WHEN MERITS REMAIN UNHEARD: REFLECTIONS ON ACCESS TO JUSTICE
This article does not allege, question, or attribute any misconduct, bias, or impropriety to any court, judge, or institution. It is a personal and academic reflection on procedural outcomes, access to justice, and structural challenges experienced by litigants within the justice delivery system. Written in good faith, the article seeks to encourage constructive and constitutional discussion on how procedural, economic, and practical factors influence the lived experience of justice. It does not question the integrity or independence of the judiciary, but examines systemic aspects that affect the accessibility and perception of justice.
Introduction
This article seeks to examine the concept of access to justice from a litigant’s perspective, focusing on procedural barriers that may arise during the course of litigation. The discussion is intended not as criticism of individuals or institutions, but as an academic reflection on structural challenges within the justice delivery system.
The Litigant’s Expectation of Judicial Review
A litigant approaching a Court ordinarily does so with the expectation that the merits of the case will receive judicial consideration. Constitutional remedies, appellate jurisdiction, and supervisory powers are often perceived as safeguards against error and injustice. This expectation forms the basis of public confidence in the legal system.
When a matter is disposed of at a preliminary stage, the litigant may feel that substantive issues remain unaddressed. While such disposals are well within judicial discretion and procedural law, their impact on the litigant’s perception of justice deserves thoughtful examination.
Procedural Outcomes and Substantive Justice
Procedural law plays an essential role in ensuring efficiency, discipline, and fairness in judicial proceedings. However, an excessive reliance on procedural thresholds may sometimes overshadow substantive adjudication, particularly in cases involving individual litigants with limited resources.
Dismissals at the threshold, restrictions on maintainability, or strong procedural cautions can result in situations where grievances remain unresolved on merits. From a litigant’s standpoint, this can create a sense of finality without closure, raising broader questions about how procedural justice intersects with substantive justice.
Appellate Remedies and the Experience of Withdrawal
Appellate mechanisms exist to correct errors and reinforce confidence in judicial outcomes. Yet, the practical experience of pursuing appellate remedies can be daunting. Concerns relating to costs, procedural complexity, and the possibility of adverse consequences may weigh heavily on litigants.
In some instances, litigants may choose to withdraw proceedings not because their grievances lack substance, but due to apprehensions about prolonged litigation, financial exposure, or professional consequences. Such withdrawals, while procedurally valid, reflect the psychological and structural pressures inherent in the litigation process.
Power Imbalance in Litigation
Litigation does not occur in a vacuum. Disparities in resources, legal expertise, and institutional familiarity can significantly influence the experience of parties before the court. Individual litigants often find themselves at a disadvantage when opposed by parties with substantial resources and organizational strength.
This imbalance does not undermine the neutrality of the judicial process, but it does highlight the need for greater sensitivity towards the vulnerabilities of ordinary litigants. Access to justice must encompass not only formal availability of remedies but also the practical ability to pursue them without fear or undue hardship.
The Cost of Litigation as a Barrier to Access to Justice
An increasingly significant factor influencing access to justice is the rising cost of litigation. Court fees, expenses for legal representation, incidental costs, and the financial impact of prolonged proceedings can together impose substantial burdens on litigants. For individuals with limited resources, these economic pressures may deter the initiation of legal proceedings or compel the premature withdrawal of otherwise genuine claims.
The financial demands of litigation are often compounded by procedural delays. Extended timelines increase not only direct legal expenses but also indirect costs, such as loss of income, emotional strain, and opportunity costs. These cumulative effects can disproportionately affect individual litigants and small stakeholders, reinforcing existing inequalities within the justice delivery process.
While costs are an inevitable component of any legal system, their magnitude and unpredictability can influence perceptions of accessibility and fairness. The expectation of prolonged and expensive litigation may lead some litigants to seek informal settlements or to refrain from pursuing lawful remedies altogether. Such outcomes do not reflect a lack of faith in the rule of law, but rather practical concerns regarding affordability and sustainability.
Recognising the cost of litigation as a structural barrier underscores the importance of continued efforts to enhance legal aid mechanisms, promote procedural efficiency, and ensure that economic constraints do not undermine the constitutional promise of equal access to justice.
The Silent Litigant and Unheard Grievances
A significant number of litigants withdraw or abandon legal proceedings silently. Their experiences rarely enter legal discourse, yet they form an important part of the justice ecosystem. Fear of procedural consequences, reputational concerns, and the emotional toll of litigation often discourage continued pursuit of remedies.
This phenomenon calls for reflection on whether existing procedural frameworks sufficiently accommodate the realities faced by such litigants. Ensuring that justice is accessible requires attention to both legal doctrine and lived experience.
