Introduction

The judiciary is intended to be the impartial arm of government, dispensing justice without prejudice. However, over time, the perception that the courts favour the wealthy has intensified, leading to terms like the ‘justice market’ and ‘order shopping.’ These phrases symbolize the idea that judicial outcomes are available for purchase by those who can afford expensive legal representation. This article examines this trend, providing both creative and factual critiques of how the judicial system operates in practice.

1. Conceptual Framework to ‘The Justice Market’

The concept of a "justice market" posits that the judiciary has become a marketplace where justice is a commodity that can be bought and sold. Those with greater financial resources can secure better legal representation, access specialized expertise, and influence the outcome of legal proceedings. Conversely, individuals from marginalized communities, lacking the necessary means, are often relegated to the periphery of the justice system, their rights and interests inadequately protected.

1.1. Justice as a Commodity

In many jurisdictions, justice is viewed as a public good, meant to be equally accessible to all. Yet, the reality often diverges sharply. Wealthier individuals or corporations have the resources to hire top-tier legal teams, influencing judicial outcomes in their favour. The term ‘justice market’ encapsulates this idea, where legal outcomes become commodities that are sold to the highest bidder. Those lacking financial resources remain marginalized, unable to access the same quality of legal defence.

1.2. Real-Life Example: Jisha's murder case

On July 16th, the Supreme Court stayed the Kerala High Court’s verdict and death sentence for Muhammed Ameerul Islam, the sole accused in the brutal rape and murder of Jisha. While the merits and demerits of the verdict remain subject to debate, it is essential to note that the stay was granted primarily because crucial evidence that linked the accused to the crime was contested. However, what truly facilitated this appeal to the highest court was Ameerul Islam's access to significant financial resources, allowing him to hire a competent legal team capable of navigating the complexities of the justice system.

Had he been from a marginalized or impoverished background, without any influential support, his fate might have been sealed much earlier, with the death sentence upheld without much public attention or scrutiny. The ability to challenge the verdict and secure a stay would have been out of reach, demonstrating how the judicial process often favours those who can afford it.

In such cases, where an innocent person may be wrongfully accused, lacking the financial means to mount a proper defence, how is justice expected to be served? Without money, the chances of obtaining a fair trial, appealing to higher courts, or even securing competent legal representation are bleak. This highlights a troubling reality: Justice, in its current form, appears to be a privilege reserved for the rich and elite, while the poor and powerless are left to navigate a system stacked against them. Justice, it seems, can indeed be bought, leaving the most vulnerable at the mercy of a justice market where the highest bidder often prevails.

a. Disparities in Legal Representation:

The quality of legal representation can vary significantly based on economic factors. Individuals with substantial financial resources can afford to hire experienced and well-connected attorneys, while those from lower-income backgrounds may rely on public defenders or pro bono services. These disparities can have a profound impact on the outcome of legal cases.

b. The Role of Expert Witnesses:

The ability to secure expert testimony can be a decisive factor in legal disputes. However, expert witnesses can be expensive, and their availability may be influenced by economic considerations. Wealthier parties may be able to afford to hire highly qualified experts, while those with limited resources may struggle to obtain the necessary evidence.

c. The Influence of Lobbying and Advocacy:

The judiciary can be influenced by lobbying efforts and advocacy campaigns. Wealthier individuals and corporations may have greater access to lawmakers and policymakers, allowing them to shape legal frameworks and procedures in ways that benefit their interests.

2. The Concept of ‘Order Shopping’

The concept of "order shopping" refers to the practice of litigants seeking to find a court or judge that is more likely to render a favorable ruling. This phenomenon can be exacerbated by the uneven distribution of resources. Wealthier parties may be able to conduct extensive research to identify judges with a track record of ruling in their favour, while those from marginalized communities may have limited options.

2.1. Manipulation of Judicial Outcomes

‘Order shopping’ refers to the practice where individuals or corporations with sufficient means can influence the selection of a judge or courtroom to receive a favourable ruling. Rather than relying on legal merit, outcomes are influenced by who can afford to manoeuvre within the system. This practice undermines the very foundations of fairness, reducing judicial decisions to matters of wealth and influence.

