“The first duty of law is to make the law accessible to the people”

When a Right Exists but Cannot Be Reached

The language of law is usually the language of rights. The Constitution promises equality and dignity. Parliament creates remedies against domestic violence and workplace sexual harassment. Courts interpret constitutional guarantees and develop principles to protect individual liberty. Yet, for an ordinary person standing outside a courtroom, the law can appear very different.

The language of statutes, court orders and legal notices can be technical. Procedures may be unfamiliar. The names of institutions may be difficult to identify. Even where a person knows that a legal remedy exists, she may not know where to go or what exactly she is entitled to ask for. This raises a basic but important question: Can a person effectively exercise a right that she cannot understand? The answer to this question is central to the relationship between law and justice.

A legal right does not operate in a vacuum. It has to reach a human being. That person must be able to recognise the situation in which the right applies, understand the protection available, identify the institution responsible for providing it and take the necessary steps to obtain a remedy. Language enters this process at every point.

The problem is particularly important in relation to women because legal disadvantage is rarely caused by a single factor. A woman may encounter economic dependence, limited access to education, social restrictions, geographical isolation or lack of familiarity with government institutions. A language barrier can add another layer to these difficulties.

For instance, consider a woman experiencing domestic violence in a rural area. The law may provide her with several remedies. But the practical questions confronting her are much simpler:

What are my rights?
Where can I go?
Who will help me?
Can I obtain protection immediately? What happens after I complain?

If the answers are available only in complicated legal language or in a language with which she is uncomfortable, the formal existence of the remedy does not automatically translate into meaningful protection.

The Indian Constitution provides a strong foundation for addressing this problem. Article 14 guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws. Article 15 prohibits discrimination on specified grounds, including sex. Article 21 protects life and personal liberty. Article 39A directs the State to promote equal justice and provide free legal aid so that opportunities for securing justice are not denied because of economic or other disabilities.

The Constitution also recognises India's linguistic diversity. Article 350 addresses the language in which representations for the redress of grievances may be submitted, while Article 350A concerns facilities for instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage for linguistic minority groups.

The Supreme Court's access-to-justice jurisprudence adds another important dimension. In Anita Kushwaha v. Pushpa Sudan, the Court recognised access to justice as a facet of Article 21 and connected it with Article 14. The Court's discussion demonstrates that access to justice is not satisfied merely by having courts in existence. Justice must also be reasonably accessible, effective and affordable.

From a Right in the Statute Book to a Right in Real Life

One useful way of understanding access to justice is to look at the journey a legal right must travel before it becomes meaningful. That journey can be represented as:

1. The first stage is legal recognition. A constitutional provision, statute or judicial decision establishes a right.
2. The second is understanding. The individual must have some meaningful understanding of what that right provides.
3. The third is awareness. She must recognise that the law applies to her circumstances.
4. The fourth is access. She must know where to seek assistance and which institution has authority to act.
5. The fifth is action. She must be able to initiate the relevant process.
6. The final stage is the remedy itself.

A failure at any point can weaken the value of the right. This is why formal equality and substantive access are not always the same thing. A statute may be equally available to everyone in theory, but individuals do not necessarily possess equal capacity to understand or use it.

If legal information is available but incomprehensible to the person who needs it, its formal availability does not necessarily result in effective access. This is particularly relevant for women seeking remedies that may require interaction with police officials, Protection Officers, courts, Legal Services Authorities, workplace committees or other institutions.

Legal Language: Precision Without Opacity

It would be unfair to blame legal terminology simply for being technical. Law requires precision. Certain words have carefully developed meanings and cannot always be replaced with ordinary language without changing their legal effect. Concepts such as jurisdiction, cognisance, limitation, burden of proof and maintainability illustrate this reality.

The problem begins when legal precision becomes legal opacity. There is a difference between saying that law must be precise and assuming that the person affected by the law must understand every technical expression without assistance.

A woman does not need to understand every provision of a statute to know that she has a right to seek protection from domestic violence. She does not need to understand the entire jurisprudence surrounding workplace harassment to know where she can make a complaint. She does not need legal training to understand that she may approach a Legal Services Authority for assistance. This distinction allows legal institutions to preserve technical accuracy while communicating the practical meaning of the law in simpler language.

