2
9 Paths to Justice: Surveying Judicial and Non-judicial Dispute Resolution in India
Abstract
DAKSH has continued its work on access to justice in India by conducting a survey in 2017 to understand the expectations and experiences of Indian citizens in resolving their disputes. In this chapter, the authors highlight key results from the survey, including the kinds of disputes that people have faced, the modes of dispute resolution they choose, reasons why some people prefer to not resolve their disputes, experiences with the police, and costs of resolving their disputes.
. . . . .
In 2015, DAKSH began its work on access to justice, when it conducted a survey, the first of its kind in India, to understand access to justice, and the experiences and perceptions of litigants in the subordinate courts of India.1 However, it was recognised that Indian society looks not only to the judiciary to resolve disputes, but has historically2 and continually developed alternative means of dispute resolution to suit local needs and changing circumstances.3 DAKSH therefore undertook a survey in 2017 to understand the various modes of dispute resolution used in India as a means to access justice, and the experiences of people who have used these varied means of dispute resolution.
The Access to Justice Survey, 2017 was ideated by the DAKSH team over three months and a questionnaire was prepared keeping in mind our objective 10 of understanding the concept of access to justice, and people’s perceptions of India’s existing ‘justice mechanisms’. The survey sought to record data on the socio-economic profile of survey respondents, their perceptions regarding dispute resolution, and their experiences in resolving a dispute either with the help of the judiciary or a non-judicial dispute resolution body or organisation. Suggestions on the questionnaire were sought from external specialists in sociology and the criminal justice system, and we consulted access to justice data studies conducted internationally. Once we had the questionnaire in place, it was translated into eight Indian languages — Hindi, Kannada, Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam, Bengali, Marathi, and Oriya — in order to aid the surveyors in effectively communicating the questions to the survey respondents. On finalising the questionnaires, we then calculated the number of responses that we sought to collect (data sample), and the geographical distribution of these responses.
We targeted collecting responses from 50,000 households across India. This number was arrived at by means of a random-sampling approach based on the population of India as per the 2011 census. We aimed to cover the jurisdiction of all High Courts in India, and hence the number of responses for each High Court’s jurisdiction was calculated in proportion to the population in the states that fall under a particular High Court’s jurisdiction.4 Within each state, the locations for conducting the survey were selected by means of random sampling. The number of responses to be collected in each location varied between five and 55 responses, depending on the number of residents at the location.5 Therefore, locations with a smaller number of residents have contributed fewer responses than locations with larger numbers of residents.
As soon as the questionnaires and the data sample were in place, the DAKSH team scouted for an appropriate tool through which the survey could be conducted. Various options were explored and tested based on the survey design envisioned and a consensus was formed on using the offline survey tool developed by QuestionPro. The questionnaires were then uploaded onto the QuestionPro software, to be downloaded through the QuestionPro application on the surveyors’ mobile phones.
DAKSH carried out the survey with the help of surveyors from the Centre for Development, Planning and Research (CDPR) in Pune. Prior to initiating the data collection process, the DAKSH team travelled to various parts of the country and conducted training programmes for the surveyors to familiarise them with the QuestionPro application and the survey questionnaire. The surveyors were asked to bear in mind two main concepts while conducting the survey: the meaning of the term ‘dispute’, and what is considered a ‘non-judicial dispute resolution method’. The meaning of a ‘dispute’ for the purpose of this survey was any dispute in which a party claimed the violation of a legal right. The meaning given to ‘non-judicial dispute resolution method’ was broad, as it covered any mode of dispute resolution other than courts, including basic methods such as directly negotiating with the opposite party, obtaining the help of family or friends in mediating a dispute, and taking the help of village elders, religious authorities, or even the police.
Surveyors were directed to collect responses from a random sample of houses in each location chosen, by approaching every fifth house using the right-hand rule. Surveyors were also instructed to aim at collecting an equal proportion of responses from male and female respondents. Further, surveyors 11 were asked to ensure that they collect a random sample of responses and not purposively survey only households where there had been a dispute. Once the concept of the survey and the questionnaire were understood by surveyors, and the training programmes were completed, the surveyors commenced data collection in various parts of the country. The entire process of data collection lasted for eight months.
