Community-based Informal Justice Systems: Innovations in Grassroots Legal Solutions

India’s formal court system resolves disputes – but for millions of women in rural and semi-urban areas, a district court might as well be on the other side of the world. The costs are prohibitive, the procedures are intimidating, and the process can drag on for years. Into this gap, a quiet but significant revolution has been unfolding at the grassroots level: community-based informal justice systems that bring dispute resolution directly to the people who need it most. These initiatives – ranging from government-backed women’s courts to civil society-led collectives – are reshaping how marginalised communities, particularly women, access justice in India.

Why formal courts fall short for marginalised communities 🔗

India’s formal judicial system is, by most accounts, under severe strain. Millions of cases are pending across courts at every level. But the backlog is only part of the problem. For a woman in rural Uttar Pradesh or a Dalit worker in Marathwada, the barriers to justice run deeper – high lawyer fees, the need to take time off work, unfamiliarity with legal language, social stigma, and the very real fear of retaliation. Research and ground-level reporting shows that women, especially from rural and economically weaker sections, often lack the social capital, money, and time required to navigate the formal system – even when the law is clearly on their side.

This is precisely the space that community-based informal justice systems aim to fill. They are not replacements for formal courts but bridges – accessible, low-cost, and sensitive to the social realities of the communities they serve. Their legitimacy comes not from statutory authority, but from community trust and participatory decision-making.

Nari Adalats: women’s courts by the community, for the community 🔗

Nari Adalats, or women’s courts, are among the most prominent examples of this model in India. The concept has been implemented in multiple forms – by NGOs, state governments, and now at the central government level as a formal policy initiative.

Origins and the Mahila Samakhya connection 🔗

The earliest iterations of Nari Adalats emerged as an innovation under Mahila Samakhya, a Government of India programme focused on women’s education and empowerment. In states like Karnataka, Mahila Samakhya chapters established community-based women’s courts to handle domestic disputes that the formal system was too slow, too expensive, or too insensitive to address. A peer-reviewed study published in Women & Criminal Justice found that these Nari Adalats exercised broad authority in investigating and resolving domestic violence cases, while Mahila Samakhya simultaneously provided shelter, legal assistance, and education to survivors.

By November 2014, 481 Nari Adalats were operating across 11 states, having collectively handled over 30,000 cases since their inception. This was a community-driven model long before it received formal governmental recognition.

The Mission Shakti framework 🔗

In 2022, the Ministry of Women and Child Development formalised and scaled the Nari Adalat model by incorporating it into Mission Shakti, an umbrella scheme for women’s safety, security, and empowerment. Under Mission Shakti’s Sambal sub-scheme – which also covers One Stop Centres and the Women Helpline (181) – Nari Adalats are established at the Gram Panchayat level as an alternate grievance redressal mechanism.

The structure is deliberately participatory. Each Nari Adalat is run by a committee of 7 to 11 members called Nyaya Sakhis (friends of justice). Half of these members are elected Gram Panchayat representatives, and the other half are community-nominated individuals – teachers, doctors, social workers, and respected local figures. They resolve disputes through negotiation, mediation, reconciliation, and mutual consent, covering issues like domestic harassment, denial of entitlements, marital disputes, and curtailment of rights.

Crucially, Nari Adalats do not hold formal judicial powers – they cannot pass binding legal orders. Their authority is social and moral, rooted in community respect. Yet this very characteristic makes them effective: resolutions carry weight because they reflect the collective judgment of people the parties actually know and live alongside. The scheme is currently operational in 50 Gram Panchayats each in Assam and Jammu & Kashmir, with potential for wider replication.

NGO-run Nari Adalats: the Jagori model in Himachal Pradesh 🔗

Government policy is one thing; implementation on the ground is another. Some of the most effective Nari Adalats have been operated by civil society organisations. Jagori Grameen, an NGO working in the Kangra and Chamba districts of Himachal Pradesh, runs one such model. Jagori’s Nyaay Sakhis – women from socially and economically backward sections of the community – are given paralegal training and conduct hearings following natural justice principles. Both parties, along with key witnesses and family members, are given a full opportunity to present their side. Hearings are followed by fact-finding visits to verify claims on the ground.

The impact is tangible. In one documented case, a Nari Adalat summoned an absent husband who had abandoned his wife, traced him to another location, and compelled him to return and make a public apology to both his wife and the community. In another deeply disturbing instance, Nyaay Sakhis grew suspicious about the disappearance of a daughter-in-law and, after staying at the house for the day and ordering a search, uncovered that she had been murdered and buried – a dowry killing that would otherwise have gone unreported. These cases illustrate both the reach and the vigilance that community embeddedness makes possible.

Shramjeevi Sangathana: justice through collective mobilisation 🔗

Not all community-based justice initiatives take the form of a structured court. Some operate through a model of collective advocacy and rights mobilisation. Shramjeevi Sangathana, a trade union and civil society organisation active in the Latur district of Maharashtra, represents this approach.