The Supreme Court's legal-aid jurisprudence illustrates the importance of usable legal information. In Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, the Court dealt with the practical ability of a person to exercise appellate rights and emphasised the importance of providing the judgment necessary for pursuing an appeal.

The underlying lesson is important for the present discussion: a legal entitlement requires access to the information necessary to exercise it. If a person is entitled to appeal but cannot obtain the judgment against which the appeal is to be filed, the formal right of appeal becomes difficult to exercise. Language accessibility presents a similar problem. A right communicated in a form that the intended beneficiary cannot understand may remain formally available while being practically distant.

Constitutional Foundations of Accessible Justice

Article 14: Equality Before Law
Article 14 lies at the heart of India's constitutional commitment to equality. In the context of language accessibility, equality should not be viewed solely as identical treatment. Meaningful participation in the legal system also depends upon whether people can understand the information provided to them.

If one group can readily understand the instructions, procedures and remedies communicated by an institution while another group cannot, the practical experience of the legal system may differ significantly. This does not mean that every difference in language amounts to constitutional discrimination. Rather, it demonstrates why accessibility deserves consideration when discussing meaningful equality.

Article 15: Equality and Women
Article 15 specifically prohibits discrimination on grounds including sex. The relationship between gender and language should, however, be approached carefully. Women do not inherently have difficulty understanding legal language. The concern is that social and economic circumstances may affect access to education, legal information, technology and institutions. Language may therefore operate alongside other disadvantages.

A rural woman with limited formal education and little interaction with government institutions may encounter a very different legal environment from an urban professional with access to lawyers and digital resources. The law may be identical. The ability to use it may not be.

Article 21: Dignity, Fairness and Access to Justice
Article 21 has become one of the principal constitutional sources for the expansion of procedural fairness and human dignity. In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, the Supreme Court recognised free legal services as an essential element of reasonable, fair and just procedure.

These cases are significant because they demonstrate that constitutional rights cannot always be understood simply by looking at the words of the Constitution. The Court has repeatedly examined the conditions necessary to make those rights meaningful. Language accessibility can be understood within this broader constitutional concern. It is not necessarily necessary to describe language accessibility as an independent fundamental right in order to recognise its importance. It can instead be viewed as one of the conditions that can facilitate meaningful access to rights and legal institutions.

Article 39A: Equal Justice and Legal Aid
Article 39A provides an especially important constitutional foundation. It directs the State to ensure that the legal system promotes justice based on equal opportunity and to provide free legal aid so that opportunities for securing justice are not denied because of economic or other disabilities.

The Supreme Court's decisions in Hussainara Khatoon and Khatri v. State of Bihar gave considerable constitutional significance to legal aid. In Khatri, the Court made clear that the obligation of legal assistance cannot simply be postponed until a later stage of proceedings.

The implication is significant: accessibility must begin early. A person should not have to cross several institutional barriers before discovering that assistance was available to her.

Articles 350 and 350A: Constitutional Recognition of Language
Articles 350 and 350A demonstrate that the Constitution itself recognises language as relevant to participation in public life. Article 350 permits representations for the redress of grievances to be made in languages used in the Union or the State, while Article 350A addresses mother-tongue instruction for linguistic minority children.

These provisions do not themselves create a comprehensive constitutional right to receive every legal document in one's preferred language. Nevertheless, they reflect an important constitutional recognition: language can affect a person's ability to participate in public institutions.

What the Supreme Court’s Legal-Aid Cases Tell Us

The Supreme Court’s legal-aid jurisprudence demonstrates a gradual shift from the formal existence of legal rights to their effective exercise. In Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra (1978), the Court recognised the importance of legal assistance in enabling an individual to effectively exercise appellate rights. In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979–80), free legal services were recognised as an essential element of fair, just and reasonable procedure under Article 21.

This principle was strengthened in Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981), where the Court emphasised the need for legal assistance at an early stage of proceedings. In Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983), the Court highlighted safeguards and legal assistance for women prisoners, reflecting the need to consider the particular circumstances of vulnerable persons. Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh (1986) stressed that merely providing legal aid is insufficient if the person is unaware of its availability.

In Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India (1995), the Court emphasised assistance and support mechanisms for victims of sexual violence. Later, in Anita Kushwaha Pushpa Sudan (2016), the Supreme Court expressly recognised access to justice as a facet of Article 21, connected with the guarantee of equality under Article 14.