The responses collected by the surveyors were synchronised at the end of each day through the QuestionPro application, which allowed the DAKSH team to effectively monitor the progress of the survey at any given point in time. In addition to monitoring the number of responses collected and periodically checking trends in the data, the DAKSH team monitored the quality of the data collected in two ways, by physical field visits and calling respondents. During physical field visits, members from DAKSH accompanied surveyors on the field and monitored the collection of data, whereas phone calls to a random set of survey respondents were a post facto method of verifying the data collected to confirm whether the survey had been conducted and to check the veracity of the responses.
At the end of the data collection and quality verification, we collected 45,551 responses across 959 locations, 778 taluks or blocks, 385 districts, and 28 states.
The data collected in the survey can be sorted into four broad categories:
1. Demographic and socio-economic information — age, education, occupation, religion, caste, type of household, income, and assets owned.
2. Perceptions regarding dispute resolution and experiences with disputes — which dispute resolution methods people would opt for if they had a dispute, whether they have filed a police complaint, whether they have had any disputes in the last five years, nature of their disputes, and what mode of dispute resolution they have opted for.
3. Information on disputes resolved in court — nature of the dispute, details of the opposite party, experiences with the police (if any), prior experience with litigation or non-judicial dispute resolution, and costs of litigation.
4. Information on disputes resolved through non-judicial methods — reasons for not approaching the courts, nature of the dispute, mode of dispute resolution used, details of the opposite party, experiences with the police (if any), prior experience with non- judicial dispute resolution or litigation, and costs of resolving a dispute.
The survey provides insights into the different methods people choose to adopt when confronted with any kind of dispute. It is seen that people prefer, in the initial stages, to rely on informal mechanisms. We asked who it was that people would reach out to, in order to understand more about their dispute. Friends and family (74 per cent), 12 village elders or local leaders (49 per cent), and caste or religious panchayats (25 per cent) were in the majority, rather than lawyers, police, or legal services authorities. Further, 23 per cent of respondents said that they would rely on gram panchayats or nyaya panchayats, which is an encouraging sign about the functionality of these grassroot institutions. In contrast, when asked whom they would not approach, a large number of respondents (40 per cent) said that they would not approach the police. This was followed by lawyers (32 per cent). This is a cause of worry as it shows that people do not approach these two fundamental pillars of the justice system when it comes to disputes.
Of the 5.8 per cent of respondents who had a dispute and said that they wanted to resolve it, around 70 per cent of these respondents said they wanted to go to the court, with the remainder opting for non-court methods. Extrapolating this to India’s adult population,6 we can say that around 4.42 crores of the Indian people (5.8 per cent of the adult population) look to resolve their disputes, and approximately 3.04 crore people (around 4 per cent of the adult population) approach the court system, while approximately 1.52 crores (around 2 per cent of the adult population) prefer non-court mechanisms.
Among non-court methods that people tried, the majority opted for negotiation with the opposite party (71 per cent). This was followed by mediation or intervention by family or friends (37 per cent), and gram panchayats or nyaya panchayats (20 per cent), suggesting that the out-of-court methods people use are largely informal. This was similarly reflected in the numbers for non-court methods that helped resolve the dispute — negotiation with the opposite party was the most effective means of out-of-court settlement, with over half the respondents (54 per cent) who used non-court methods successfully resorting to it. While 32.5 per cent of respondents who had tried non-court means relied on family and friends to help them resolve the dispute, 21.8 per cent relied on gram panchayats or nyaya panchayats. These were the three most common means used for resolving crimes too.
In terms of income levels, most people from middle- to high-income categories (annual income of Rs 3,00,000 and above) prefer to use the court system, while most people relying on non-court mechanisms are from lower income categories. This suggests that cost is a deterrent for approaching the courts for people with low income.
Courts were the most predominant means of conflict resolution (vis-à-vis non-court mechanisms) for disputes with the government (91 per cent) or police (74 per cent) and insurance related cases (88 per cent), perhaps because there are very few non-court avenues to resolve such issues.
