Jurisdiction and Procedural Innovations of Gram Nyayalayas: A New Era for Rural Justice

India has over 600,000 villages, and for decades, a rural litigant seeking justice had to travel to a distant district court, navigate complex procedures, hire a lawyer, and wait years for a resolution. The Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 was Parliament’s direct answer to this problem – establishing village-level courts designed to deliver justice at the doorstep. But what really makes these courts distinct is not just where they sit, but what they can hear and how they conduct their proceedings. The jurisdiction and procedural framework of Gram Nyayalayas represents a deliberate departure from the formalism of conventional courts, built specifically for rural realities.

The legal foundation: section 11 and dual jurisdiction 🔗

Section 11 of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 is the cornerstone provision. It states, notwithstanding the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or any other law in force, the Gram Nyayalaya shall exercise both civil and criminal jurisdiction in the manner and to the extent provided under the Act. This is significant because it gives these courts an overriding character – their jurisdiction is not subordinate to or derived from the CrPC or CPC, but carved out independently by the Act itself.

The Gram Nyayalaya is deemed a Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, and its presiding officer – called the Nyayadhikari – must be eligible for appointment as a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. This ensures qualified judicial oversight even in remote areas. The State Government appoints the Nyayadhikari in consultation with the High Court, and the Nyayadhikari enjoys the same salary and service conditions as a First Class Judicial Magistrate.

Criminal jurisdiction: what offences can be tried? 🔗

Under Section 12 of the Act, the Gram Nyayalaya’s criminal jurisdiction is defined by reference to the First Schedule of the Act. The court can take cognizance of offences either on a complaint or on a police report. Specifically, it must:

(a) Try all offences specified in Part I of the First Schedule – these include petty and minor criminal offences such as causing hurt, assault, cheating, mischief causing damage, criminal trespass, theft below a certain value, and similar offences under the Indian Penal Code.

(b) Try all offences and grant relief specified under enactments listed in Part II of the First Schedule – this part covers offences under special central legislations such as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Dowry Prohibition Act, the Negotiable Instruments Act (dishonour of cheque), and more. These are not trivial matters – they address serious social realities in rural India.

Additionally, under Section 12(2), the Gram Nyayalaya also tries offences notified by the State Government under State Acts, giving the framework flexibility to accommodate local legal needs.

Civil jurisdiction: property, money, and family disputes 🔗

The civil side of Gram Nyayalaya jurisdiction is governed by Section 13 read with the Second Schedule of the Act. The Gram Nyayalaya has jurisdiction to try all suits or proceedings of a civil nature falling under the classes of disputes specified in Part I of the Second Schedule. These include disputes relating to money recovery, property rights, disputes arising out of agricultural operations, disputes relating to local customs and usages, matrimonial disputes (other than divorce), and disputes related to laborers’ rights and wages.

An important aspect of civil jurisdiction is the pecuniary limit – the monetary ceiling up to which the court can hear a case. Under Section 13(2), this limit is not fixed by the Act itself but is determined by the respective High Court in consultation with the State Government by notification. Importantly, the fees charged in civil suits shall not exceed ₹100 irrespective of the value of property in dispute, making access genuinely affordable for rural litigants.

The Central and State Governments are both empowered under Section 14 to amend the Schedules – adding or removing classes of cases – giving the jurisdiction framework a degree of flexibility that a fixed statutory list would not allow.

Criminal procedure: summary trials and plea bargaining 🔗

One of the most significant procedural departures from conventional courts is the Gram Nyayalaya’s mandate to use summary trial procedure. Under Section 19 of the Act, all criminal trials before the Gram Nyayalaya must be conducted following Chapter XXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which lays down the summary trial process.

In a summary trial, the procedure is considerably simplified. Evidence is not recorded at length; the Nyayadhikari records only the substance of witness testimony rather than a verbatim account. Judgments are shorter and the entire process is designed for speed. Summary proceedings are deployed for cases involving a smaller number of definite issues that require prompt action – complex cases involving disputed facts and multiple witnesses are reserved for warrant or summons trials in higher courts.

Beyond summary trials, the Act specifically enables plea bargaining before the Gram Nyayalaya under Section 20, in accordance with Chapter XXIA of the CrPC. Plea bargaining allows an accused to enter into a mutually satisfactory disposition with the complainant, shortcutting lengthy trial processes. In the rural context where the parties often know each other and coexist in the same community, this mechanism has particular social utility – it promotes resolution over punishment.

