Access to

Justice
Survey
2015-16

www.dakshindia.org | Twitter: @daksh_india | Facebook: www.facebook.com/Daksh India

 Access to Justice Survey 2015-16

contents
A Introduction

B Who is Accessing the Judicial System?

C What are Litigants Using the System for?

D Litigants Perceptions of Delay in Courts

E The Costs of Accessing Justice

F Expectations of Litigants

G Access to Lawyers

2
 Access to Justice Survey 2015-16

Survey Design
Harish Narasappa, Kishore Mandyam, Ramya Tirumalai,
Kavya Murthy,Shruti Vidyasagar, Suryaprakash B.S.

Survey Conducted by
Centre for Development, Planning and Research, Pune, India

Survey Analysis
Harish Narasappa, Kavya Murthy, Suryaprakash B.S., Yashas C. Gowda

In collaboration with: Aparna Chandra & Smrutirekha

Mohanty, National Law University, Delhi

Infographics and Report Design

How India Lives, a search engine for public data on India
Website: www.howindialives.com

3
 Access to Justice Survey 2015-16

Introduction I. Socio-demographic indicators

l Age
The Access to Justice Survey l Education
is designed to understand the l Occupation
functioning of the judiciary and profile
l Annual family income
of litigants. The survey interviews
l Nature of accommodation
current litigants to see if they are able
to use the judicial system effectively l Types of assets owned
to resolve their problems. It evaluates l Caste
how social profile determines ease of l Religion
access.
Litigants in several district courts II. Cost structures
were interviewed regarding the l Types and costs of travel
transactional and relational aspects of
l Expenditure on the court case
accessing the court system.
l Costs of time lost in attending
hearings

A. Methodology l Social support systems such as

family or friends accompanying
The survey includes questions litigant to court
pertinent to civil and criminal l Expectations of outcome vis a
legal procedures. The survey was vis time and delay
conducted manually between l Alternate methods of dispute
November 2015 and February 2016. resolution used
The sampling objective of
l Details on access to lawyers
our survey was to ensure nation-
wide representation. Separate
questionnaires were designed for civil
and criminal cases.
Surveyors physically visited 305
locations in 24 states in India.
The survey form was made
available on an Android-based app.
Our survey has collected data on the
following variables:

4
 Access to Justice Survey 2015-16

Our survey was conducted across 305 locations in

24 states and interviewed 9329 litigants. Below is a heat map of
the 170 districts in which the survey was carried out.

Number of survey Respondents

No respondents
1-30
30-70
70-150
150-370

5
 Access to Justice Survey 2015-16

B. Who is Accessing the Judicial System?

This section contains a summary of the socio-
economic profile of the litigant body across
civil and criminal questionnaires as per social,
economic and institutional parameters. Our
survey data is representative of the social
profile of the Indian demographic as per
Census 2011. Women account for 15% of the
survey respondents. This is in keeping with
the National Judicial Data Grid data that states
that only 14% of litigants in India are female.
Survey respondents are primarily composed of
individuals fighting against other individuals.

Figure 1: Socio-economic profile of survey respondents

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Gender
84.3 Male 15.1 Female 0.5 Transgender

religion

79.8 9.8 5.6 3.2 1.6

Hindu Muslim Christian Jain/Sikh/Buddhists Others/Not disclosed

caste
44.7 34.3 10.8 3.2 7.0
General OBC SC ST Others/Not disclosed

Occupation
37.5 24.0 13.1 11.0 2.8 1.8 9.8
Agriculture Private Self-employed Labour Government Unemployed Others
service /business service

Annual
income
46.3 43.8 7.7 1.8 0.4
`1 lakh to `3 lakh Below `1 lakh `3 lakh to `5 lakh `5 lakh to `10 lakh Above `10 lakh

Education
29.0 23.6 15.7 13.7 13.4 4.6
Pre-university/Class XII High school/Class X No education Degree Primary school Other*
* Includes Diploma, Professional Degree and Post-graduate/Doctorate

Location 54.2 Urban 45.8 Rural

Figures in %

6
 Access to Justice Survey 2015-16

C. What are Litigants Using the Judicial

System for?
Figure 2 : Subject matter of civil cases as per survey respondents
Land and property matters dominate civil litigation across the country. This is followed by
litigation on family matters.