We found that the majority of respondents had disputes relating to recovery of money (30.2 per cent) and land- or property-related matters (29.3 per cent). In our survey last year, we had found that nearly 66 per cent of civil litigation stemmed from land- and property-related cases.7 In this year’s survey, most land-related disputes involved agricultural land, and the subject matter in most of these disputes (around 80 per cent) related to ownership or inheritance. An indicator of the prevalence of land-related litigation is that over 15.4 per cent of the total land distributed under land ceiling initiatives remains tied up under litigation as per the last report of the Department of Land Reforms.8
Crimes were found to constitute only 5.6 per cent of the total disputes. This statistic is likely to be due to respondents’ reluctance to disclose details about criminal matters because of associated social stigma. Further, we have seen from our field 13 visits during data collection that instances which could qualify as crimes (for example, causing hurt, theft, etc.) are considered trivial, and not important enough to be perceived as a dispute by the population.
Challenges of Dealing with Police Process
An overwhelming majority (91 per cent) of the surveyed respondents said that they had never filed a police complaint, while only 9 per cent stated that they had either filed or tried to file a complaint. Of this 9 per cent, almost 44 per cent said that their complaint was registered, and 49 per cent said that they did not eventually end up filing the complaint, while 7 per cent said that they filed the complaint, but did not pursue it. This implies that a very small proportion of people pursued the complaint until it was ultimately registered. Of the people who did not file a complaint, the majority (56 per cent) did not file one because they were advised not to do so by their friends or family. Almost a quarter (22 per cent) of this set of respondents did not file a complaint because they were advised not to do so by the police themselves. Further, of the people who did not pursue their complaint after filing it, 35 per cent were dissuaded because the police themselves did not take it forward. One-fifth (20 per cent) of respondents who did not pursue the complaint felt that filing a complaint would cost too much in terms of time, effort, or money. Further, 18 per cent of respondents said that they were either paid or pressurised to drop their complaint.
Only 18 per cent of the people who had a dispute filed a first information report (FIR). This implies that the majority of people who had a dispute did not register complaints with the police. Of those who filed an FIR, only around one-third (31 per cent) had their FIR registered immediately. The three major reasons for delays in registering FIRs (across all categories of disputes) were: (a) the police wanted a compromise, (b) they did not believe the complainant, or (c) no reason.
Personal costs that the litigants bore while engaging with courts were found to be significant. People who went to court incurred on an average, a cost of around Rs 1,049 per day, with Rs 728 being direct costs, and Rs 321 being due to loss of business. In contrast, people who adopted out-of-court methods spent a little more than half that amount, at Rs 659, split between Rs 420 as direct costs, and around Rs 239 due to loss of business. This could be why almost one-third (32 per cent) of respondents who had a dispute, and wanted to resolve it, relied on non-court methods.
It was seen that those with an annual income of less than Rs 50,000, spent over 10 days’ worth of their income on courts, and 5.5 days’ worth of their income on non-court proceedings per day. In sharp contrast, those in the annual income range above Rs 3,00,000 spent less than a single day’s worth of their income in court as well as non-court proceedings daily. Thus, the cost of the legal system seems to be exponentially more burdensome for those who belong to the poorest income groups.
Further, the issue of bribes remains sensitive — 17 per cent of the people who approached the court and 20 per cent of the people who used non-court methods did not want to disclose whether or not they had had to give bribes. Of the people who used the court system, 42 per cent stated that they had been asked to pay a bribe. In contrast, only 10 per cent of those who had relied on non-court mechanisms said that they had been asked to pay a bribe. In both cases, 58 per cent of respondents who were asked to pay a bribe did in fact pay a bribe. This implies that the experience of the people who rely on the court system has been unfavourable, and 14 has cost them money over and above what they are mandated to pay by the law.
