Jul 18, 2026
Jul 18, 2026
Why India Needs a National Census on Justice & Litigation
What is the true state of justice in India?
Not the state of laws.
Not the number of courts.
Not the number of judges appointed.
Not the glossy speeches on constitutional morality.
But justice itself.
How many Indians who entered a police station, tribunal, consumer forum, family court, labor court, civil court, high court, or the Supreme Court actually received justice?
How many died waiting for it?
How many abandoned their cases midway because ‘litigation’ itself became ‘punishment’?
How many sold land, jewelry, savings, dignity, mental peace, and decades of their lives merely to “stay in the process”?
How many innocent people were acquitted only after losing the best years of their lives?
And perhaps the most uncomfortable question of all: Does the Indian citizen still emotionally trust the justice delivery system?
India conducts a Census of population.
It conducts surveys on agriculture, health, employment, caste, poverty, and consumption.
But India has never conducted a comprehensive national “Justice Census.”
That silence itself is revealing.
India Counts Everything Except ‘Justice’
India today has more than 5 crore pending cases across courts according to data from the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG). Millions of these cases have remained unresolved for years and, in many instances, decades.
But pendency statistics alone do not reveal the true crisis.
A case pending for 20 years is not merely a statistic.
It is:
The real metric of justice is not “cases disposed.”
It is:
India measures judicial efficiency.
It does not measure judicial experience.
That is the fundamental flaw.
India Needs a ‘National Justice Census’
The Government of India should immediately commission a nationwide “Justice and Litigation Census” covering citizens across urban and rural India.
This census should not merely collect legal data. It should collect human experience.
The survey must ask citizens:
Only then can India know whether its justice system is delivering justice, or merely delivering procedure.
The Real Crisis Is Not Delay. It Is Democratic Alienation.
A dangerous phenomenon is quietly emerging in India: people are increasingly avoiding formal justice systems altogether.
Many citizens now prefer:
Why?
Because for millions of people, litigation itself has become a life sentence.
The average citizen often sees courts not as temples of justice but as corridors of uncertainty.
When citizens begin fearing the process more than the injustice, the legitimacy of the system begins eroding from within.
That is not merely a judicial problem.
It is a constitutional warning sign.
Other Countries Have Already Done Variants of This
Several countries have already recognized that justice systems cannot survive merely on institutional self-assessment. Public trust measurement has become central to judicial reform globally.
The Netherlands: Measuring Public Trust in Courts
The Netherlands regularly conducts justice perception studies through institutions like the Hague Institute for Innovation of Law (HiiL). These studies examine:
Dutch legal reforms increasingly incorporated citizen-centric approaches after such findings revealed procedural complexity and accessibility concerns.
The focus shifted from “legal machinery” to “justice experience.”
Canada: Public Confidence Surveys
Canada has repeatedly conducted surveys regarding public confidence in courts, policing, and legal institutions through Statistics Canada and justice departments.
These studies examined:
Public opinion significantly influenced reforms involving:
United Kingdom: Court User Satisfaction Studies
The UK justice system regularly conducts court user surveys and public consultations before major procedural reforms.
The British government has historically sought stakeholder and citizen inputs regarding:
Even controversial reforms are increasingly preceded by public consultation papers.
New Zealand: Maori Justice Integration
New Zealand’s justice reforms increasingly incorporated MÄori perspectives after sustained public consultation and social research showed alienation from the formal justice system.
This led to:
The State acknowledged that legitimacy depends not merely on legality but also on societal acceptance.
Rwanda: ‘Community-Based Justice’ Mechanisms
After the genocide, Rwanda used extensive public participation and community justice systems known as Gacaca Courts to rebuild social legitimacy.
While imperfect and debated globally, the system demonstrated one important principle:
justice systems cannot function in isolation from public psychology.
India’s Judicial Reform Debate Is Too Elite-Driven
Most judicial reform discussions in India happen among:
But the ordinary litigant — the person who actually suffers the system — is rarely consulted meaningfully.
These are the real shareholders of the justice system.
Yet their voices rarely shape reform.
A democracy cannot redesign justice without consulting those who experience injustice most directly.
India Needs a National Judicial Overhaul Consultation
Alongside the Justice Census, India should launch the largest public consultation exercise ever conducted on judicial reform.
Citizens should be invited to give suggestions regarding:
This consultation must include:
The judiciary exists for the people.
The people are not meant to exist for the judiciary.
Ancient India Understood ‘Participative Justice’ Better
Ironically, ancient Indian systems often understood participative justice better than many modern structures.
In the Mahabharata, kings repeatedly held open assemblies where grievances could be aired publicly.
In the Ramayana, Lord Rama’s governance model — often referred to as Rama Rajya — emphasized listening to public sentiment, even when personally painful.
Kautilya’s Arthashastra repeatedly stressed that justice delayed weakens the legitimacy of the ruler and the stability of the State.
Ancient Indian governance understood something profound: the perception of justice is itself a pillar of statecraft.
A kingdom collapses not merely when injustice exists, but when people believe justice is inaccessible.
The Goal Is Not to ‘Attack’ the Judiciary. The Goal Is to ‘Save’ Public Trust.
India’s judiciary remains one of the pillars holding the Republic together despite extraordinary burdens.
Many judges work under crushing caseloads and infrastructure limitations.
Many lawyers genuinely fight for justice.
Many institutions still uphold constitutional values courageously.
But systems survive only when they are willing to introspect honestly.
A Justice Census is not an attack on courts.
It is a democratic audit of lived reality.
Because a nation that never measures justice honestly may eventually lose the moral authority to claim that justice exists.
And perhaps that is the greatest danger of all.
Final Thoughts: The Republic Must ‘Listen’ Before Citizens Stop Speaking
A courtroom is not merely a building.
It is a psychological contract between the citizen and civilization.
The day citizens begin believing that justice is too slow, too expensive, too inaccessible, too incomprehensible, or too exhausting to pursue, democracy itself begins suffering silent corrosion.
India does not merely need more courts.
It needs more trust.
And trust cannot be manufactured through speeches, slogans, or ceremonial constitutionalism.
It must be measured honestly.
Rebuilt courageously.
And earned continuously.
Perhaps the time has come for India to ask its people a historic question: “Did you truly receive justice?” The answer may redefine the future of the Republic itself.
18-Jul-2026
More by : P. Mohan Chandran
