The fourth edition of the India Justice Report (IJR) 2025, released this month, flags critical issues across the four pillars of the justice system – judiciary, police, prisons and legal aid. It exposes systemic gaps that have rendered India’s justice system frail, sluggish and often incapacitated to deliver “justice” to the common man.
Stories of “injustice” are all too familiar – reported in newspapers, broadcast on news channels, or used as plot points in movies and web-series. Some of us flinch at scenes where victims are turned away from the police stations. Courts repeatedly adjourn cases. There is also the plight of the poor and the underprivileged caught in long-drawn criminal procedures. Many, however, simply accept and embrace it as “routine” and “normal”.
The reality is that the deficiencies of the justice system are impacting millions of people every day. We fear approaching the police, even though their mandate is to protect. We distrust the court system, as cases take forever to conclude. We have normalised custodial violence and ill-treatment of the accused, rarely holding perpetrators accountable. While we may choose to shrug off every such experience, the truth remains that we are all affected when the justice system fails.
One must then ask: Where do the faultlines lie? Is it merely a lack of will or competence or does it go deeper – could the system-core itself be deficient? The IJR attempts to uncover this system-core by periodically ranking the capacity of states to deliver justice. It assesses the four pillars on five parameters – human resources, infrastructure, budgets, workload and diversity. It offers insights into efforts made by governments to improve the administration of justice and the capacity of its pillars. This year’s edition also draws attention to the plight of forensics and continues to reflect upon state human rights commissions.
On policing, the report highlights continued concentration of police machinery in urban areas, and a decline in rural police stations between 2017 and 2023. The police-to-population ratio remains at 155 police personnel per 100,00 population – well below the sanctioned strength of 197. This often translates into longer investigations and compromises public safety.
On the judiciary, the report highlights a 20 per cent increase in pending cases, crossing the five-crore mark; shortages in court halls; vacancies in the high courts and district courts that stand at 33 per cent and 21 per cent respectively. There is an increase in the average workload in district courts – 2,200 cases per judge, while case clearance rate is at 94 per cent. This leads to a slower pace of justice and erodes public confidence in the justice system.
In prisons, overcrowding continues undeterred, with some running at over 400 per cent occupancy. Prisoners awaiting trial stand at 76 per cent. Their guilt is yet to be proven and the period of detention is constantly increasing with one in every four undertrial spending between one to three years in prison pending trial. As for workload and human resources – there are 30 per cent vacancies with one in four posts vacant in most states/UTs, one correctional officer for 699 prisoners and one doctor for 775 prisoners. The average daily spend per inmate stands at a mere Rs 121. This is indicative of inadequate funding, infrastructure and reform – falling far short of the vision of the Model Prisons & Correctional Services Act, 2023.
On legal aid, the report flags concerns over optimal utilisation of funds, uneven human resource deployment and shrinkage in community-based legal aid services like village legal services clinics (one clinic for 163 villages). The legal aid workforce includes 41,553 lawyers and 43,050 para legal volunteers. Additionally, the legal aid defence counsel system – India’s exploration into the public defender systems – has been introduced for providing legal representation in criminal cases in district courts. Encouragingly, beneficiaries of legal services have risen from 12 lakh in 2019 to 15.5 lakh in 2024, aided possibly by the national toll-free helpline, online web portal and targeted outreach and services.
On forensics, the report highlights significant capacity constraints – chronic underfunding, outdated infrastructure and acute shortage of skilled personnel. Similarly, state human rights commissions suffer from persistent vacancies in senior-most functionaries and lack robust complaint disposal mechanisms.
All of this – the data, analysis, trends and insights – can only lead to reform if stakeholders take a moment to reflect and act. The judiciary, state governments, police, prisons and forensic departments, legal services authorities and others can develop strategic plans to address these gaps through affirmative action. Systemic change is undoubtedly difficult but the pathway to reform is to address each fault bit by bit, piece by piece. What is important is the will to acknowledge the problem and a commitment to fix it.
One hopes the IJR serves as exactly that – the much-needed nudge to reform the justice system.
The writer is a lawyer, is former consultant, National Legal Services Authority and former programme head, Prison Reforms, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, India