Despite a strict method of random sampling, we found that the proportion of respondents across various religions did not match the proportion of the population belonging to different religions as found in the 2011 Indian census. While 80 per cent of the population is Hindu as per census data, in our data sample, 85 per cent were found to be Hindu. While 14 per cent of India’s population is Muslim, in our survey, 7 per cent of respondents were found to be Muslim. However, the proportion of respondents who were Christian (2.8 per cent) is similar to the proportion in the census (2.3 per cent). The same is true for the Jain community (0.7 per cent in our survey, compared to 0.37 per cent in the census), and the Buddhist community (0.8 per cent in our survey, as compared to 0.7 per cent in the census). In comparison, in last year’s survey, 79.8 per cent of respondents were Hindu, 9.8 per cent were Muslim, 5.6 per cent were Christian, 3.2 per cent were Jain, Sikh, and Buddhist, while the remaining 1.6 per cent were from other religions or did not disclose their religion.9
15 DETAILED FINDINGS
Part 1. Socio-economic Profile of Survey Respondents
In addition to the percentage of male and female respondents shown in Figure 2, 0.04 per cent of respondents were transgenders and 0.05 per cent of respondents said they did not want to disclose their gender.
18 Part 2. Information about Disputes
A. Seeking Information
Figure 8. Where People Go for Information about Their Dispute
Note: Values are percentages calculated on the basis of multiple-choice responses of respondents.
Figure 9. Whom People Would Not Approach if They Had a Dispute
Note: Values are percentages calculated on the basis of multiple-choice responses of respondents.
B. Police Interaction 19
Among the respondents, 9 per cent stated that they filed or tried to file a police complaint at some point. Figure 10 tracks what happened to the complaints that respondents filed with the police. It also looks at reasons why the complaints were either not filed or not pursued after filing — which accounts for 56 per cent of all complaints made by our respondents. Of the people who did not file a police complaint, 56 per cent were dissuaded by their friends or family. Further, over one-third (35 per cent) of respondents who filed, but did not pursue the complaint, said that they did not do so because the police did not take it forward.
Figure 11. FIRs Filed during the Course of the Dispute 20
Figure 11 looks at the fate of the FIRs that respondents tried to file in relation to their disputes. Of the FIRs registered, 69 per cent did not get registered immediately. The reason most cited for this is that the police wanted the respondents to compromise with opposite parties.
Figure 12. Reasons for Not Registering the FIR — Based on the Nature of Dispute
|
The police did not give a reason |
The police did not believe me |
The police wanted me and the opposite party to compromise |
The police said it is better for me to not file a case |
|
|
Land |
25% |
19% |
40% |
6% |
|
Recovery of money |
21% |
34% |
27% |
18% |
|
Insurance |
10% |
20% |
38% |
20% |
|
Labour, employment and service |
19% |
14% |
33% |
19% |
|
Family |
16% |
16% |
43% |
16% |
|
Intellectual property |
17% |
17% |
25% |
17% |
|
Crime |
36% |
14% |
57% |
0% |
Note: The highlighted figures show the highest percentages in each type of dispute.
The same major reasons why the police do not register an FIR dominate across all major categories of disputes.
C. Disputes and Nature of Disputes 21
Figure 13. Disputes in the Last Five Years
The survey records the number of disputes faced by respondents over the past five years. Figure 13 shows that of the respondents surveyed, 7 per cent stated that they had some kind of dispute over the past five years. Of these respondents, over half (54.2 per cent) had only one dispute, while around 22 40 per cent had between two and five disputes. A very small fraction (3 per cent) had over five disputes. Based on this percentage and census data, we can extrapolate that approximately 5.3 crore people have had disputes in India over the last five years.10
Figure 14. Nature of Disputes Faced in the Last Five Years
Note: Values are percentages calculated on the basis of multiple-choice responses of respondents.
Figure 14 looks at the nature of disputes that most people face in India. Recovery of money is the most prevalent, at 30.2 per cent, closely followed by land- or property-related issues, at 29.3 per cent. Family-related cases also form a sizeable proportion of cases, at 13 per cent.
Figure 15. Nature of Land Disputes
Note: Percentages are based on multiple-choice responses from 29.3 per cent of respondents with a land dispute.