Women's Rights: Where Accessibility Becomes a Practical Question

The importance of language becomes particularly visible when examining legislation intended to protect women.

Protection Against Domestic Violence

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 creates several forms of legal protection and involves multiple institutions. But a woman facing violence is unlikely to begin by asking a lawyer to explain every statutory definition. Her immediate questions may be:

• Where do I go?
• What protection can I obtain?
• Can I remain in my home?
• What happens if I report the violence?
• Who can help me?

These are questions of practical legal knowledge. If the answers remain locked behind complicated legal terminology, the statutory protection becomes more difficult to access.

Sexual Harassment at the Workplace

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 provides a formal mechanism for addressing workplace sexual harassment. The effectiveness of the mechanism depends partly upon whether women know:

• what conduct may amount to sexual harassment;
• where a complaint may be made;
• who receives the complaint;
• what protections exist during the process; and
• what remedies may follow.

Legal literacy is therefore not an additional feature of the legislation. It is closely connected to its practical implementation.

Women's Property and Succession Rights

The same issue arises outside criminal and protective legislation. In Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, the Supreme Court clarified important aspects of daughters' coparcenary rights

under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. The judgment has legal significance, but a judicial declaration does not automatically become social knowledge. A woman may possess a right without knowing that she possesses it.

The distance between the judgment and the woman therefore involves a question of communication.

Personal Autonomy and Bodily Rights

In Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, the Supreme Court recognised reproductive choice as connected with personal liberty under Article 21. The broader jurisprudence on privacy, dignity and bodily autonomy similarly demonstrates the importance of ensuring that constitutional principles are not confined to legal reports and courtrooms. A right becomes socially meaningful when people can recognise its relevance to their own lives.

NALSA and the Idea of Usable Law

The constitutional commitment to equal access to justice finds an important institutional expression through the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. NALSA's mandate extends beyond merely providing representation in court. Its functions include legal aid, legal advice, legal literacy, awareness programmes and assistance in accessing entitlements under laws and government schemes. In this sense, NALSA reflects a broader understanding of justice in which legal rights must be capable of reaching those for whom they are intended.

The significance of this framework becomes particularly clear in relation to women. Section 12(c) of the Legal Services Authorities Act specifically recognises a woman or child as eligible for free legal services. NALSA further states that a woman is entitled to free legal aid irrespective of her income or financial status. This is important because financial dependence can itself become a barrier to seeking legal assistance, particularly in disputes involving domestic relationships, maintenance, property or violence.

However, legal aid is meaningful only when the person knows that such assistance exists and understands how to obtain it. NALSA provides several routes through which women can seek assistance, including Legal Services Authorities at the district and state levels, Legal Aid Clinics, online applications and the national legal-aid helpline. Paralegal volunteers and panel lawyers can also assist individuals in navigating the process.

This approach is particularly relevant to language accessibility because NALSA's work recognises that legal information cannot be communicated through one method alone. Its legal-awareness programmes employ seminars, lectures, pamphlets, television and radio programmes, public interactions, street plays, documentaries and Legal Aid Clinics. The use of different communication methods demonstrates that legal literacy is not simply a question of making statutes available; it is a question of finding forms of communication that ordinary people can understand and use.

NALSA's support for illiterate applicants provides another important illustration. Its official guidance states that persons who cannot read or write may be assisted by Legal Services Institutions, panel advocates and Paralegal Volunteers, including assistance in filling out applications.

The idea of “usable law” therefore provides a useful conceptual framework. Law becomes usable when a person can identify the right available to her, understand the basic implications of that right, identify the appropriate authority and obtain assistance in taking the next step. For women facing legal problems, the distance between a legal rule and its practical use may be reduced considerably when language, legal aid and human assistance operate together.

Translation Is Only the Beginning

In a multilingual country, translation is an essential component of legal accessibility. A person who cannot understand the language in which a statute, judgment or administrative order is communicated may face an immediate barrier to understanding her legal position. The availability of legal materials in Indian languages can therefore make the legal system more approachable and can reduce dependence upon intermediaries merely for understanding basic information.

