Free Legal Aid in India Is Failing the Poor — Justice Vikram Nath Demands Meaningful Reform

Introduction

In a compelling speech that addressed the core issue of India's justice accessibility crisis, Justice Vikram Nath of the Supreme Court recently reiterated a basic principle, “the standard of legal aid for the impoverished must not be subpar.” During the launch of “Between Custody and Constitution: Field Lessons in Delivering Fair Trial Rights – Legal Aid for Undertrial Prisoners (2019–2024),” a report by the Square Circle Clinic, NALSAR, Justice Nath emphasized that legal aid goes beyond a mere procedural requirement; it is a constitutional guarantee that embodies the ethical and democratic essence of the Indian justice system.

Justice Vikram Nath

Constitutional Faith, Not Charity

Justice Nath emphasized that Articles 21 and 39A of the Constitution serve as active responsibilities rather than mere symbolic assurances, obliging the State and the legal system to guarantee that no individual is denied justice because of poverty or lack of knowledge.

“When legal aid is provided in form but not in essence, it may adhere to procedures, yet it does not satisfy the Constitution.” "It undermines the very concept of justice," he noted.

He pointed out that this constitutional belief is not an act of charity, it is a serious gesture of equality. True justice, then, cannot be limited to adhering to procedures; it must encompass substantial representation, where having access to a lawyer also signifies access to dignity, fairness, and prompt remedy.

A System that Fails the Poor

The seriousness of India's undertrial issue set the stage for his comments. Justice Nath emphasized that more than 70% of the prison population in India comprises undertrial prisoners, many of whom are held longer than the maximum sentence set for their supposed crimes.

Equally troubling is the neglect and skepticism towards legal aid. The Fair Trial Report indicates that just 7.91% of undertrials have received free legal aid, even though it is a legal right established by the Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987. Justice Nath explained that this skepticism arises from previous encounters where legal aid was either superficial or unhelpful.

He expressed sorrow that bail requests are frequently submitted automatically, lacking necessary documentation or credible sureties, causing the disadvantaged to remain in a cycle of extended imprisonment. In numerous instances, chargesheets remain unfiled for months or even years, rendering pre-trial detention a form of actual punishment.

“They wait, not due to legal obligation, but because the system has let them down,” he remarked thoughtfully.

Beyond Sympathy: Building Structural Empathy

Justice Nath urged that the justice system move from sympathy to structural empathy, a shift that requires institutional coordination between courts, prisons, and legal aid authorities. He suggested establishing a continuous line of responsibility from the first point of arrest to the final stage of representation.

He emphasized that effective representation is more than assigning a lawyer. It means ensuring that the advocate meets the client, understands the case, and provides sustained legal assistance. To make this possible, Justice Nath called for stronger monitoring mechanisms, performance evaluations, and mentorship programmes within Legal Services Authorities (LSAs).

Justice Nath emphasized the need for the justice system to transition from mere sympathy to structural empathy, necessitating coordinated efforts among courts, prisons, and legal aid organizations. He proposed creating an uninterrupted chain of accountability from the initial arrest to the last phase of representation.

He stressed that proper representation involves more than just appointing a lawyer. It involves making certain that the advocate engages with the client, comprehends the situation, and delivers ongoing legal support. To achieve this, Justice Nath urged the implementation of enhanced monitoring systems, improved performance assessments, and mentorship initiatives within Legal Services Authorities (LSAs).

This viewpoint resonates with previous court rulings like Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), wherein the Supreme Court mandated the release of more than 40,000 undertrial detainees, and Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, which brought attention to caste-related discrimination in Indian jails. Nonetheless, as Justice Nath pointed out, “the trust of individuals in the justice system cannot be regained solely through significant rulings. It will be revitalized by the daily integrity of those who work inside it. This perspective echoes earlier judicial pronouncements such as Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), where the Supreme Court ordered the release of over 40,000 undertrial prisoners, and Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, which highlighted caste-based discrimination in Indian prisons. However, as Justice Nath noted, “the faith of people in the justice system will not be restored by monumental judgements alone. It will be restored by the everyday decency of those who serve within it.”

Justice Vikram Nath’s Voices and the Need for Data

Justice Nath’s address highlighted inequalities related to gender and caste within the criminal justice system. He observed that women, transgender individuals, and marginalized groups encounter heightened vulnerabilities both in and out of prisons.

He noted that “for women, the prison acts as an extension of the same societal control, moral examination, and gender regulation that oversee their existence beyond its walls.”

He underscored the significance of empirical, disaggregated data to reveal where the system breaks down. He stated that existing national prison statistics are inadequate and lack sensitivity, not addressing health issues or mental health matters despite requirements set by the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

To close this gap, Justice Nath proposed establishing strong national and state databases monitoring undertrial prisoners from their arrest to their release, gathering demographic information, detention duration, legal representation quality, and outcomes, all broken down by caste, gender, religion, and income.

The Pune–Nagpur Model: A Blueprint for Change

The Fair Trial Programme (2019–2024) from the Square Circle Clinic, backed by Project 39A (NLU Delhi), offers a framework for data-informed, compassionate intervention. Since 2019, it has managed more than 5,700 cases in Yerawada (Pune) and Nagpur Central Prisons, revealing troubling statistics, with 41.3% of inmates without designated attorneys, and almost 80% cut off from family assistance.

Justice Nath praised this initiative as a tangible example of evidence-driven reform, calling for its reproduction throughout India.

Way forward: From Constitutional Ideals to Everyday Justice

Justice Nath’s statement embodies the core principles of Lawttorney, that justice should be attainable, responsible, and centered on human needs. The convergence of law and empathy he promotes is not theoretical ideology; it forms the basis of constitutional democracy.

At Lawttorney, we hold that genuine legal empowerment starts when representation has significance; data fuels change, and access is determined not by privilege but by principle. Legal aid, as Justice Nath points out, must not just be present, it must be effective. When it functions, justice enlivens the Constitution, and the assurance of equality turns tangible.

Empower Your Legal Practice with AI – Join Our Free Webinar!

Are you a legal professional looking to boost your efficiency and stay ahead in a competitive field? Discover the power of Lawttorney.AI – the cutting-edge tool designed to streamline legal research, automate tasks, and enhance productivity.

👉 Don't miss out! Reserve your spot in our FREE webinar and experience the future of legal practice today. Register Now