2.2 Real-Life Example: Order Shopping in the Indian Judiciary

In corporate bankruptcy filings, especially in the U.S., it’s common to see ‘venue shopping,’ a practice where wealthy corporations file cases in favourable jurisdictions, such as Delaware or New York, where they believe judges will be more sympathetic to their claims. Similarly, in India, while jurisdiction rules are stricter requiring cases to be filed in specific courts based on the accused or other legal prescriptions the practice of ‘order shopping’ still finds its way into the system.

Order shopping in India manifests when parties, irrespective of the legal merits of their case, seek favourable rulings by leveraging legal loopholes or employing high-profile lawyers who can craft arguments to sway decisions. These parties often prioritize obtaining an order that suits their interests, regardless of its legitimacy, legality, or reasonableness. Lawyers, driven by their clients' demands, argue based on selective interpretations of statutes, focusing solely on achieving the desired outcome, rather than on the fairness or equity of the case.

A striking example of this occurred in August 2024, when a lawyer petitioned the Karnataka High Court, requesting a staggering monthly maintenance of ₹6,16,300 for a woman from her ex-husband. The claim included various expenses such as clothing, legal fees, and even treatment for knee pain. The court, under Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, rejected the plea outright, labeling it as unreasonable and emphasizing that the court was not a "marketplace for bargaining." Justice Kanneganti further warned against exploiting the legal system and encouraged the petitioner to present more realistic claims. This case illustrates how ‘order shopping’ can go beyond mere legal manipulation transforming the court into a platform where parties attempt to secure orders based on inflated, often unjustifiable demands.

3. Consequences of a ‘Justice Market’

3.1 Erosion of Public Trust

One of the most dangerous consequences of the justice market in India is the erosion of public confidence in the judiciary. When the public perceives courts as favoring the wealthy and powerful, the very foundation of the rule of law begins to lose its legitimacy. Justice, which should be an equalizer in a democracy, becomes an illusion—something available only to the elite, while the poor and marginalized struggle to access even basic legal recourse.

In high-profile cases involving the wealthy or politically connected, public distrust deepens. For example, in the case of Vijay Mallya, the fugitive businessman accused of financial fraud and money laundering, there has been widespread frustration regarding his ability to evade Indian courts while comfortably residing abroad. Mallya’s escape from India in 2016, despite facing numerous cases in the country, was made possible by his immense financial resources, which allowed him to exploit legal loopholes and delay extradition proceedings. For many ordinary Indians, this case exemplifies how wealth can buy time and influence in the justice system, while the common citizen would have no such privilege.

On the other hand, cases involving vulnerable or marginalized individuals often receive little attention or swift resolution, reinforcing the idea that justice is unattainable for the poor. The 2020 Hathras gang rape and murder case highlighted this disparity. The slow pace of investigation, attempts to manipulate evidence, and the denial of justice for the victim’s family until public outrage mounted, illustrated how justice can be delayed when the victim is from a marginalized community.

This disparity breeds mistrust in the judiciary, as citizens begin to believe that the courts are only accessible to those with money and power. The judiciary, which is supposed to act as a check on the excesses of the executive and legislative branches, risks losing its credibility and moral authority if it continues to be perceived as biased in favor of the elite.

3.2 Widening Inequality

The justice market in India exacerbates the existing inequalities in society, making access to justice a privilege that only the wealthy can afford. The disparity in legal outcomes based on financial standing creates a vicious cycle of social and economic inequality. Wealthy individuals and corporations are able to hire high-profile lawyers, navigate the legal system, and, in many cases, escape accountability. The poor, on the other hand, are left vulnerable to exploitation, unable to afford the cost of prolonged legal battles or competent representation.