10.0 8.1 1.9 0.7

Family matter Recovery of money Labour Service

66.2 8.2 3.4 1.3 0.2

Land/property Other Permanent injunction Intellectual property Education
Figures in %

Figure 3: Share of land/property cases in total civil cases by income group

0 20 40 60 80 100

Below ` 1 lakh 56.6

1 lakh to 3 lakh 74.7
3 lakh to 5 lakh 65.7
5 lakh to 10 lakh 77.4
Figures in %

7
 Access to Justice Survey 2015-16

Figure 4: Gender-wise break-up of civil cases

(plaintiffs and respondents)
Land/property Family matter Recovery of money Permanent injunction Others*

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

male

68.9 7.4 8.5 3.3 11.9

female

56.9 19.8 6.5 4.0 12.8

Figures in % * Includes labour, service, intellectual property and education.

Figure 5: Religion matrix of civil cases

Religion of Opponent
Hindu Muslim Christian Jain/Sikh/ Not Other
Buddhist mentioned

Hindu 73.8 1.5 7.5 0.6 15.4 1.1

Religion of survey respondent

Muslim 23.8 42.6 15.6 0.3 15.9 1.9

Christian 20.0 1.7 74.9 0.0 2.7 0.7
Jain/Sikh/Buddhist 15.0 1.8 9.0 41.3 32.9 0.0
Not mentioned 26.1 0.0 21.7 0.0 39.1 13.0
Figures in %

Other 25.8 3.2 9.7 0.0 6.5 54.8

This graph maps civil cases by religion of contesting parties. So, for example, 73.8% of cases by Hindu
survey respondents are against other Hindus and 1.5% against Muslims and 7.5% against Christians.
The colour spectrum ranges from red (high percentage of cases) to blue (low percentage of cases).

8
 Access to Justice Survey 2015-16

Figure 6: Caste matrix of civil cases

Caste of opponent

General OBC SC ST Not mentioned Other

General 68.8 7.4 1.7 0.6 19.6 1.9

Caste of survey respondent

OBC 10.9 62.9 4.2 0.9 19.0 2.1

SC 15.6 15.8 58.7 1.2 6.4 2.4
ST 16.9 10.6 7.0 51.4 7.7 6.3
Not mentioned 24.4 7.3 3.7 0.0 54.9 9.8

Figures in %
Other 38.0 12.4 3.6 1.2 8.0 36.8

This graph maps civil cases by caste of contesting parties. So, for example, 68.8% of cases by survey
respondents of the General category are against others of the same category, and 7.4% against OBCs
and 1.7% against SCs. The colour spectrum ranges from red (high percentage of cases) to blue (low
percentage of cases).

Figure 7: Socio-economic profile of survey respondents who were

accused in criminal cases
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Gender
94.9 Male 5.0 Female 0.1 Transgender

Occupation
33.4 27.0 18.3 12.6 2.1 6.6
Private service Agriculture Labour Self-employed/Business Government service Others *
* Includes unemployed (1.7%), homemaker (1.1%), student (0.9%) and retired (0.8%)

Annual
income
38.9 53.4 6.4 1.3
Below `1 lakh 1 lakh to 3 lakh 3 lakh to 5 lakh 5 lakh to 10 lakh

Education
36.2 28.2 13.1 10.3 8.9 3.2
Pre-university/Class XII High school/Class X Primary school Degree No education Other**
** Includes Diploma (1.8%), Professional degree (1.0%) and Post-graduate/Doctorate (0.4%) Figures in %

9
 Access to Justice Survey 2015-16

Figure 8: Profile matrix of criminal cases

Across the board, individuals were seen to be litigating against other individuals, or the government.
When the government was the complainant, the opposing party primarily consisted of individuals.

Accused
Individual Government Governmental Corporate Others
body entity

Individual 84.4 10.4 0.4 1.5 3.3

Government 93.1 3.5 0.5 2.1 0.7

Complainant

Governmental body 74.3 5.7 17.1 0.0 2.9

Corporate entity 83.1 0.0 0.0 12.3 4.6

Figures in %
Other 26.8 2.0 2.4 1.6 67.1

This graph maps civil cases by profiles of contesting parties. So, for example, 84.4% of cases by
complainants who are individuals are against other individuals, and 10.4% against the government.
The colour spectrum ranges from red (high percentage of cases) to blue (low percentage of cases).

Figure 9: Previous criminal record of accused

Amongst the accused surveyed, only 5% had been previously accused in other cases and of these
individuals, only 46% were convicted on those charges.