Yet translation should not be confused with comprehension. Legal language often contains technical terms whose meaning cannot always be conveyed adequately through ordinary word-for-word translation. Concepts such as jurisdiction, limitation, cognisance, maintainability, burden of proof, interim relief or statutory exceptions may remain difficult even when translated into a person's first language. The problem is therefore not always the language itself; it may also be the complexity of the legal concept being communicated.

For this reason, a distinction should be drawn between translation, simplification and explanation. Translation seeks to reproduce the legal text accurately in another language. Simplification attempts to communicate the substance of that rule in language that an ordinary reader can follow. Explanation goes one step further by connecting the rule with the practical question: What does this mean for me, and what can I do next? These functions are related but not identical.

NALSA's legal-literacy model supports this broader approach. Its awareness activities include multiple forms of communication rather than relying exclusively on statutory texts. This is important because legal empowerment often requires more than knowledge of the existence of a law. A woman facing domestic violence, for example, may need to know not only that legal protection exists but also where she can seek assistance, what immediate remedies may be available and how she can approach the relevant institution.

At the same time, simplification must be undertaken carefully. Making law understandable should not mean removing qualifications that are legally significant. An inaccurate simplified explanation can be as harmful as inaccessible legal language because it may create false expectations or lead an individual to pursue an inappropriate remedy. The objective should therefore be accessible accuracy: law that is easier to understand without altering its legal substance.

The most useful model is consequently not simply “translate the law”, but “translate, explain and assist.” Translation reduces linguistic exclusion; explanation reduces conceptual exclusion; and legal assistance helps the individual convert knowledge into action.

Courts and the Question of Multilingual Justice: Courts occupy a central position in the relationship between language and justice because legal rights are often finally determined through judicial proceedings. If parties cannot understand the language used in proceedings, judgments or legal submissions, their participation may become dependent upon lawyers, interpreters or other intermediaries. Legal representation is important, but meaningful justice also requires that individuals have some understanding of proceedings affecting their rights.

The Supreme Court has taken steps towards increasing the availability of judicial material in Indian languages. Its official “Courts of India” resource records digital publication of material in several Indian languages, including Hindi, Bengali, Marathi, Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu, Gujarati, Gurmukhi, Odia and Sanskrit. Such developments are significant because they reduce the linguistic distance between the judiciary and members of the public. Multilingual justice also raises a question of legal authority and accuracy. The Supreme Court's own judicial-resource platform states that translated judgments are made available for general information and that users should verify the original judgment where questions concerning accuracy or legal effect arise. This illustrates an important tension: accessibility must be increased without compromising the authoritative character and precision of legal texts.

This tension should not lead to the conclusion that legal translation is undesirable. Rather, it demonstrates the need for a carefully structured system. An effective model could contain three layers: the authoritative legal text, a reliable regional-language translation and a plain-language explanation identifying the practical significance of the decision. Where a person must participate directly in proceedings, interpretation should additionally be available where required.

For women, multilingual judicial communication may have particular practical importance. A woman challenging an administrative decision, seeking protection from violence or pursuing a property or maintenance claim should not have to rely entirely on linguistic intermediaries merely to understand what a court has decided. Greater accessibility can improve not only comprehension but also the individual's ability to make informed decisions about further legal action.

Thus, multilingual justice should be understood as more than translating judgments. It involves making the judicial system linguistically navigable for the people whose rights it determines.

Technology: Opportunity and New Forms of Exclusion

Digital technology has created significant possibilities for expanding access to legal information. Online legal-aid applications, digital databases, translated judgments, legal-awareness videos, helplines and online grievance mechanisms can reduce geographical barriers and allow people to obtain information without physically travelling to a court or government office. NALSA, for instance, provides online mechanisms for seeking legal aid and maintains a national legal-aid helpline.

Technology can also make language accessibility more flexible. Speech-to-text tools, text-to-speech systems, machine translation and voice-based interfaces can potentially assist persons who have difficulty reading conventional legal documents. A voice-based explanation in a familiar language may be more accessible to some users than a lengthy written document. Similarly, short videos and visual explanations can communicate basic legal information to audiences with different levels of literacy.