Beyond individual experiences, public discourse also plays a role in shaping perceptions of the justice delivery system. In recent years, sections of the media and public discourse have expressed concerns regarding judicial accountability, sometimes in highly emotive and adversarial terms. While such narratives reflect public anxiety, they underscore the importance of addressing perception gaps through institutional transparency rather than rhetoric. This highlights the need for balanced engagement with public concerns, ensuring that institutional responses strengthen confidence without compromising judicial independence.
Occasionally, public concern regarding judicial accountability is informed by reports of institutional action in response to alleged misconduct. For instance, mainstream media has reported cases where investigative agencies have initiated proceedings against former members of the judiciary, following prescribed constitutional and legal processes. Such reporting, when factual and restrained, contributes to public awareness while reinforcing the principle that accountability mechanisms exist within the system.
Towards Strengthening Confidence in Justice Delivery
Constructive introspection is a hallmark of strong institutions. Periodic reflection on procedural practices can help strengthen public confidence in the justice delivery system. Measures such as clearer articulation of reasons, litigant-friendly procedures, and enhanced legal aid mechanisms may contribute towards making justice more accessible and less intimidating.
Importantly, such reflections do not question the integrity or independence of the judiciary. Rather, they reaffirm respect for the institution by engaging with its continuous evolution.
Does Perceived Inaccessibility of Justice Contribute to Declining Public Confidence?
Scholars and criminologists have long examined the relationship between public confidence in justice delivery systems and social order. While it would be incorrect to attribute rising crime rates or extra-legal settlements to any single cause, studies suggest that perceived delays, costs, and procedural complexity in legal systems can influence public behavior, particularly among younger generations.
When individuals believe that formal legal remedies are inaccessible, excessively prolonged, or unlikely to result in timely relief, some may seek alternative means of dispute resolution. These may range from informal compromises and private settlements to, in extreme cases, recourse outside the bounds of law. Importantly, such behavior arises not necessarily from disregard for law, but from a perception that legal processes are impractical for addressing immediate grievances.
It must be emphasized that this perception does not reflect the intent or integrity of judicial institutions, but rather the experience of litigants navigating procedural realities. Socio-economic pressures, digital-era impatience, and exposure to rapid informal resolution mechanisms further amplify this trend among younger populations.
Criminological literature consistently holds that confidence in justice delivery acts as a stabilizing force in society. Where such confidence weakens—rightly or wrongly—there is an increased risk of disputes being resolved outside formal legal frameworks. This underscores the importance of strengthening not only the fairness of outcomes, but also the accessibility, transparency, and responsiveness of legal procedures.
International legal discourse has also recognised the relationship between corruption, human rights, and public confidence in judicial systems. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers has observed that corruption undermines the administration of justice by weakening public trust and impairing the judiciary’s capacity to protect human rights.
Accordingly, restoring faith in justice delivery requires continuous institutional introspection, procedural sensitivity, and meaningful engagement with the evolving expectations of society. Addressing perception gaps is as crucial as ensuring doctrinal correctness, for justice must not only be done, but must also be felt to be accessible.
Conclusion
Access to justice is not measured solely by the availability of courts or remedies, but by the extent to which those remedies remain practically reachable and meaningfully effective for those who seek them. Where grievances conclude without examination on merits, or where procedural and economic barriers influence the course of litigation, it becomes necessary to reflect on how justice is experienced at the ground level.
The issues discussed in this article - procedural thresholds, litigation costs, power imbalances, and the phenomenon of silent withdrawal - do not reflect a failure of judicial intent or integrity. Rather, they point to structural challenges inherent in a complex and evolving justice delivery system. Recognising these challenges is not an act of criticism, but an exercise in institutional self-awareness.
Public confidence in the judiciary is sustained not only by the fairness of outcomes, but also by transparency, accessibility, and the perception that genuine grievances receive due consideration. Addressing perception gaps through procedural clarity, affordability, and sensitivity to litigant realities strengthens, rather than diminishes, the authority of judicial institutions.
Ultimately, a justice system that remains open to introspection while steadfast in its independence reinforces its constitutional role as the guardian of rights and the rule of law. Meaningful access to justice ensures that faith in legal processes endures, and that justice is not only done, but is also felt to be attainable.
Article by
MSc, D. Tex, BA LL.B.
Judicial Inspiration
“…litigants are legal patients suffering from injustices seeking healing for their wounds. Would you tell a sufferer in hospital that because he disclosed a certain symptom very late therefore he would be discharged without treatment for the sin of delayed disclosure? Humanism, which, at bottom sustains justice, cannot refuse relief…”
Said by Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer in: P. N. Eswara Iyer v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, (1980) 4 SCC 680.
Main Sources for the article
1. Corruption, Human Rights, and Judicial Independence - By Special Rapporteur Diego García-Sayán – United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. United Nations, A/72/140, July 2017.
2. In P. N. Eswara Iyer v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, (1980) 4 SCC 680, Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer observed that litigants are “legal patients suffering from injustices seeking healing for their wounds…”