The introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam in India’s criminal justice system signals a departure from colonial-era legal frameworks. While these laws aim to address contemporary challenges—such as integrating digital evidence and expediting trials—their effectiveness hinges on widespread public understanding. Legal reforms, no matter how well-intentioned, risk remaining inert if citizens remain unaware of their rights, obligations and procedural nuances. The complexity of legal language, coupled with low literacy levels in many regions, amplifies this challenge, making sustained awareness campaigns not just beneficial but imperative. At an awareness programme on Thursday at the Government College of Education Srinagar, speakers underscored the necessity of public engagement. They stressed the importance of simplifying legal concepts for ordinary citizens, particularly women and minors, who have historically faced systemic barriers in accessing justice. However, this points to a broader reality: the gap between legislative intent and grassroots comprehension. For instance, provisions mandating faster trials for crimes against women or stricter evidentiary protocols for cyber offences are only impactful if survivors know how to invoke them. Similarly, the emphasis on digitising court processes, while a step towards transparency, assumes a baseline familiarity with technology that many communities may lack. The event also revealed the scale of the task ahead. A discussion on procedural changes—such as timelines for filing charges or requirements for video-recording crime scenes—highlighted how unfamiliarity with these protocols could inadvertently disadvantage citizens. Legal literacy is not merely about knowing laws exist; it involves understanding their practical implications. For example, a farmer unaware of updated rules regarding land disputes or a shopkeeper unfamiliar with new penalties for minor offences might find themselves entangled in avoidable legal complexities. This underscores the need for context-specific outreach, tailored to diverse demographics, from urban professionals to rural populations. The participation of forensic experts and law enforcement officials in the Srinagar programme points to another critical layer: the role of intermediaries. Police officers, lawyers, and local administrators often serve as the first point of contact between citizens and the legal system. Training these stakeholders to interpret and communicate the new laws accurately is as vital as public education. Misinterpretations or procedural missteps at this level could erode trust. Critics argue that legislative changes, even when progressive, cannot single-handedly dismantle systemic inefficiencies. For instance, while the new laws mandate faster trials, India’s judiciary remains burdened by millions of pending cases. Without parallel investments in infrastructure, such as expanding court capacity or hiring more judges, procedural reforms may falter. Similarly, the success of digital evidence protocols depends on reliable access to technology in remote areas, where electricity and internet connectivity remain sporadic. These gaps highlight the interplay between legal reform and broader socio-technical ecosystems. Sustained awareness efforts must extend beyond one-off workshops to include multimedia campaigns, collaborations with civil society organisations, and school curriculum integrations. Television and radio programmes in regional languages, interactive mobile applications explaining legal rights, and partnerships with local as well as social media influencers can democratise access to information.
Justice Access