Never previously Previously accused, but Previously accused

accused never convicted and convicted

95.0 2.7 2.3

Figures in %

10
 Access to Justice Survey 2015-16

Figure 10: Handcuffing of Figure 12: Reason for not

accused during proceedings availing bail where due
The main reason individuals could not
90% meet the conditions for bail was due to
a lack of sufficient funds.
No
The accused had no/
31.3 insufficient money to

10% pay the bail

Yes 9.1 Dont know

10% of accused were handcuffed within the

The accused did not
court premises. Supreme Court guidelines 6.8 think he/she could get bail
guarantee a minimum freedom of movement
which even an undertrial prisoner is entitled There was no one to
to under Article 19 of the Constitution, 2.8 stand as guarantor/surety
that cannot be cut down by application of for the accused

handcuffs or other hoops. [Sunil Batra v. Delhi

Administration -AIR 1978 SC 1675]. 50.0 Other
Figures in %

Figure 11: Provider of surety for bail Figure 13: Time spent in jail by
92% of respondents accused of those who were granted bail
bailable offences are granted bail
63.5% of accused who were granted bail

2.9 2.4 were in jail for less than one month.

Friends of Don't Less than 1 month

accused know 63.5
1 month - 6 months
3.5 14.4
Others
6 months - 1 year
4.1
1 year - 3 years
1.3
38.7 52.5 3 years - 5 years
0.8
Family members Accused
Figures in %

of accused More than 5 years

1.0
Figures in %
Dont know
14.9

11
 Access to Justice Survey 2015-16

D. Litigants Perception of Delay in Courts

Figure 14: Reasons for delay Figure 15: Survey respondents
(in survey respondents case) perception for reasons for
A clear majority of litigants strongly felt delay in general
that delay in their cases is caused because
Litigants responded that the lack of
judges do not pass orders quickly. They
judges in subordinate courts is the primary
also felt that their cases are getting delayed
reason for delay in general in the courts.
due to non-appearance of opposite parties
on the dates fixed for trial.
Civil Criminal
Civil Criminal Litigants not appearing in court
I dont think there is a delay 12.9
10.4
14.4
10.1
Not enough judges
The judge did not pass 49.3
the orders quickly
50.4
61.0

63.2 Powerful litigants influencing judges

11.8
The other party did not
appear in court 10.8

26.1 Too many cases in the court

28.5 63.7

64.5
The other party influenced
Figures in %
the judge

7.2

9.7
Figures in %

12
 Access to Justice Survey 2015-16

Figure 16: Estimated disposal time at the time of filing case

On asking litigants how much time they expected it would take for their cases to be disposed,
we found that 55% of civil litigants and 67% of criminal litigants expected their cases to be
resolved within a year when they first filed their cases.

Less than 1 year 1 - 3 years 3 - 5 years More than 5 years

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Criminal

67.3 25.4 3.5 3.8

Civil

55.1 35.7 5.6 3.6

Figures in %

Figure 17: Prior experience with Figure 18: Prior experience with
courts in civil matters courts in criminal matters
Did your previous experience encourage Did your previous experience encourage
you to go to court this time? you to go to court this time?

Yes No Yes No

22.3 25.0

Figures Figures
in % in %

77.7 75.0

13
 Access to Justice Survey 2015-16

E. The Costs of Accessing Justice

We sought to understand the following cost structures:
l Expenditure involved in attending court hearings
l Legal fees
l Opportunity cost of attending hearings (wages and work time lost)

Figure 19: Cost incurred and earnings lost for court hearing
Civil litigants spend ` 497 per day on average for court hearings. They incur a loss of ` 844
per day due to loss of pay. Criminal litigants spend ` 542 per day for court hearings on
average and incurred a cost of ` 902 per day due to loss of pay.

Spending on court hearing Loss of pay, business

497
Civil
844

542
Criminal
902
Figures in `

Figure 20: Cost incurred for court hearing by type of case

Litigants in family matters and service cases spend more on each hearing than other litigants.

Below `200 `201-500 `501-1,000 ` 1,001-2,500 `2,501-5,000 Above `5,000

Land/property 26.3 53.9 9.2 7.5 3.0

0.1
Family matter 34.6 36.7 19.7 7.2 1.7
Recovery of money 27.0 46.2 17.1 8.1 1.3
0.3
Permanent injunction 66.9 29.4 3.8
Labour 76.7 7.8 10.0 4.4 1.1
Intellectual property 19.7 57.4 21.3 1.6
Service 45.5 24.2 21.2 6.1 3.0
Education 37.5 25.0 37.5
Others 70.0 18.5 5.2 0.5
Figures in % 2.9 2.9

14
 Access to Justice Survey 2015-16

Figure 21: Costs civil litigants Figure 22: Average cost per day
expect to incur till the case is The average daily expenses of plaintiffs
decided: Income level-wise is 21% less than that of defendants.

