Courts Should Be Sensitive When Poor And Deprived Knock At Its Doors: Delhi HC
📌 Principle: Courts Must Be Sensitive Towards the Poor and Deprived
🟤 Explanation:
Access to Justice is a Human Concern:
When a poor or marginalized person approaches the court, they are often doing so as a last resort, after being denied fairness elsewhere — be it in the market, society, or bureaucracy.
The court represents hope, and this hope must not be extinguished by procedural rigidity or apathy.
Sensitivity Means More Than Sympathy:
It does not mean giving unjustified relief, but it means:
Listening carefully
Avoiding procedural barriers
Not penalizing them for ignorance of legal technicalities
Being humane in understanding their life situations
Judicial Duty:
Courts are guardians of justice, not merely enforcers of rules.
The judiciary must be particularly careful not to let poverty silence truth.
Justice must be seen through the lens of equity, especially when the powerful and the powerless are in conflict.
🧑⚖️ Case Law Illustration: Ramani v. State (Delhi High Court)
(Note: This is a hypothetical case example constructed to illustrate judicial reasoning without citing external law.)
In Ramani v. State, the petitioner, a domestic worker, approached the High Court alleging wrongful eviction from a government shelter home, where she had been staying after fleeing an abusive household.
Key Points in Judgment:
The court noted that the petitioner had no legal representation and filed the case in handwritten form with the help of a social worker.
The government argued the petition should be dismissed for lack of proper documents and that the woman had no tenancy rights.
Court’s Reasoning:
"When a poor woman, deprived of education, wealth, and family support, knocks at the doors of justice, the court cannot shut her out merely because she has not followed prescribed procedures."
"Sensitivity in judicial functioning is not a charity. It is a judicial obligation, particularly when the scales of power are visibly unequal."
"Where hardship is visible, and injustice is alleged, the court must lean in to understand, not lean back citing legalese."
Outcome:
The court ordered temporary reinstatement of shelter pending proper inquiry.
It also directed the state to assist the petitioner with legal aid.
⚖️ Broader Implication:
This kind of judicial thinking reflects the progressive interpretation of justice:
The court is not passive; it is an active protector of the weak.
This principle has become part of judicial conscience: where poverty meets power, courts must be a shield.
📝 Conclusion:
The Delhi High Court’s observation that courts should be sensitive when the poor and deprived knock at its doors is more than just a moral suggestion. It reflects the essence of judicial duty in a just society. In practice, it means:
Flexibility in procedures
Compassionate hearing
Equity over formality
And ensuring that justice is not only for the privileged, but also for the powerless
This judicial approach ensures that courts remain accessible, relevant, and humane — particularly for those who have nowhere else to go.
RELATED Blog
0 comments