Kamal Ghorui
The judicial system of our country was once described as facing an existential crisis of its own kind. Over 53 million cases languished across courts, from the Apex Court to the most distant subordinate courts. A case took an average of ten years from initiation to fruition. That era now feels distant. The decisive introduction of Justice as a National Service (JANS) has altered the trajectory of India’s justice delivery system—quietly, structurally, and permanently. What once appeared to be national ignominy has become a national turning point.
Today, backlog reduction is no longer episodic or cosmetic. It is systemic. Pendency is falling across tiers, timelines are compressing, and—most importantly—citizens are regaining trust in justice as a lived experience rather than an abstract promise. JANS has emerged not as an experiment, but as an institutional reform whose efficacy is now visible, measurable, and replicable.
The case for lay participation—validated by outcomes
The foundational idea of JANS was deceptively simple: justice delivery need not be the exclusive preserve of licensed legal professionals. Instead, educated citizens from diverse backgrounds—trained, accredited, and ethically bound—could be integrated into the justice delivery framework for defined categories of disputes. What began as a bold thought has now matured into a working model, validated by results.
Two pillars have sustained its success.
First, it is now evident that the pendency paralysis could not be solved merely by appointing more judges or refining procedures. While judicial strength has increased, JANS multiplied institutional capacity beyond conventional limits. By channelling suitable cases into structured citizen-led resolution frameworks, courts were freed to focus on complex and precedent-setting matters. Accuracy improved. Speed increased. Judicial fatigue reduced.
Second, the value of practical wisdom has been decisively demonstrated. Lay adjudicators— grounded in lived experience, local customs, language, and social context—have delivered resolutions that are faster, culturally acceptable, and more durable. In disputes rooted in family arrangements, land use, inheritance, or community practice, this contextual intelligence has proven indispensable, complementing rather than diluting substantive legal rigor.
Operating JANS: Accurate, speedy, and reliable justice at scale
India’s diversity once appeared an obstacle to uniform justice delivery. Under JANS, it has become an asset: an asset that grounds every decision in local realities, enabling true justice.
At the grassroots level, trained and certified community members—respected citizens from villages and districts—now handle defined categories of minor civil disputes, including family and land matters. This evolution builds seamlessly on the proven success of Lok Adalats, which already resolved millions of cases annually. The enactment and integration of the JANS framework have institutionalised this success, ensuring consistency, accountability, and scalability.
For minor offences traditionally suited for alternative dispute resolution—traffic violations, minor assaults, and regulatory infractions—community adjudication has been further strengthened. Virtual courts, supervised community panels, and technology-enabled workflows now dispose of cases in days rather than years. Judicial officers retain oversight, ensuring that speed never compromises substantive or restorative justice.
Beyond efficiency, JANS has deepened democracy. Justice is no longer perceived solely as a service delivered by the State, but as a shared civic responsibility. Participation in justice delivery has elevated civic consciousness, strengthened social capital, and infused the legal ecosystem with ethical plurality and practical realism.
The restraining limitations—addressed, not ignored
The early apprehensions were real. The jury system hangover, concerns of legal illiteracy, cognitive bias, and uneven understanding of black-letter law demanded serious safeguards. These were not brushed aside. They were engineered around.
AI-enabled decision support, algorithmic risk assessment, structured training, and continuous supervision have acted as neutralising forces, ensuring consistency and fairness. Case categorisation has been sharpened, obsolete provisions pruned, and techno-legal boundaries clearly drawn to prevent jurisdictional ambiguity.
Concerns around patronage and social hierarchy were mitigated through transparent selection, rotation, audit trails, and grievance redressal mechanisms. Strong implementation infrastructure, once a prerequisite, is now a defining feature.
A virtuous cycle begins
JANS has not been a hurried fix. It has been a patient, institutional transformation. The results are unmistakable: a decisively lower backlog, faster dispute resolution, rising investor confidence, and a materially higher Judicial Quotient of Bharat. Contract enforcement is credible. Legal timelines are predictable. India has become markedly more attractive as an investment destination—not despite its justice system, but because of it.
Justice as a National Service has demonstrated that reform, when rooted in trust, design, and civic participation, can permanently change outcomes. What once risked being a band-aid has become a backbone. The vicious cycle has ended. A virtuous one has begun.
Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author’s own.
END OF ARTICLE