Artificial intelligence may further expand these possibilities by enabling faster translation, document summarisation and question-based access to legal information. However, these technologies must be treated as tools for assistance rather than unquestionable substitutes for legal expertise. Machine-generated translations or explanations may contain errors, omit qualifications or fail to recognise the significance of context. In legal matters, even a seemingly small error can affect the understanding of a right or remedy.

Digital access itself can also become a source of exclusion. Not every woman has independent access to a smartphone, stable internet connectivity or the digital skills necessary to navigate online legal services. In some circumstances, dependence upon another person for access to a device may also compromise privacy, particularly in cases involving domestic violence or other sensitive disputes.

Recent research on meaningful access to justice in India reinforces this broader concern. A 2026 UNDP India assessment found continuing gaps between the country's legal-aid framework and its delivery on the ground. It also identified lower awareness of legal rights among women from some marginalised communities and highlighted localised legal aid, sustained legal awareness and services in local languages as important priorities.

Technology should therefore be viewed as an additional pathway to justice rather than the only pathway. The stronger model is a hybrid system in which digital platforms are supported by lawyers, Legal Aid Clinics, interpreters and community-level workers. Technology can widen the doorway, but human assistance may still be necessary to help a person walk through it.

Why the Problem Is Not the Same for Every Woman

The phrase “women's access to justice” should not be understood as describing one uniform experience. Women differ in their educational background, economic circumstances, geographical location, disability status, social position and access to technology. Consequently, the same legal information may be easily understood and acted upon by one woman while remaining practically inaccessible to another.

Language barriers often intersect with these other forms of disadvantage. A woman in a rural or remote area may have limited exposure to formal legal institutions and may rely primarily on family or community networks for information. A migrant woman may face difficulty because the language used by an institution differs from the language she ordinarily speaks. A woman with limited literacy may require oral or visual communication rather than written legal material.

The problem may become more serious when several barriers operate simultaneously. The 2026 UNDP India justice-needs assessment, based on research across six states, found that gender and social identity influence legal awareness and justice-seeking behaviour. It also identified limited confidence in formal systems, uncertainty about available remedies and barriers affecting women from marginalised communities. The report specifically identifies local-language services as an important component of equitable access.

This suggests that accessibility should be understood in an intersectional manner. It is not sufficient to ask whether legal information exists in a particular language. One must also ask whether it is available in a form that a rural woman, an economically dependent woman, a woman with a disability, or a woman with limited literacy can realistically use.

NALSA's use of Paralegal Volunteers is relevant in this context. These volunteers operate at the grassroots level and are intended to function as a bridge between Legal Services Institutions and the public. Their importance lies precisely in reducing the distance between formal legal institutions and communities that may otherwise find those institutions difficult to approach.

The objective should therefore shift from “one law, one communication method” to “the right information through an appropriate channel.” Legal accessibility is achieved when the communication method is adapted to the needs of the person seeking justice.

The Limits of Language Reform

Language accessibility is an important condition of meaningful access to justice, but it cannot by itself resolve every barrier that prevents women from exercising their legal rights. A woman may understand her legal entitlement and still be unable to pursue it because of poverty, social pressure, geographical distance, fear of retaliation, lack of institutional support, procedural delay or inadequate legal representation. Language must therefore be understood as one part of a larger access-to-justice framework rather than as a complete solution.

The distinction is important because there is a risk of treating translation as the final answer to a much wider problem. Making a statute available in a regional language does not necessarily tell a woman what she should do when her rights are violated. She may understand the words of the provision but remain uncertain about the authority before which she should complain, the documents she needs, the time within which she must act or the assistance available to her. Accessibility therefore requires a movement beyond linguistic availability towards practical usability.

There is also a difficult balance between simplification and legal accuracy. Legal rules frequently contain definitions, exceptions, procedural requirements and conditions that cannot simply be removed for the sake of making the text easier to read. Excessive simplification may produce an explanation that is accessible but legally incomplete. Conversely, excessive technicality may preserve precision while making the law practically incomprehensible to the person whose rights are at stake. The objective should therefore be neither complicated legal language nor oversimplification, but accurate law communicated understandably.

The challenge becomes greater in a country as linguistically diverse as India. Meaningful accessibility may require translation, interpretation and explanatory materials in several languages and dialects. Such material must also be updated whenever legislation changes, or judicial interpretation develops. An outdated translation can be misleading even if it was originally accurate. Consequently, language accessibility requires continuing institutional investment rather than a one-time translation exercise.