Civil procedure: conciliation first, litigation second 🔗

The civil procedure framework under the Gram Nyayalayas Act is equally innovative. Section 24 permits the Gram Nyayalaya to follow a special procedure in civil disputes in a manner it deems just and reasonable in the interest of justice – it is not strictly bound by the Code of Civil Procedure. This gives the Nyayadhikari wide procedural discretion to adapt proceedings to the needs of the parties.

Critically, Section 26 places a duty on the Gram Nyayalaya to make efforts for conciliation and settlement of disputes before or during the trial. Disputes are to be settled as far as possible by bringing about conciliation between the parties, and for this purpose the Gram Nyayalayas will make use of conciliators to be appointed for this purpose.

Under Section 27, the Gram Nyayalaya is empowered to appoint conciliators – including local social activists and lawyers – who assist in facilitating amicable settlements. If a settlement is reached through conciliation, it is deemed a decree of the Gram Nyayalaya and is executable as such. This makes the conciliation outcome legally binding, not just morally persuasive.

The mobile court: justice that travels to you 🔗

Perhaps the most distinctive structural feature is the mobile court mandate under Section 9. The Nyayadhikari is required to periodically visit villages within the jurisdiction and conduct trials or proceedings at any place in close proximity to where the parties ordinarily reside or where the cause of action arose. Where the Gram Nyayalaya decides to hold mobile court outside its headquarters, it shall give wide publicity as to the date and place. The State Government is obligated to provide vehicles and facilities to support this mobility.

This is a conceptual inversion of the traditional model where litigants travel to the court. Here, the court travels to the litigants. For daily wage workers, elderly persons, or women in rural areas who face significant barriers in accessing distant courts, this feature directly addresses structural exclusion from the justice system.

Evidence rules: natural justice over technicality 🔗

In conventional courts, the Indian Evidence Act (now replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) governs what can be admitted as evidence. Gram Nyayalayas are expressly not bound by these rules. Under Section 30 of the Act, the Gram Nyayalaya may receive and consider any report, statement, document, or information that may assist it to deal effectively with a dispute – whether or not such material would be admissible under the evidence law.

Instead of formal evidence rules, the Gram Nyayalaya is guided by the principles of natural justice, subject to rules framed by the High Court. This reflects the Act’s philosophy: substance over form, fairness over procedure. In rural disputes involving oral traditions, community knowledge, or unregistered documents, this flexibility allows the court to actually get to the truth rather than decide on a technicality.

Similarly, under Section 32, evidence of a formal character can be submitted on affidavit without requiring the deponent to appear in person – saving time and reducing the burden on parties and witnesses.

Appeals: accountability without prolonged litigation 🔗

The Act provides for appeals to ensure accountability. Under Section 33, an appeal against a Gram Nyayalaya’s decision in a criminal matter lies before the Sessions Court. Under Section 34, an appeal in a civil matter lies before the District Court. This keeps the appellate forum accessible – not distant High Courts – while maintaining judicial oversight of Gram Nyayalaya decisions.

The gap between law and ground reality 🔗

Despite the thoughtful design of jurisdiction and procedure, implementation has lagged significantly. As per data from the Press Information Bureau, 476 Gram Nyayalayas have been notified by 15 States/UTs, of which only 257 are operational – far below the original target of 5,000. Reluctance from lawyers, police, and State officials, combined with financial constraints and limited awareness among rural populations, has undermined the Act’s reach. The Supreme Court in 2019 took note of this in a writ petition filed by the National Federation of Societies for Fast Justice and directed States to operationalise Gram Nyayalayas without further delay.

The Central Government extended the Gram Nyayalayas Scheme from April 2021 to March 2026 with a budgetary outlay of ₹50 crores, making fund releases contingent on courts being notified, operational, and staffed with Nyayadhikaris. Whether this renewed push will translate into meaningful access for rural India remains to be seen.

What do you think? Given that Gram Nyayalayas are empowered to deviate from the formal Evidence Act and CPC in the interest of justice, does this flexibility strengthen or risk compromising the integrity of rural adjudication? And with barely 257 courts operational against a target of 5,000, what structural reforms would you prioritise to make the Gram Nyayalaya model truly functional at scale?

References

1. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2060?locale=en
2. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/19258/1/gram_nyayalay_act_2008.pdf
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gram_Nyayalayas_Act,_2008
4. https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/gram-nyayalayas/
5. https://dashboard.doj.gov.in/gn/introduction
6. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1809619