SC emphasises entry to justice for marginalised litigants
New Delhi: The Supreme Court docket has underscored the necessity for constitutional courts to contemplate the socio-economic realities of litigants whereas balancing the scales of justice, because it highlighted that a big proportion of litigants in India hail from deprived backgrounds and rely completely on authorized counsel to navigate the judicial course of.
A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta emphasised the Supreme Court docket’s dedication to making sure entry to justice for litigants who face systemic and financial obstacles, stating that procedural delays mustn’t impede substantive justice, significantly for these from marginalised backgrounds.
The court docket made these observations whereas condoning a delay of 225 days in a second enchantment filed by a girl looking for authorized recognition because the spouse of her deceased husband. She had sought the declaration since one other girl additionally claimed to be the spouse of the person, who had died intestate.
The lady had approached the Supreme Court docket after the Orissa excessive court docket dismissed her common second enchantment (RSA) on January 10, 2023, solely on the bottom of delay. The highest court docket, nonetheless, dominated in her favour, noting the hardships confronted by litigants from underprivileged backgrounds.
The bench identified that many litigants are deprived and rely completely on attorneys in approaching courts.
“Balancing of scales of justice turns into crucial relating to such issues, particularly given the socio-economic background of a lot of India’s inhabitants who strategy these doorways of justice as litigants,” the court docket held in its January 31 order, launched on Thursday.
The appellant, a homemaker, had initially filed a civil swimsuit in 2013 earlier than the senior civil decide in Chatrapur, looking for a declaration that she was the legally wedded spouse of her deceased husband and that that they had 4 youngsters collectively. Her swimsuit was dismissed in 2016, main her to file an enchantment earlier than the extra district decide, which additionally dismissed in October 2021.
Following this, she approached the Orissa excessive court docket in August 2022 however confronted rejection as a result of delay in submitting. In her plea, she contended that she was solely knowledgeable in regards to the dismissal of her first enchantment in July 2022 and that the delay was as a result of negligence of her counsel, not any deliberate motion on her half.
The Supreme Court docket referenced its 1981 ruling in Rafiq and One other Vs Munshilal and one other, the place it had recognised that many litigants, significantly from rural and economically weaker sections, stay completely depending on their advocates for authorized proceedings.
“Regardless that the above-quoted case legislation is from the yr 1981, we can not deny the truth that the bottom actuality of a substantial proportion of litigants being fully depending on their counsel stays the identical, particularly in areas with decrease financial and academic prowess,” the court docket famous.
Contemplating the circumstances, the bench discovered that the girl had sufficiently defined the explanations for the delay and had acted promptly as soon as she grew to become conscious of the dismissal of her first enchantment. Consequently, it dominated that the delay deserved to be condoned.
Permitting the enchantment, the Supreme Court docket directed that the appellant’s RSA be restored and regarded on its deserves. The bench additionally urged the Orissa excessive court docket to expedite the matter.