A notable example is the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, one of the world’s worst industrial disasters. In 1984, a gas leak from Union Carbide’s plant in Bhopal led to the deaths of thousands of people, mostly from impoverished communities. Despite the devastating consequences, the victims faced long delays in receiving compensation, and even then, the settlements were woefully inadequate. In contrast, Union Carbide and its executives faced minimal repercussions. The company was able to negotiate a much smaller settlement than the victims deserved, and legal proceedings dragged on for decades, with key figures like Warren Anderson, the then CEO of Union Carbide, never being held accountable. This case illustrates how powerful corporations, with their financial resources and legal maneuvering, can escape justice, while the poor bear the brunt of their actions.

Another striking example is the case of Bilkis Bano, a survivor of gang rape during the 2002 Gujarat riots. After years of legal battles, Bano finally won a conviction in the Supreme Court. However, her journey to justice was long, difficult, and expensive, with numerous obstacles along the way. In contrast, the perpetrators, with support from influential political figures, managed to delay their punishment for years. Even after their conviction, many of the convicts were granted parole and released early, a privilege that would have been impossible for someone without political or financial clout.

These examples demonstrate how wealth and influence can bend the legal system to favor the rich and powerful. The poor, who lack financial resources and connections, often find themselves unable to secure justice, no matter how righteous their cause. In a system where the ability to pursue justice is determined by one’s financial standing, the courts cease to be a place where the rule of law prevails, and instead become yet another battleground where the wealthy can exercise their power.

The disparity in access to justice also extends to corporate law in India. Wealthy corporations often engage in protracted legal battles, taking advantage of the slow judicial process. For instance, major Indian conglomerates like the Adani Group and Reliance Industries have been involved in numerous legal disputes where their financial strength has allowed them to outlast smaller competitors or delay regulatory actions. Such corporations can afford to employ top lawyers, file appeals in higher courts, and strategically delay proceedings, while smaller entities or individual litigants cannot keep up with the cost of prolonged litigation.

In this landscape, justice is no longer blind but is swayed by financial power. The unequal access to legal redress often means that marginalized communities, unable to bear the high costs of legal battles, are forced to endure injustices without any real hope for resolution. The wealthy, by contrast, not only afford to defend themselves but also actively seek out favourable rulings through order shopping and legal manoeuvring, further entrenching their positions of privilege.

This widening gap between the rich and poor in the legal sphere reflects the broader social and economic inequalities in India. The legal system, which should function as an equalizer, instead mirrors and reinforces existing power dynamics. As the rich continue to thrive and the poor remain trapped in cycles of injustice, the legal system risks losing its relevance as a means to deliver equality and fairness for all.

4. Courts Act Like a "Comply Puppet"

4.1 Procedural Rigidity vs. Substantive Justice

One of the most common criticisms of the judiciary is its excessive reliance on procedural correctness, often at the expense of delivering substantive justice. While legal procedures are essential for ensuring fairness, they should not become the sole focus. Courts are expected to interpret laws, considering the nuances of each case. However, in many instances, trial courts rigidly adhere to procedures, which could easily be carried out by a robot, instead of exercising their judicial discretion to assess the broader facts and context of a case.

This issue has become especially prevalent in cases involving lower-income or marginalized individuals, where procedural hurdles often act as insurmountable barriers to justice. Judges, rather than evaluating the facts holistically, tend to rely on rigid interpretations of statutes, which often results in a mechanical and unjust outcome.

4.2 Bail and Detention: An Example of Judicial Passivity

One of the most glaring examples of the judiciary acting as a "comply puppet" is in the realm of bail applications. Particularly under strict laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), courts often deny bail simply because the charges are framed under these laws, regardless of the actual merit of the allegations.

Take, for example, the case of Siddique Kappan, a journalist arrested under UAPA charges while on his way to report on a high-profile rape case in Hathras. Despite flimsy evidence, he remained in jail for extended periods because the court refused to look beyond the procedural framework of UAPA. The judiciary, in this case, prioritized procedural formality over the actual facts of the case, effectively denying him his right to fair trial and liberty.

The problem is compounded when the accused lacks the financial resources to hire skilled legal counsel. While affluent individuals can afford top-tier lawyers who know how to work within and around the system, the poor often rely on overburdened and under-resourced public defenders, leaving them at the mercy of procedural delays.