23 Figure 15 shows that in land-related cases, most of the disputes were regarding agricultural land. Further, most of the land disputes (81 per cent) were related to ownership or inheritance.
Figure 16. Income of People with Disputes Involving Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Land
Note: Percentages have been calculated based on the number of people with a dispute in each income bracket.
Figure 16 shows that the largest number of respondents with land disputes (24 per cent) were those with a dispute about agricultural land and an annual income between Rs 50,000 and Rs 1,00,000. It is pertinent to note that people with land disputes and belonging to a higher-income (Rs 5,00,000 and above) category have only had disputes about agricultural land, and not disputes about non-agricultural land.
Figure 17. Disputes Faced by People of Different Religions 24
|
Hinduism |
Islam |
Christianity |
Sikhism |
Buddhism |
Jainism |
Parsi |
Other |
|
|
Land/property |
30% |
21% |
32% |
33% |
23% |
19% |
0% |
25% |
|
Recovery of money |
31% |
26% |
14% |
32% |
12% |
34% |
60% |
34% |
|
Insurance |
9% |
8% |
10% |
7% |
8% |
22% |
10% |
16% |
|
Labour, employment and service |
6% |
7% |
5% |
7% |
15% |
6% |
20% |
11% |
|
Family |
14% |
19% |
14% |
10% |
15% |
6% |
10% |
11% |
|
Intellectual property |
2% |
3% |
3% |
2% |
4% |
0% |
0% |
8% |
|
Crime |
5% |
8% |
8% |
7% |
4% |
6% |
0% |
8% |
|
Education |
3% |
3% |
4% |
3% |
12% |
3% |
0% |
6% |
|
Motor vehicle accident/ compensation |
9% |
11% |
11% |
8% |
12% |
3% |
10% |
6% |
|
Consumer |
2% |
4% |
0% |
0% |
4% |
3% |
0% |
6% |
|
Environment |
3% |
0% |
0% |
2% |
4% |
6% |
0% |
0% |
|
Dispute with government |
2% |
1% |
3% |
4% |
0% |
9% |
0% |
5% |
|
Dispute with police |
1% |
1% |
1% |
3% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
Other |
5% |
8% |
4% |
2% |
8% |
9% |
0% |
8% |
|
Highest value |
Second highest value |
|||||||
Note: Percentages have been calculated within each religion and the nature of disputes faced by people of each religion are based on responses to a multiple-choice question.
Figure 17 shows that a majority of respondents, regardless of their religion, were involved in disputes relating to land or property and recovery of money. Notably however, for respondents from the Christian and Buddhist communities, there was a significant percentage of family law cases as well (at 14 and 15 per cent respectively).
Figure 18. Religion Matrix of Survey Respondents against their Opposite Party
|
Survey respondents |
Opposite party |
||||||||
|
Hinduism |
Islam |
Christianity |
Sikhism |
Buddhism |
Jainism |
Parsi |
Other |
||
|
Hinduism |
88% |
3% |
2% |
2% |
1% |
2% |
0% |
2% |
|
|
Islam |
34% |
55% |
4% |
1% |
1% |
1% |
1% |
2% |
|
|
Christianity |
12% |
0% |
71% |
3% |
0% |
3% |
0% |
12% |
|
|
Sikhism |
19% |
5% |
2% |
64% |
4% |
2% |
1% |
3% |
|
|
Buddhism |
27% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
60% |
13% |
0% |
0% |
|
|
Jainism |
36% |
0% |
0% |
9% |
0% |
45% |
0% |
9% |
|
|
Parsi |
50% |
0% |
17% |
17% |
0% |
0% |
17% |
0% |
|
|
Other |
25% |
14% |
11% |
0% |
6% |
8% |
6% |
31% |
|
Note: Highlighted figures show highest percentages.
25 Further, as may be seen in Figure 18, the majority of respondents from nearly every religion had disputes against people from the same religious community as them. The exception to this was people from the Parsi community, the majority of whom had disputes against people from the Hindu community.
