Case Name : Anita Kushwaha vs Pushap Sudan Case Reference: (2016) 8 SCC 509 : (2016) 9 SCR 560 Case Number: Transfer Petition (C) No. 1343/2008 Court: Supreme Court Bench: 05 Coram: TS Thakur (Author), FM Ibrahim Kalifulla, AK Sikri, SA Bobde, R Banumathi Date: 19.07.2016
Access to justice is an invaluable human right. Every citizen has a right of unimpeded access to a court Access to justice is and has been recognised as a part and parcel of right to life in India and in all civilised societies around the globe. The right is so basic and unalienable that no system of governance can possibly ignore its significance, leave alone afford to deny the same to its citizens.
Court has given an expansive meaning and interpretation to the word ‘life’ appearing in Constitution - Article 21.
Access to justice should be considered as falling inside the class and category of the rights as part and parcel of Article 21.
Life implies not only life in the physical sense but a bundle of rights that makes life worth living.
Equality before law and equal protection of laws is not limited in its application to the realm of executive action that enforces the law and is also available in relation to proceedings before courts and tribunal and adjudicatory fora where law is applied and justice administered.
Citizen’s inability to access courts or any other adjudicatory mechanism provided for determination of rights and obligations is bound to result in denial of guarantee contained in Article 14both in relation to equality before law as well as equal protection of laws.
Absence of any adjudicatory mechanism or the inadequacy of such mechanism, is bound to prevent those looking for enforcement of their right to equality before laws and equal protection of the laws from seeking redress and thereby negate the guarantee of equality and reducing it to a mere teasing illusion.
Access to justice is part of both Article 21 and Article 14.
{Four main facets} The essence of access to justice are:
- State must provide effective adjudicatory mechanism;
- Mechanism must be reasonably accessible in terms of distance
- Process of adjudication must be speedy
- Litigant’s access to adjudicatory process must be affordable
Refer also: R vs Secy of State for Home Dept (1994 QB 198) : Every citizen has a right of unimpeded access to a court In re LLewelyn Evans, AIR 1926 Bom 551: If the end of justice is justice and the spirit of justice is fairness, then each side should have equal opportunity to prepare its own case and to law its evidence fully, freely and fairly before the court; which necessarily involves preparation. This preparation is far more effective from the point of view of justice, if made with the aid of skilled legal advice. Prabhakar Kesheo Tare vs Emperor, AIR 1943 Nag 26: The right (to access courts) is prized in India and is to be zealously guarded by the court; Keshav Singh Case AIR 1965 SC 745; L Chandra Kumar vs UOI (1997) 3 SCC 261 Hussainara Khatoon (1) vs State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81: Speedy trial is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty. Imtiyaz Ahmad vs State of UP, (2012) 2 SCC 688: Undue long delay has the effect of bringing about blatant violation of the rule of law and adverse impact on the common man’s access to justice; which is guaranteed under the Constitution. The denial of the right undermines public confidence in the justice delivery system and incentivises people to look for shortcuts and other fora where they feel that justice will be done quicker. This weakens the justice delivery system in the long run and poses a threat to the rule of law. Access to justice is not to be understood in a purely quantitative dimension but must be understood to mean qualitative access to justice.
Brij Mohan Lal vs UOI, (2012) 6 SCC 502 Tamilnad Mercantile Bank vs SC Sekar, (2009) 2 SCC 784
Maneka Gandhi vs UOI. (1978) 1 SCC 248 : Right to life does not mean mere animal existence but includes every aspect that makes life meaningful and liveable.
Sunil Batra vs Delhi Admn, (1978) 4 SCC 494 : Right against solitary confinement and prison torture and custodial death declared as part of right to life.
Charles Sobraj vs Supt Central Jail, (1978) 4 SCC 104 : Right against bar fetters is a right under Article 21.
Khatri (2) vs State of Bihar, (1981) 1 SCC 627 : Right to free legal aid under Article 21.
Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Admn, (1980) 3 SCC 526 : Right against handcuffing under Article 21.
Rudul Sah vs State, (1983) 4 SCC 141 : Right to compensation for illegal and unlawful detention is a right to life under Constitution - Article 14 and Constitution - Article 21.
Sheela Barse vs UOI, (1988) 4 SCC 226 : Speedy trial as an essential right under Article 21.
Parmanand Katara vs UOI, (1989) 4 SCC 286 : Right to emergency, medical aid protected under Article 21.
Chameli Singh vs State of UP, (1996) 2 SCC 549 - Shantistar Builders vs Narayan Khimlal Totame, (1990) 1 SCC 520 : Right to shelter, clothing, decent environment and decent accommodation is part of life under Article 21.
MC Mehta vs Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388 : Right to clean environment as right to life.
Lata Singh vs State of UP, (2006) 5 SCC 475 : Right to marriage as part of right to life.
Suchita Srivastava vs Chandigarh Admn, (2009) 9 SCC 1 : Right to make reproductive choices as part of right to life
Sukhwant Singh vs State of Punjab, (2009) 7 SCC 559 - Subramanian Swamy vs UOI, (2016) 7 SCC 221 : Right to reputation as facet of right to life and an inherent, inseparable component of Article 21.
See also: Constitution - Article 14 Constitution - Article 32 Constitution - Article 39A Constitution - Article 139A Constitution - Article 142 CPC - Section 25 CrPC - Section 406
PDF: Anita Kushwaha vs Pushap Sudan, (2016) 9 SCR 560.pdf
PDF-SCC: Anita Kushwaha vs Pushap Sudan, (2016) 8 SCC 509.pdf