Evidence-Based Advocacy
Using Data to Address Systemic Deficits
Valay Singh*
‘Justice’ is both a core value and an important ideal for a civilised society to aspire to. Central to the understanding of justice is that when conflicting claims – of resources, opportunities, rights and freedoms are put forth, they are resolved by determining what individuals are entitled to have, in a manner that is both fair and just.
Quite simply, justice should be understood as an essential public good. Such goods possess two main characteristics – the first is that they are non-rival, which means that the consumption of the good by one individual doesn’t diminish the ability of others to consume it. Second, public goods are ‘nonexcludable’; no one can be prevented from enjoying them. Recognising justice as a public good isn’t simply for populations that find themselves directly in contact with the system; its larger purpose is that each person should have free and fair access to the justice system so as to secure effective remedy in the face of violations. Justice M. N. Venkatachaliah, one of India’s finest jurists, emphasises the criticality of a credible justice system to democracy when he says that, “If a sizeable section of people lose faith in their governance structures and in the justice dispensation in society, a socially negative critical-mass occurs, which can result in sweeping cynicism that unleashes a power of destruction.”
The delivery of justice, as an essential service, is guaranteed through the constitutional promises of ‘equality before the law’ (Article 14) and ‘the protection of life and personal liberty’ (Article 21). Every government, therefore, is duty-bound to provide an impartial, efficient, responsive and accessible justice system to all. Presently, however, the justice system in India is a luxury, only within the reach of the privileged and powerful few.
The India Justice Reports look at the deep-seated structural deficits through unimpeachable data that make the system dysfunctional. It is a first of its kind index, which ranks Indian states on their capacity to deliver justice, on the four pillars of the justice system: police, prisons, judiciary and legal aid. In doing so, it underscores the urgent necessity in filling the deficits affecting it and suggests some key practical measures that could spur reforms.
Since independence, numerous commissions and committees have made thousands of recommendations for each sub-system as if each is a monolith working in isolation from the other. In reality, the working of each sub-system – police, prisons, judiciary and legal aid – is inextricably inter-linked. The India Justice Report examines quantitatively the four ‘pillars’ that support the justice system using only government data. These pillars are filtered against six main themes – budgets, infrastructure, human resources, workload, diversity, and ‘five-year trends’ – to assess where a state stands, not simply vis-à-vis others, but against the standards they have set for themselves. It consolidates data, otherwise disparate and siloed, to present a complete picture of the state of justice in India.
The available data paints a grim picture. It highlights that each individual sub-system is starved for budgets, human resources and infrastructure; no state is fully compliant with the standards it has set for itself and that rural India faces greater hurdles in reaching institutions of justice than urban India. The report aims to demystify the functioning of the justice system that has hitherto been shrouded in mystery by bringing together data on nearly 80 indicators across pillars. The report’s findings allow for an identification of specific pain points which, if repaired, could remove bottlenecks to efficient functioning as well as show up the infirmities within each system and allow for analysis of the knock-on effect each has on the other.
Moreover, given that the justice sector has been largely inaccessible to reformative efforts driven by the public, the ranking of states is an effort aimed not only to provide a birds-eye view of the system, but to propel states to improve themselves. These corrections, both urgent and necessary, can be encouraged by way of the ‘nudges’ the report recommends. These are practical and workable suggestions to spur momentum for reform. The realisation of all social goals, health and livelihoods included, cannot progress without the assurance of an effective system of justice delivery, one that is easily available to all. If we do not move forward and reform what has remained broken for years, injustice will remain a bitter pill stuck in the public craw. This will eventually lead to the demise of the rule of law and democracy itself.
Having created a robust baseline of capacity metrics of the justice system, the IJR collective aims to expand the scope of next IJRs by including more pillars such as the capacity of forensic labs, directorates of prosecution, and State Human Rights Commissions. Data on much of the aforementioned functions is either missing completely or is only partially available. For instance, although there are over 4,000 posts of forensic scientists sanctioned across the country less than half of them have been filled. Pendency at various state forensic labs is piling up and, in several states, forensic labs are unable to analyse samples in a timely manner, thereby adding to judicial delay. Similarly, information about prosecutors, such as norms of sanctioning posts, recruitment, and their appraisal is not available in public domain.
IJR has been using the Right to Information Act to gather information that has not been made public. However, our experience has been less than satisfactory. Illustratively, out of the roughly 500 RTI applications filed to all states’ police training institutes, state forensic labs, and state police headquarters, not a single department or institution has been able to provide complete data even though none of the information that was asked is exempted under Section 8 of the RTI Act.
As we prepare for the publication of the third IJR in early 2023 we remain acutely aware that the road to equitable justice is going to be a long and arduous one. However, the IJR collective is determined to keep its focus sharp on capacity to deliver justice, mind open to new partners and ideas, and operational overheads as low as possible. Our interactions with justice practitioners such as judges, police personnel, forensic experts, prison wardens or legal aid functionaries tell us that the system too is yearning for reform from within, however, the exigencies of the government and perennial firefighting required to keep the wheels of justice moving prevents any meaningful efforts towards change.
As IJR grows we aim to strengthen our evidence-based advocacy work through a multi-pronged approach: pin-pointing low hanging fruits to states, continue building a vibrant discourse on and around structural deficits in the justice system, reaching out to lawmakers and practitioners and expanding the circle of capacity-focussed research. The periodic ranking of states and the response we have received so far also encourages us to try facilitate the replication of the IJR template in smaller geographies as well as in different thematic areas.
NEXT »
