Introduction

Social justice is not just a constitutional ideal in India; it is the very soul of its democratic identity. Enshrined prominently in the Preamble the idea of social justice binds the Indian state to ensure the fair distribution of opportunities, reduce inequalities, and empower historically marginalized communities. Yet, despite its robust legal architecture, India’s progress towards actualizing social justice remains slow, uneven, and fraught with contradiction.

What the Constitution Promises

The Indian Constitution provides a multifaceted framework to ensure social justice. Key provisions include:

• Article 14: Equality before the law
• Article 15 & 16: Prohibition of discrimination and affirmative action
• Article 17: Abolition of untouchability
• Directive Principle (Part 4): Ecconomic and social democracy

Additionally, the Constituion empowers the state to implement policies such as reservations in educations, public employment, and legislatures for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Background Classes (OBCs).

Reservations: A Tool of Equity or a Source of Conflict?

Reservations have been India’s most visible policy tool for delivering social justice. From Indra Sawhney v. Union of India to Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, courts have constantly reviewed, limited, or expanded these provisions. The 103rd Constitutional Amendment introducing reservations for economically weaker sections (EWS) has opened new debates about caste-neutral affirmative action. Critics argue that reservations have often become more political than principled, while supporters maintain they are still essential for correcting deeply entrenched inequalities.

Judiciary as the Sentinel of Justice

India’s judiciary has played a pivotal role in defending and expanding social justice. In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, the court laid down sexual harassment guidelines. In NALSA v. Union of India, transgender rights were constitutionally recognized. Navtej Johar, Joseph Shine, and several other judgements highlight the court’s willingness to evolve the concept of equality and dignity beyond traditional parameters.

Yet, the judiciary too has faced criticism for inconsistent application, delays, and limited follow-through on enforcement.

Persistent Gaps on the Ground

Despite legal safeguards, caste violence, manual scavenging, gender discrimination, and lack of access to basic services continue to haunt created for their upliftment. Structural barriers, lack of awareness, and institutional apathy dilute the spirit of constitutional mandates.

The Role of Legal Education and Civil Society

Legal education must be made more socially aware and inclusive. Law schools and bar associations need to train future lawyers in empathy, public interest lawerying, and human rights advocacy. At the same time, civil society plays an instrumental role in holding the state accountable and pushing for reforms.

The Colonial Legacy and the Need for Reform

The foundations of India’s criminal justice system were laid to serve colonial administration. Post independence, these laws remained largely unchanged, save for piecemeal amendments. The Malimath Committee Report (2003) and the Madhava Menon Committee Report (2007) had both underscored deep structural concerns, including:

• Delay in the adjudication process
• A low conviction rate (hovering around 25-30% in heinous crimes)
• A weak victim protection framework
• The excessive discretionary power of police without proportional accountability

Despite these findings, actionable reforms have either stalled or remained unimplemented.

Present-Day Challenges in the Criminal Justice System

1. Pendency and Delay

   India’s courts are burdened with over 4.5 crore pending cases. The average time taken to conclude a criminal case can range from 5 to 15 years, severely compromising the right to speedy justice under Article 21 of the Constitution.

2. Undertrial Crisis

   According to NCRB Prison Statistics (2023), over 75% of India’s prison population comprises undertrial prisoners, a significant number of whom are from marginalized socio-economic backgrounds and often imprisoned for minor offences.

3. Custodial Violence and Police Reform

   Incidents like the custodial deaths in Thoothukudi (2020) spotlight the rampant violation of human rights by law enforcement. Despite the Supreme Court’s directions in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1, meaningful police reforms have not been uniformly implemented across states.

4. Outdated Evidentiary Standards

   The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 fails to address issues arising from modern technological advancements, digital footprints, and evolving methods of crime detection.

The 2023 Criminal Law Bills: A Paradigm Shift?

The Government introduced three key bills in 2023 intending to overhaul the colonial statutes:

• Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 – Replaces IPC, 1860
• Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 – Replaces CrPC, 1973
• Bharatiya Sakshya Bill (BSB), 2023 – Replaces Evidence Act, 1872

Key Highlights

• Introduction of community service as an alternative punishment
• Digital evidence and forensic support emphasized in trial procedures
• Redefinition of offences like sedition, now included under the broad phrases “acts against Sovereignity”
• Gender-neutral provisions for sexual offences

Concerns Raised

• Vague terminologies (e.g., “acts against sovereignity”) that may be prone to misuse
• Enhanced powers to the police without adequate institutional safeguards
• Lack of sufficient stakeholder consultation, especially from the bar, judiciary, and civil society

Landmark Case Laws on Criminal Justice Reforms

1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – Expanded the scope of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and laid the foundation for fair, just, and reasonable procedure in criminal trials.
2. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) – Recognized the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21. This case exposed the plight of undertrial prisoners.
3. DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1977) – Laid down the guidelines to prevent custodial torture and death, making arrest and detention procedures more transparent.
4. Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) – Directed extensive police reforms, including the establishment of state security commissions and separation of investigation from law and order.
5. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – Struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, balancing state security with individual liberty and free speech in the digital era.

Conclusion

Reform of the criminal justice system is not a one-time event but a continuous process. Courts, legislature, and civil society must work together to ensure that justice is accessible, affordable and timely. Landmark judicial decisions and recent legislative changes signify progress, but effective implementation remains the key challenge.

Social justice under the Indian Constitution is both a noble vision and a work in progress. While the legal framework is one of the most progressive in the world, real transformation depends on political will, societal change and sustained activism.