The availability of qualified translators and legal interpreters is another institutional concern. Legal translation is different from ordinary translation because a seemingly small difference in terminology may alter the legal meaning of a provision. Similarly, a court interpreter must convey the words and meaning of a participant without introducing personal interpretation. The quality of linguistic assistance is therefore as important as its availability.

The limits of language reform are also visible from the broader justice experience of marginalised communities. The 2026 UNDP India People-Centred Justice Needs Assessment found that, despite a substantial legal-aid framework, significant gaps remain between formal provisions and their delivery on the ground. The study identified procedural complexity, limited legal awareness, institutional barriers and difficulties faced by marginalised groups as continuing obstacles to meaningful justice. It also recorded community demand for localised legal aid and services in local languages.

This suggests that language reform should operate alongside legal aid, legal literacy, institutional accountability and simplified procedures. A woman should not have to overcome several independent barriers merely to discover how to exercise a right that the law has already granted her.

Ultimately, the question should not be whether the law has been translated, but whether the person can understand the right, identify the remedy, approach the appropriate institution and receive meaningful assistance. Language accessibility is therefore a necessary component of justice, but it is not justice in itself.

A Practical Framework for Language-Accessible Justice

A meaningful framework for language-accessible justice should begin with the recognition that accessibility is a process rather than a single act of translation. The process may be understood through seven interconnected principles: information, language, explanation, assistance, interpretation, participation and verification. Together, these principles seek to transform a legal entitlement into something that an individual can actually understand and use.

The first principle is the right to information. A person cannot exercise a right that she does not know exists. Legal institutions should therefore actively communicate information concerning rights, remedies and available assistance. This is particularly important for women because many legal protections operate in areas where social or family structures may discourage independent access to formal institutions. NALSA itself treats legal awareness as an important component of legal services and undertakes awareness activities through multiple channels.

The second principle is the right to an understandable language. Information concerning essential legal rights should be communicated in a language that the intended beneficiary can comprehend. This does not necessarily require every legal document to be translated into every Indian language. It does, however, require institutions to recognise language as a possible barrier and provide appropriate linguistic assistance where that barrier affects access to justice.

The third principle is the right to explanation. Even when a legal rule is available in a person's language, its technical nature may prevent genuine understanding. A plain-language explanation can bridge the gap between the formal text and its practical meaning. Such explanations should answer basic questions: What right does the person have? When does it apply? Which authority can provide relief? What immediate steps can be taken? Where can legal assistance be obtained?

The fourth principle is the right to assistance. Information alone may not be sufficient where a dispute involves complicated facts or procedures. A woman may need a lawyer, paralegal volunteer or Legal Services Authority to translate general legal knowledge into concrete legal action. NALSA expressly provides mechanisms through which women can obtain free legal assistance, including through Legal Services Institutions, Legal Aid Clinics, panel lawyers and paralegal volunteers.

The fifth principle is the right to interpretation. Translation generally concerns written material, whereas interpretation becomes important when a person must communicate directly with a legal institution. If a woman cannot adequately communicate with a police officer, lawyer, court or administrative authority because of language differences, her formal presence before that institution does not necessarily amount to meaningful participation.

The sixth principle is the right to participate. Access to justice should not reduce an individual to a passive recipient of legal information. A person should be able to understand, at an appropriate level, what is happening in proceedings affecting her rights and should have a meaningful opportunity to communicate her concerns. This is particularly important in matters involving domestic violence, sexual harassment, maintenance, property, custody and bodily autonomy.

The seventh principle is the right to verification. Simplified explanations, translations and digital tools should not replace authoritative legal sources. Where an individual's legal position is uncertain, she should be able to verify the information through a competent lawyer, Legal Services Authority, Legal Aid Clinic or authoritative legal material. This principle is particularly important in the age of artificial intelligence and automated translation, where accessibility can sometimes come at the cost of accuracy.

The significance of this framework lies in its shift from a document-centred approach to a person-centred approach. Instead of asking whether the institution has published the law, the relevant question becomes whether the person for whom the law exists can actually navigate the legal system.

