People Need To Be Educated That Granting Bail Doesn't Mean Acquittal; Trial Courts Under Social Pressure To Deny Bail : Justice AS Oka

Justice Abhay S Oka, judge of the Supreme Court of India delivered a lecture on Access to Justice at the Event Hall in the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur bench on Saturday evening, the 24th of February, 2024. It was organised by the Fair Trial Programme of Project 39A, National Law University, Delhi which works on providing quality legal aid to undertrial prisoners in Pune and Nagpur Central Prisons.

Prof. Dr. Anup Surendranath, Executive Director of Project 39A, National Law University, Delhi set the context for the lecture with the opening remarks while Justice Vinay Joshi, judge, Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) gave the welcome address. The event was attended by other sitting judges of the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court, namely Justice Avinash Gharote, Justice A.S Kilor, Justice M.W Chandwani and Justice Vrushali Joshi. Former judge R.C Chavan and Vasanti Naik along with members of the district judiciary, district and high court bar and academicians were also present.

In this inaugural lecture, Justice Oka approached the idea of access to justice by touching upon a wide gamut of issues within the broader concept. He elucidated this with various examples ranging from silent victims of domestic violence, underpaid and unorganised migrant workers, tribals who have been displaced from their land as well as the challenges faced by persons with disability to carry out seemingly simple tasks such as linking their Aadhar card to their bank account. He said that most people in the country whose rights are being violated are unable to reach courts and lack access to quality justice.

In the context of access to justice within the criminal justice system, he stressed the undue pressure on the judiciary especially in cases of serious offences. By way of illustration, he mentioned how granting bail has become increasingly difficult in cases involving violence against women due to strong public sentiments, media trials and the involvement of local politicians which in turn places immense pressure on judges to deny bail to an accused. Justice Oka also reflected on how the introduction of new and stringent laws adds to the pressure to deny bail and a consequent increase in bail cases before appellate courts. He gave the example of Bihar where after the adoption of the prohibition laws, 60% of cases before the High Court were bail matters. He also added that about 30% of the cases before him in the Supreme Court were an outcome of bail being refused.  Justice Oka pointed to a trend of societal insistence on keeping accused persons incarcerated and stressed the need to educate the masses, especially in the urban spaces, that granting bail in a case does not amount to an acquittal.

Speaking on the delay and pendency rate of cases, Justice Oka reflected on the lack of prioritisation for improving infrastructure and working conditions in the district judiciary. Despite being crucial in justice delivery and the first point of seeking redressal for most people, Justice Oka noted how the district judiciary continues to be neglected (with a ratio of 22 judges for per million people). He also expressed reservations about characterising the district judiciary as “lower judiciary.” According to Justice Oka, this is reflective of a mindset of relegating the district courts to a lesser status.

Justice Oka also identified the high cost and length of the litigation process in India as another impediment to accessing justice. Additionally, he highlighted the disparate impact on persons from marginalised socio-economic backgrounds. While one individual facing injustice may be able to seek remedies by approaching appellate courts, another may continue to suffer injustice merely due to their socio-economic inability to approach such forums for remedies.

Justice Oka commended the work undertaken by Project 39A's Fair Trial Programme in strengthening mechanisms for access to justice and quality legal representation for undertrial prisoners. He shared an instance where in an event organised by the Bar Council of India in the past he had expressed concerns about National Law Universities producing a pool of 'elite lawyers'. However, Justice Oka said that he would no longer stand by his comment for National Law University Delhi given Project 39A's work.

Justice Oka emphasised the duty of students of National Law Universities to give back to society by joining the judiciary, litigation practice at the district level, and academia. Given the state-funded nature of these universities, he stated that it was incumbent upon its students to have this approach. He went on to suggest that law students as well as students from other streams should be mentored and trained to become para-legal volunteers (PLVs) and create legal awareness among various communities across the country.

Finally, Justice Oka urged the judiciary to introspect about their shortcomings as India nears its 75th year of the Constitution next year and to make quality justice accessible to all.