D. Dispute Resolution
Figure 19. Resolution of the Dispute
|
It will take very long |
37.80% |
|
It will be very costly |
31.58% |
|
It will be too complicated |
24.16% |
|
Parties do not respect the decision/outcome from dispute resolution mechanisms |
19.38% |
|
Corruption/the decision maker can be easily influenced |
12.68% |
|
I am scared of social stigma/I am concerned about the safety of my family |
12.20% |
|
Previous experience with courts |
5.02% |
|
Previous experience with other dispute resolution mechanisms |
4.55% |
|
I was pressurized not to pursue it |
4.55% |
|
The police tortured/beat me up/threatened me |
4.55% |
|
Other |
3.35% |
Note: Values for the reasons for not resolving the dispute are based on a multiple-choice question.
Of the respondents who had had a dispute in the preceding five years, 14 per cent did not wish to resolve it for a variety of reasons. The predominant among these was the time taken, the cost, and the complexity of resolving a dispute — pointing to the main concerns that the population has about dispute resolution.
Figure 20. Disputes that People Do Not Want to Resolve 26
Land or property, recovery of money, and family disputes were the three predominant categories of disputes that respondents were involved in, but did not want to resolve.
Figure 21. Reasons for Not Resolving the Dispute: Tamil Nadu, Bihar, and Punjab
27 Tamil Nadu, Punjab, and Bihar were found to have the highest percentages of respondents who did not wish to resolve their dispute. The highest percentage of respondents from Tamil Nadu, who did not resolve their dispute, said it was because of the time it would take to resolve. The highest percentage of respondents from Bihar said they did not want to resolve their disputes due to corruption, and the highest percentage of respondents from Punjab said they did not want to resolve their dispute as it would be too costly.
Figure 22. Caste-wise Distribution of Respondents Who Did Not Want to Resolve Their Dispute
If we consider the caste-wise distribution of respondents who did not want to resolve their dispute, we find that 26 per cent of them belong to the scheduled caste (SC) or scheduled tribe (ST) category, and 9 per cent to the other backward class (OBC) category, showing that by and large, people from the disadvantaged castes amongst the respondents had disputes, but did not want to solve them.
28 Part 3. Court VERSUS Non-court Methods
A. Methods on Which People Relied
Figure 23. Resolution of Disputes: Court and Non-court Mechanisms
Income profiles of people who go to court and non-court mechanisms
Note: Counts have been normalised to the number of respondents within each income bracket.
Figure 23 looks at the percentage of respondents who had an ongoing dispute and approached the court, as against adopting non-court mechanisms, for resolution. It also looks at the income levelsof respondents who chose these methods. It can be seen that people with higher incomes (above Rs 5,00,000 annually) show a strong preference for courts as the mode of dispute resolution.
Figure 24. Reasons for Not Going to Court
Note: Percentages are based on multiple-choice responses of respondents who chose non-court mechanisms.
29 Figure 24 shows reasons why respondents who used non-court mechanisms elected to do so. Other than using a non-court mechanism at the behest of the opposite party, the cost, complexity of legal system, and length of the court process stand out as the most important reasons why people did not go to court.
Figure 25. Non-court Methods People Tried
Note: Values are percentages calculated based on the multiple-choice responses of the number of respondents who opted for non-court mechanisms.
Figure 25 shows the different non-court mechanisms that people tried to use to resolve their disputes. Respondents who opted for non-court mechanisms were asked which mechanisms they tried to use in resolving their dispute and which method actually helped resolve the dispute.
Figure 26. Non-court Methods That Helped Resolve the Dispute
Note: Values are percentages calculated based on the multiple-choice responses of the number of respondents who opted for non-court mechanisms.
Figure 26 shows the non-court mechanisms that respondents used which helped them in resolving their dispute. Negotiation with the other party helped a majority of respondents (54 per cent).
Figure 27. Use of Non-court Methods in Resolving Crimes
Non-court methods used
Income of person who used non-court methods
30 Figure 27 shows the non-court mechanisms adopted by respondents to resolve disputes pertaining to crimes. Negotiating with opposite party, gram panchayat or nyaya panchayat, and family or friends are the most important mechanisms used.