Founded out of the Campaign for Human Rights (CHR) and formally registered in 1996, Shramjeevi Sangathana began by taking up cases of caste-based discrimination against the Matang community – among the most marginalised Dalit groups in Marathwada. Over time, its work expanded to cover minimum wages under the Employment Guarantee Scheme, land rights for landless Dalits, and protection against police atrocities.

The organisation’s approach to dispute resolution is deeply participatory. It operates through village committees across more than 200 villages, with 2-3 committed local volunteers in each who try to resolve smaller problems at the village level. For larger issues, people from surrounding villages gather in solidarity. The sangathana also played a role in helping communities with the administrative procedures to regularise gairan (common grazing) land – a form of community-based legal assistance that operates well outside the formal court system.

Critically, Shramjeevi Sangathana has been instrumental in shifting public attitudes toward caste-based atrocities, making it one of the few grassroots organisations that successfully challenged both police impunity and upper-caste dominance in rural Maharashtra. By filing FIRs on behalf of victims and mobilising communities to collectively challenge injustice, it effectively supplemented – and sometimes compelled – the formal justice system to act.

What makes these systems work 🔗

Across different models – government-backed Nari Adalats, NGO-run women’s courts, and rights-based collectives – several common elements explain their effectiveness.

Participatory legitimacy is central. These forums derive authority not from law but from community membership. When a Nyaya Sakhi speaks, she does so as a neighbour and peer, not as a distant authority figure. The community-based composition creates a sense of safe space for survivors, encouraging them to speak openly – something that rarely happens in the intimidating environment of a formal court.

Accessibility and cost are equally important. There are no lawyer fees, no court stamps, no long waiting periods. Women do not have to pay costly fees in Nari Adalats, removing a significant financial barrier that keeps many from pursuing justice at all.

Contextual sensitivity – the ability to understand local social dynamics, family structures, and cultural pressures – allows these forums to craft solutions that are both practical and durable. Resolutions are often formalised through notarised documents that carry strong customary compliance value. And importantly, these systems do not operate in isolation: they facilitate linkages to formal mechanisms like family courts and the police when needed, acting as first-line responders rather than replacements for the state.

Limitations and the road ahead 🔗

These systems are not without their challenges. Since Nari Adalats lack formal legal authority, compliance with their decisions depends entirely on community pressure and social norms. Where those norms are themselves deeply patriarchal – as in many parts of rural India – there is a real risk that informal justice can reinforce existing power structures rather than challenge them. This is precisely why the contrast with khap panchayats matters: the latter are notorious for upholding conservative patriarchal values, denying women autonomy, and in some cases enabling violence. Nari Adalats are designed explicitly against this grain – they are women-led, rights-oriented, and connected to the formal system.

Awareness also remains a significant gap. Many women in remote areas do not know that Nari Adalats exist. Social stigma and patriarchal norms continue to deter many women from approaching even informal mechanisms, and urban-rural disparities in implementation remain pronounced. The current reach of the government’s Nari Adalat scheme – 100 Gram Panchayats across just two states – is a fraction of what is needed.

The potential for scaling, however, is real. States like Odisha and Sikkim have recently moved to adopt the Nari Adalat model, recognising that bringing justice to the doorstep of the most vulnerable – rather than expecting the vulnerable to travel to justice – is not just good policy, but a constitutional imperative. As Odisha’s Department of Women and Child Development noted, when a woman sees peers and community leaders in a position of authority helping her, it builds a level of trust the formal system often lacks.

India’s community-based justice experiments show that effective, equitable dispute resolution does not always require a courtroom. Sometimes, it requires a room full of trusted women from the same village, armed with training, social authority, and a genuine commitment to justice.

What do you think? Can community-based justice forums like Nari Adalats ever be a true substitute for formal legal reform, or are they inherently limited without binding enforcement powers? And given the documented risks of informal systems reinforcing local power hierarchies, what safeguards should be built into grassroots justice mechanisms to ensure they remain genuinely rights-protective?

References

1. https://feminisminindia.com/2020/08/12/nari-adalat-accessible-alternative-justice-systems-structured-for-of-and-by-women/
2. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290506857_Combating_Violence_against_Women_in_India_Nari_Adalats_and_Gender-Based_Justice
3. https://missionshakti.wcd.gov.in/about
4. https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/nari-adalat-program/
5. https://missionshakti.wcd.gov.in/
6. https://aif.org/nari-adalats-changing-lives-at-the-community-level/
7. https://www.sruti.org.in/shramjeevi-sangathana/
8. https://www.sruti.org.in/fellow/dashrath-jadhav/
9. https://testbook.com/ias-preparation/nari-adalat
10. https://www.impriindia.com/insights/mission-shakti-womens-safe-empowerment/
11. https://kalingatv.com/features/odisha-to-empower-rural-women-with-nari-adalats-grassroots-courts-for-local-justice/