Such an approach is consistent with NALSA's broader institutional philosophy. NALSA describes its objectives in terms of free legal aid, legal awareness, assistance and access to justice, while its grassroots mechanisms are intended to connect formal legal institutions with communities.

The framework is particularly relevant to women because the first point of contact with the justice system may not always be a court. It may be a police station, protection officer, workplace committee, Legal Aid Clinic, local authority, hospital, community worker or helpline. Language accessibility should therefore operate across the entire chain of institutions rather than only inside courtrooms.

A genuinely accessible justice system should consequently aim to ensure that a woman can move through the following stages without being stopped by linguistic or informational barriers.

Measuring Understanding, Not Merely Outreach

The effectiveness of legal-awareness programmes should not be measured solely by the number of programmes conducted or people who attended them. Numbers of camps, pamphlets, workshops or awareness sessions can demonstrate institutional activity, but they do not necessarily demonstrate legal empowerment. A person may attend a legal-awareness programme and still leave without knowing what right applies to her or where she can seek assistance.

The more meaningful measure is therefore understanding. A legal-awareness initiative should ideally be evaluated by asking whether participants can identify the basic right discussed, recognise the institution responsible for providing relief and understand the next practical step. Such evaluation would change the focus from simply measuring how much information was distributed to examining whether the information was actually absorbed and usable.

This distinction is particularly important in relation to women. Awareness does not automatically lead to action. A woman may know that domestic violence is legally prohibited and still hesitate to approach an authority because of economic dependence, fear of retaliation, family pressure or uncertainty about the consequences. The measurement of legal empowerment should therefore consider not only knowledge but also the individual's confidence and ability to seek assistance.

NALSA already employs a wide range of legal-awareness methods, including seminars, lectures, pamphlets, television and radio programmes, public interactions, street plays, documentaries and Legal Aid Clinics. This diversity is valuable because different communities may respond differently to written, oral, visual or community-based forms of communication. The next step should be to assess which methods actually produce sustained understanding.

The importance of this shift is reinforced by the 2026 UNDP India justice-needs assessment. The study, based on research involving marginalised communities across six states, found that limited legal awareness and gaps in legal-aid delivery continue to affect meaningful access to justice. It also found that women from marginalised communities may have lower awareness of legal rights and lower use of digital platforms for legal information. Communities identified simplicity, localised legal aid, sustained legal awareness and services in local languages among important priorities for improving access.

These findings suggest that legal-literacy programmes should incorporate outcome-based indicators. Instead of recording only the number of participants, institutions could examine whether participants can answer basic questions such as: What is my legal right? Which authority should I approach? What documents or information may be required? What assistance is available? What should I do if the first authority does not respond?

Another useful indicator would be whether the beneficiary can independently identify a reliable source of further assistance. This could include a Legal Services Authority, Legal Aid Clinic, recognised helpline or qualified legal professional. NALSA's present system already provides several such channels, including Legal Services Authorities at different levels, Legal Aid Clinics, online applications and its national legal-aid helpline.

Evaluation should also account for language. A programme conducted in a language unfamiliar to the intended audience may produce impressive attendance figures while achieving little actual understanding. Consequently, legal-awareness programmes should record not merely the number of persons reached but also the language used, the method of communication and the extent to which participants understood the information.

There is also a need to distinguish between short-term awareness and long-term legal empowerment. A participant may remember that a particular right exists immediately after an awareness session but forget the information several months later. Follow-up mechanisms, accessible informational material and local legal-support networks can help convert temporary awareness into continuing capacity.

References:

1. Law Commission of India, Reforms in the Judiciary – Some Suggestions, Report No. 230 (2009),
2. National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), Annual Report 2024–2025, Government of India.
3. National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), Women and Law, Government of India.
4. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP India), Enhancing Meaningful Access to Justice in India: A People-Centred Justice Needs Assessment (2026).
5. Chanchal Kumar Singh, Mritunjay Kumar & Aastha Naresh Kohli, “Access to Justice and Language of Law,” SSRN (2026).
6. National Legal Services Authority, Status of Legal Literacy in India: A Report on National Legal Literacy Mission, addressing legal literacy initiatives and the use of vernacular-language legal materials.
7. National Legal Services Authority & National Commission for Women, Handbook on Laws Relating to Women, Government of India, prepared as a resource for legal awareness and literacy programmes.

.    .    .