In terms of income levels, it can be seen that most respondents relying on non-court mechanisms to resolve crime-related disputes are from lower-income categories.
Figure 28. Nature of Disputes 31
Figure 28 shows the split between respondents who used court and non-court mechanisms for each type of dispute. A preference for using the court can be seen among respondents for most categories of disputes. However, this finding must be viewed in light of the number of respondents who had a dispute of that nature.
B. Challenges Faced Due to Having a Dispute
Figure 29. Problems Resulting from the Dispute
Note: Values are based on multiple-choice responses of respondents who went to court or used non-court mechanisms.
32 As shown in Figure 29, a high percentage of people who used the court mechanism faced violence against themselves, friends and family, their property, threats and pressure, and social ostracism. Physical and mental stress, as well as financial problems were widely prevalent overall, as a consequence of both court and non-court related disputes. However, a higher percentage of respondents who used non-court mechanisms (28.7 per cent) felt that they did not face any problems as a result of their dispute.
Figure 30. Problems Faced by People Going to Court: Top Four States
|
Delhi |
Punjab |
Tamil Nadu |
Uttar Pradesh |
|
|
Threats and pressure |
21% |
49% |
26% |
26% |
|
Violence against my property |
27% |
44% |
15% |
43% |
|
Violence against myself |
17% |
31% |
10% |
24% |
|
Violence against my friends/family |
39% |
29% |
8% |
9% |
|
Physical/mental stress |
39% |
51% |
34% |
7% |
|
Financial problems |
13% |
40% |
22% |
5% |
|
Social ostracism |
6% |
35% |
14% |
3% |
|
N/A |
23% |
8% |
19% |
1% |
Note: Highlighted figures indicate the problems faced by the highest percentage of people.
Among the top four states in terms of the number of respondents who went to court, about 80 per cent of respondents from Delhi, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh reported violence against themselves, family, friends, and/or property.
Figure 31. Problems Faced by People Who Used Non-court Mechanisms: Top Three States
|
Maharashtra |
Punjab |
Uttar Pradesh |
|
|
Threats and pressure |
18% |
22% |
18% |
|
Violence against my property |
6% |
20% |
15% |
|
Violence against myself |
7% |
8% |
9% |
|
Violence against my friends/family |
19% |
12% |
9% |
|
Physical/mental stress |
36% |
45% |
34% |
|
Financial problems |
37% |
38% |
7% |
|
Social ostracism |
3% |
11% |
1% |
|
N/A |
20% |
22% |
27% |
Note: Highlighted figures show the problems faced by the highest percentage of people.
33 For the people from the top three states in terms of respondents who relied on non-court methods, financial problems were reported to be the biggest problem in Maharashtra, while stress was the greatest problem in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh.
C. Previous Experience
(i) Previous Experiences of Those Who Have a Dispute in Court
Figure 32. Previous Court Experience and Impact on Use of Courts
Around 57 per cent of respondents who went to court had prior court experience, and of those, about 57 per cent said that their court experience had led them to approach court again.
Figure 33. Previous Non-court Experience and Impact on Use of Courts
Around 54 per cent of respondents who went to court had previous non-court experience, of whom around 51 per cent said that their experience with non-court mechanisms had led them to approach the court system this time.
(ii) Previous Experiences of Those Who Have a Dispute and Used Non-court Mechanisms 34
Figure 34. Previous Court Experience and Impact on Use of Non-court Methods
Of the respondents who used non-court mechanisms, 21 per cent had prior court experience. Of this, around 47 per cent said that their previous experience in court had led them to use non-court systems this time.
Figure 35. Previous Non-court Experience and Impact on Use of Non-court Mechanisms
Among those who chose a non-court dispute resolution method, only 26 per cent had prior non-court experience, and of this number, around 46 per cent were led by their previous experience with non-court mechanisms to use a non-court mechanism again.