4.3 The Poor vs. the Elite: A Two-Tiered Justice System

The focus on procedural correctness contributes to the creation of a two-tiered justice system: one for the wealthy, who can afford to navigate these legal hurdles, and another for the poor, who are often trapped within them. This is particularly evident in cases where the elite manage to secure favorable court orders or appeals, while those without resources find themselves tangled in the system for years.

For instance, while wealthy individuals can file multiple appeals, exploit procedural loopholes, and afford continuous legal representation, the poor are often left without recourse. This disparity becomes clear in bail applications, where affluent individuals secure bail relatively easily, while the indigent spends long periods in custody even for minor offences.

4.4 Failure of Judicial Discretion

Judges are not meant to be passive implementers of statutory law; they are expected to exercise discretion, consider the specific facts of a case, and apply their minds to ensure a fair outcome. However, many courts, especially at the trial level, fail to use their judicial discretion adequately. Instead, they defer to procedural technicalities, leaving individuals vulnerable to unjust outcomes, particularly those who lack the resources to challenge these decisions.

For example, in cases involving complex commercial disputes, wealthy parties often use procedural tactics to delay judgments or secure interim reliefs that benefit them financially. On the other hand, underprivileged individuals or small businesses do not have the luxury of time or financial resources to contest these procedural games, further perpetuating inequality.

4.5 Consequences of Over-Reliance on Procedure

The consequences of this procedural rigidity are far-reaching:

a. Delayed Justice:

Lengthy legal processes result in significant delays, and as the adage goes, "justice delayed is justice denied." This affects poor and marginalized communities the most, who lack the means to endure drawn-out legal battles.

b. Erosion of Public Trust:

When courts act as procedural automatons, public confidence in the judiciary erodes. People begin to view the courts not as places of justice, but as inaccessible institutions that prioritize paperwork over people.

c. Reinforcement of Inequality:

As the wealthy manipulate procedural rules to their advantage, the poor are often left without access to justice. This not only widens the gap between the rich and the poor but also perpetuates cycles of exploitation.

4.6 Impact on Minorities and Vulnerable Groups

The "comply puppet" approach disproportionately affects minorities and vulnerable groups, who are often at the receiving end of the justice system's harshest measures. Whether its Dalits facing false accusations or marginalized communities subjected to prolonged pre-trial detentions, the judiciary’s rigid procedural approach fails to account for the systemic inequalities that these groups face.

For instance, Dalits and tribal communities in India often face biased enforcement of laws, where allegations, even when unfounded, are taken at face value and lead to prolonged detentions. These communities lack the financial and social capital to challenge such accusations, and the courts' over-reliance on procedure, rather than examining the facts and context, exacerbates their plight.

4.7 Calls for Judicial Discretion and Compassion

To counteract these issues, the judiciary must embrace a more compassionate and discretionary approach. Judges should not merely act as mechanical processors of the law, but should actively engage with the facts and merits of each case. They should consider factors like socioeconomic status, access to resources, and the broader implications of their decisions when delivering justice.

Training programs that emphasize judicial discretion, critical thinking, and compassion are crucial. Additionally, accountability mechanisms should be strengthened to ensure that judges are not merely complying with procedural norms but are actively working toward delivering justice in a fair and equitable manner.

5. Alternatives and Reforms

5.1 Public Defenders and Legal Aid

One of the most effective ways to counter the inequities of the justice market is by strengthening public defender systems and expanding access to legal aid. In India, while legal aid services exist under the Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987, they are often underfunded, understaffed, and lacking in resources. Strengthening these systems is essential to ensure that individuals from low-income backgrounds can access competent legal representation.

High-quality public defenders can provide the same level of legal expertise that wealthy individuals and corporations enjoy, thus leveling the playing field. For example, organizations like the Legal Services Authority and various legal aid clinics associated with law schools can play a significant role in improving access to justice for the poor. Ensuring that these bodies are well-funded and independent is crucial for them to function effectively.

