officers, clerical staff, prosecutors, notaries, and support personnel. At a time when unemployment remains a pressing concern in J&K, this is a tangible opportunity to combine governance reform with job creation. Moreover, reducing pendency at higher courts would enhance overall judicial efficiency, benefiting litigants and the judiciary alike.
The responsibility for action lies squarely with the local administration. The first step must be a clear policy decision, backed by budgetary allocation, to operationalise Gram Nyayalayas. Infrastructure-whether through new buildings or shared facilities-must be planned, and recruitment processes initiated without delay. If the Union Territory faces genuine fiscal or administrative limitations, the Centre must step in with financial and technical support. The Parliamentary Standing Committee has already underlined that funds are linked to operationalisation; the onus is now on the UT to act.
Keeping the issue in hibernation serves no one-not the aggrieved citizen, not the youth seeking employment, not the judiciary struggling with backlog, and not the government. For rural people, it is not a luxury but a necessity. Justice delayed at the grassroots ultimately weakens the entire justice delivery system.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
