Healing the law

With its evidence-based approach and incisive analyses, the India Justice Report 2025 is a landmark endeavour that pleads the case for a more equitable justice system in the country

As India moves towards a hundred years of being a democratic, rule-of-law nation, making the justice system ‘better’ envisions one that is more accessible, equitable, efficient, and responsive to the needs of the people it serves — a system that truly lives up to the ideals of the constitution and works tirelessly to ensure that justice is not only done but is seen to be done

For too long India’s justice system has been weighed down by inefficiencies, backlogs, and resource constraints. These problems, though widely recognised, have neglected a deep dive into examining the supporting framework that underpins the justice delivery system. Launched in 2019, the latest India Justice Report (IJR) 2025 seeks to change this by offering a comprehensive and structured assessment of the anatomy of the nation’s justice delivery mechanisms.

The key questions IJR interrogates are: do the many institutions — police, prisons, judiciary and legal aid — that are charged with delivering justice have the adequate structural foundations they need to fulfil their mandates? How do states compare with one another? Are systems being strengthened or allowed to stagnate? In short, is the system fit for purpose and, if lacking, how can it be made so?

A detailed analysis of the justice delivery landscape has revealed national patterns and trends. The southern states consistently rank among the top performers, excelling in areas such as human resources, judicial infrastructure and legal aid services. In the middle tier, states like Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Odisha have shown a gradual improvement. Maharashtra, though, sees a significant decline from its previously held top position, and Gujarat and Punjab exhibit inconsistent performances.

In the bottom tier, states such as Bihar, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal have largely maintained their positions, with minor shifts. Uttar Pradesh, rising one rung from the bottom, has switched places with West Bengal. Overall, these changes underscore the shifting dynamics of state performance, shaped by evolving governance, economic policies and other influencing factors.

Infrastructure bottleneck

The infrastructure gap adds another bottleneck. Many states face a critical shortage of courtrooms. Police stations, particularly in rural areas, are either too few or serve unmanageably large populations while often lacking basic amenities.

The rankings of small states reveal a mix of trends. Sikkim consistently retains its top position. Himachal Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, and Tripura occupy the middle rung but Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Goa show a dip in their most recent rankings, to fifth, sixth and seventh places, respectively.

The good news is that, in general, there has been a steady growth in investment in strengthening the structural capacity of the justice delivery system across all key institutions assessed by IJR. Budget allocations have risen, with judiciary per capita expenditure improving, and gender diversity within the lower judiciary and police has shown an upward trend, as it has among legal aid secretaries and paralegal volunteers.     

India, a diverse agglomeration of marginalised communities, presents a complex challenge to inclusion. From caste groups to women, Dalits, minorities, transgender individuals and people with disabilities, demands for representation within the justice system are ever-present.

The aspiration behind affirmative action is to address historical and systemic inequalities faced by marginalised groups. The standard is to bridge the gulf in representation of consistently underrepresented groups in all spheres — placing the onus on governments and public authorities to lead the way.

One group continues to remain largely invisible within the justice system: people with disabilities. The nearly decade-old Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016 mandates a 4% reservation. While India’s legal framework acknowledges the rights of disabled individuals, systemic inaction has led to their continued exclusion. Within the police, judiciary, and prison administration, they are negligible and often ignored in recruitment policies and implementation. This leaves them underrepresented as professionals and underserved as users of justice.

True diversity in the justice system requires moving beyond token representation. While strides have been made for women and with caste-based inclusion, leadership gaps persist, with disability representation remaining an afterthought.

Forensic science plays a crucial role in the delivery of justice. Despite their importance, forensic labs across the country face significant capacity constraints. Many suffer from chronic underfunding, have outdated infrastructure, and an acute shortage of skilled personnel.

The increasing demand for forensic analyses, coupled with limited resources, has led to case backlogs that delay investigations and trials. Budgetary allocations remain insufficient and slow recruitment processes exacerbate the shortage of trained experts. Additionally, the lack of adequate regional forensic facilities means that crucial evidence often has to be sent to overburdened state-level laboratories, further prolonging forensic examinations and delaying investigations and trials.

The central government has introduced the DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill to establish standardised forensic procedures and enhance the reliability of forensic evidence. Ensuring the long-term effectiveness of these measures will require sustained investment, inter-agency collaboration, and a commitment to keeping forensic science independent, well-resourced and aligned with the broader goal of justice delivery.

Data can be a help

India’s commitment to achieving the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 includes ambitious targets for gender equality, reduced inequalities, peace, justice, and strong institutions. While some progress is likely in certain areas — especially improved access to justice that is driven by digitisation and increased legal awareness — full achievement across all goals will remain a challenge. Data can help with this.

Disaggregated, consistent, timely and accurate data — accessible and compiled year-on-year in one place in relation to justice delivery — provides the basis for policymakers to frame plans and identify priorities within a complex set of interdependent operations.

IJR 2025 is the outcome of close collaboration between the independent IJR Collective and several external advisers, guides and supporters. We hope this report will inspire readers to consider a fundamental question: how can a system designed to deliver specific quality standards hope to achieve them when essential, officially recognised building blocks remain absent?

This gap — between aspiration and implementation — remains an oversight and a profound failure, one so critical that we cannot in good conscience continue to ignore it.