Litigants in the lowest income Defendant/Accused

bracket incur a greater cost over Plaintiff/Complainant
litigation than others. 643
589
465 463
Annual Median
income expenditure
(`) (`) *

Figures in `
Below
1 lakh 10,000 Civil Criminal

Figure 23: Expenses that

1 lakh
16,000 litigants expect to spend till the
- 3 lakh
case is decided: civil vs criminal
Defendant/Accused
Plaintiff/Complainant
3 lakh
- 5 lakh
26,000
20,000 20,000
15,000
10,000
5 lakh
25,000

Figures in `
- 10 lakh

* Median is the middle point, where the number

of respondents above equals those below Civil Criminal

Expectation and ability to appeal

The lowest income group (with an annual income of less than `1 lakh) is seen to be
most optimistic about their cases being resolved within 1 year. 44% of litigants cited
expense as a major deterrent for filing appeals in the High Court if their cases were
not resolved in their favour.

15
 Access to Justice Survey 2015-16

Figure 24: Distance travelled to court for hearings

15.6% of all litigants travel between 50 km and 300 km to
reach the courts for hearings.

Distance 0 20 40 60 80 100

Below 50 km 84.3

51-150 km 14.7

150-300 km 0.9

Above 300 km 0.1

Figures in %

16
 Access to Justice Survey 2015-16

Figure 25: Cost of litigation

The loss of productivity due to attending court hearings because of
wages and business lost comes to 0.48% of the Indian GDP*.

Cases per year

16,400 80 220 28.8

Number of Cases listed Working days
Crore
Total number
lower courts in each court of each court
of hearings
in India per day per year
per year
All figures are approximations

Cost of litigation per year to the litigants

All cases per year

`1,039 `30,000 ` 1,746 `50,387

Per case crore Per case crore
per day per day

Average cost incurred Average wage, business loss

* GDP as per Economic Survey 2016: ` 1,04,27,701 crore

17

F. Expectations Of Litigants
Estimate of duration of case:
Civil cases
56% of litigants expected their cases to
be resolved within a year when they first
filed their cases. However, on the date
of the survey, only 32% litigants had the
same expectation.
18
Access to Justice Survey 2015-16
Estimate of duration of case:
Criminal cases
When cases were originally filed, 67%
respondents expected their case to be
disposed of within one year. However, on
the date of the survey, only 42% litigants
had the same expectation.
 Access to Justice Survey 2015-16

G. Access To Lawyers Figure 27: Use of alternate

dispute resolution methods
Civil Cases in civil cases
A majority of criminal respondents found
Use of Alternate Dispute
their lawyers by way of reference from
Resolution (ADR) Methods
colleagues and acquaintances, or family
in Civil Cases
members.
We find that 33% of survey
Only a meagre 90 respondents were
respondents had used ADR
allotted lawyers appointed by the court
methods to settle their cases before
through legal services authorities
approaching the courts.
(without any fees).
13.1
Criminal Cases 32.9 No
A majority of criminal respondents found Yes
their lawyers by way of reference from 54.0
colleagues and acquaintances, or family Don't
members. know
Figures in %
Only 132 survey respondents were
allotted lawyers appointed by the court
through legal services authorities Figure 28: Annual income
(without any fees). of those who used alternate
dispute resolution methods
Figure 26: Finding a lawyer in civil cases
Reference from family/friends Out of the litigants who opted for
Other ADR methods, 96.3% litigants
Reference from colleague/acquaintance belong to the lower income
Appointed by court groups with annual income below
Through the internet `3,00,000.
0 20 40 60 80 100
33.0 3.2 0.1
Criminal

Below `1 lakh 3 lakh - 5 lakh Above 10 lakh

82.4 7.8 5.9 2.8 1.1

Civil

Figures in %

63.3 0.5
85.1 7.5 4.4 1.9 1.1 1 lakh - 3 lakh 5 lakh to 10 lakh
Figures in %

19
Website: www.dakshindia.org
Twitter: @daksh_india
Facebook: www.facebook.com/dakshimpact
E-mail: info@dakshindia.org
Blog address: blog.dakshindia.org