However, for public defenders and legal aid to truly make a difference, they must be paired with training programs that equip lawyers with the skills needed to handle complex cases. In India, many legal aid lawyers are overburdened and poorly compensated, which affects the quality of representation they provide. By offering better training, competitive salaries, and access to resources, the legal aid system can become a powerful tool to combat the justice market.

5.2 Judicial Reforms: Transparency and Fairness

Judicial reforms are essential to prevent practices like order shopping and restore fairness to the courts. One significant reform could be the random assignment of judges to cases, which would help ensure that cases are not filed in specific courts purely to secure favorable outcomes. Currently, parties often seek out certain judges or venues where they believe their interests will be better served. A random assignment system would reduce the likelihood of bias and make it more difficult for wealthier parties to manipulate the system.

In addition to random case assignment, stricter oversight of case venues is necessary. While India has jurisdictional rules, in practice, parties often attempt to transfer cases to courts that they believe will be more sympathetic. Strengthening the enforcement of jurisdictional rules and increasing oversight of case transfers would help ensure that cases are heard in the appropriate courts, based on legal, not tactical, considerations.

Transparency is another critical area for reform. Currently, many legal proceedings in India are opaque, making it difficult for the public to scrutinize judicial decisions. By making court proceedings more transparent, including live-streaming hearings and ensuring that judicial decisions are published in a timely and accessible manner, the judiciary can regain public trust. The recent decision by the Supreme Court to live-stream constitutionally significant cases is a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done to extend transparency across all levels of the judiciary.

5.3 Speedy Justice and Reducing Case Backlogs

India’s justice system is notorious for its massive backlog of cases, with millions of cases pending across various courts. This backlog disproportionately affects the poor, who cannot afford to endure prolonged legal battles. Delays in justice often mean that the wealthy can use their resources to prolong cases indefinitely, while the poor, facing high legal costs, are forced to give up.

Reforms aimed at reducing case backlogs are essential to ensure timely justice. Expanding the number of judges, streamlining procedural requirements, and embracing technology to digitize court processes can all help to speed up the delivery of justice. Fast-track courts, which are already in place for certain types of cases (such as sexual assault), could be expanded to other areas where justice is often delayed, including property disputes and labor cases.

5.4 Strengthening Accountability Mechanisms

Ensuring accountability within the judiciary is another key aspect of reform. The perception that the wealthy can buy favorable outcomes stems, in part, from a lack of accountability for judicial misconduct. Strengthening judicial oversight bodies, such as the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill (which remains pending), can help to ensure that judges act impartially and are not influenced by external pressures.

Creating a more robust system for monitoring and investigating judicial conduct would help to combat corruption and favoritism. Additionally, implementing clearer guidelines on judicial recusals, where judges withdraw from cases due to conflicts of interest, would further strengthen the integrity of the judiciary.

5.5 Expanding Legal Literacy and Empowering Citizens

Legal literacy is often overlooked in discussions about judicial reform, but it is a crucial component of ensuring access to justice. Many people in India, particularly in rural and marginalized communities, are unaware of their legal rights or how to navigate the judicial system. This lack of knowledge makes it easy for the powerful to exploit the system at the expense of the poor.

Expanding legal literacy programs that educate citizens about their rights and the workings of the judicial system can help empower individuals to seek justice. Legal awareness camps, often conducted by non-governmental organizations and law students, can play a significant role in informing citizens of their rights. When people are better informed about their legal options, they are less likely to be exploited and more likely to demand fair treatment from the courts.

6. Conclusion

The idea of a ‘justice market’ and the related practice of ‘order shopping’ highlights the critical failures in the current judicial system. Wealth should not determine the outcome of legal proceedings, yet in practice, it often does. To preserve the legitimacy of the judiciary and ensure equal access to justice, urgent reforms are needed. Courts must return to their role as neutral arbiters of the law, where the merits of a case, not the financial standing of the litigants, determine the outcome.

In halls where whispers blend with might,
Justice dims, obscured from sight.
Wealth tips the scales, the poor are lost,
In shadows deep, at a heavy cost.
Yet truth and fairness must prevail,
Not bound by gold, but strong and frail.
Let wisdom guide and balance stay,
So justice shines in equal day.

.    .    .