Figure 36. Prior Experience of Respondents Who Went to Court 35
Figure 37. Prior Experience of Respondents Who Used Non-court Methods
An interesting point to note here is that while 63 per cent of those who approached courts had previously approached the courts or a non-court mechanism, 69 per cent of those who approached a non-court mechanism had never had any prior experience in dispute resolution.
D. Costs 36
Figure 38. Costs of Participating in the Dispute Resolution Process
Notes: Values are based on multiple-choice responses of respondents who went to court or used non-court mechanisms.
Other than legal fees and court fees, there are numerous indirect ways in which people are financially affected by disputes. When compared with respondents who elected non-court mechanisms, a higher percentage of people who went to court incurred costs due to loss of pay or loss of business (45 per cent), loss of vacation days or leave (43 per cent), and a shortage of food (31 per cent). Further, a large number of those who used non-court mechanisms (32 per cent) said they did not face any costs in participating in the dispute resolution process.
Figure 39. Average Cost of Participating in the Dispute Resolution Process
Figure 39 shows the direct and indirect costs of litigation as well as using non-court mechanisms. The cost is found to be around 60 per cent higher for those who approach the courts.
Figure 40. Daily Cost of Attending Proceedings 37
Figure 40 shows how many days’ worth of a person’s income is spent when they attend proceedings in a dispute resolution process, for people across various income categories. In respect of both court and non-court mechanisms, the highest per diem cost is for the lowest income category.
Figure 41. Experience with Bribes
38 Figure 41 looks at the issue of how respondents dealt with bribes — 17 per cent of respondents who went to court and 20 per cent of those who used non-court mechanisms did not wish to disclose whether or not they were asked to pay a bribe. Prevalence of bribes is less in non-court mechanisms, with around 70 per cent of respondents stating that they were not asked to pay a bribe.
Of the 42 per cent of respondents who went to court and were asked to pay a bribe, 58 per cent admitted to paying one. Of the 10 per cent of respondents who chose non-court mechanisms, 58 per cent admitted to paying a bribe.
Notes
1. Harish Narasappa, Kavya Murthy, Surya Prakash B.S., and Yashas C. Gowda. 2016. ‘Access to Justice Survey: Introduction, Methodology, and Findings’, in Harish Narasappa and Shruti Vidyasagar (eds.), State of the Indian Judiciary: A Report by DAKSH, pp. 137–155. Bengaluru: DAKSH and EBC. Available online at http://dakshindia.org/state-of-the-indian-judiciary/28_chapter_15.html#_idTextAnchor320 (accessed on 11 October 2017).
2. Priyankar Upadhyaya and Anjoo Sharan Upadhyaya. 2016. Traditional Institutions of Dispute Resolution in India: Experiences from Khasi and Garo Hills in Meghalaya. Berlin: Berghof Foundation, p. 6.
3. Sylvia Vatuk. 2013. ‘The “Women’s Court” in India: An Alternative Dispute Resolution Body for Women in Distress’, The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 45(1): 84.
4. To illustrate, the number of responses that we sought to collect for the population within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Allahabad was 16 per cent of the total number of responses, because as per the 2011 census data, the population of Uttar Pradesh was about 16 per cent of India’s population.
5. For example, since the population of Mubarakpur Khurd in Uttar Pradesh is 93, the number of responses to be collected from there were five responses. However, since the population of Gopi in Uttar Pradesh is 6,967, the number of responses to be collected from there was 55.
6. Taking the base as the adult population of India, which as per Census 2011 data, is around 76.2 crore people. See http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/Age_level_Data/India/Age_data.xls (accessed on 16 October 2017).
7. Narasappa et al. 2016. ‘Access to Justice Survey’.
8. Ministry of Rural Development. 2008. ‘Report of the Committee On State Agrarian Relations and Last Unfinished Task of Land Reforms’, 30 October, available online at http://dolr.nic.in/Committee%20Report.doc (accessed on 16 October 2017).
9. Narasappa et al. 2016, ‘Access to Justice Survey’.
10. Taking the base as the adult population of India, which, as per Census 2011 data, is around 76.2 crore people. See http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/Age_level_Data/India/Age_data.xls (accessed on 16 October 2017).
———