Justice or Just hope? Evaluating Amit Shah’s claim on a more effective legal system

When Union Home Minister Amit Shah declared at the programme “A Golden Year of Trust in the Justice System” that India’s new legal framework has made the justice system “more effective,” the statement struck both optimism and skepticism. His words came a year after the country replaced its colonial-era criminal codes the Indian Penal Code (1860), the Criminal Procedure Code (1973), and the Indian Evidence Act (1872) with three new laws: the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA). These laws, in force since July 1, 2024, were hailed as the biggest criminal justice reform since Independence. But one year on, the question remains: has India’s justice system actually become more efficient, transparent, and citizen-friendly or is the claim of “effectiveness” still more political than practical?

A bold promise and a long road ahead

Amit Shah’s assertion that justice will now be “affordable, accessible, and time-bound” is ambitious. He promised that under the new regime, every FIR filed anywhere in India could reach the Supreme Court within three years, signaling a future where judicial delays — India’s most chronic problem might finally end. Yet, statistics tell a sobering story. According to the National Judicial Data Grid, as of mid-2025, over 4.5 crore cases remain pending in Indian courts, including nearly 1 crore criminal cases in subordinate courts. More than 5.5 lakh cases have been pending for over ten years. The average time for a criminal trial in district courts remains five to eight years. Against this backdrop, a three-year resolution target looks aspirational at best.

Promises of speed vs. the reality of backlog

The new laws introduce strict timelines: investigations must conclude within 90 days, charge sheets must be filed quickly, and trials are expected to finish within three years of the FIR. On paper, this is transformative. But judicial experts argue that laws alone cannot cure systemic deficiencies. Senior Supreme Court advocate Dushyant Dave recently observed, “Without increasing judicial manpower and infrastructure, time-bound clauses are merely decorative. We have 21 judges per million people, far below the global average of 50 or more.” Indeed, India has only about 25,000 judges for a population of 1.4 billion, a ratio that makes the “three-year justice” dream mathematically impossible without massive recruitment and digitization. Similarly, former CJI U.U. Lalit has often stressed that delays stem not from outdated laws but from procedural inefficiency, police overburden, and underfunded courts. “Unless the system is equipped to handle the new timelines, the law itself cannot ensure justice,” he noted at a Bar Council lecture in early 2025.

Where the system shows signs of improvement

To be fair, there are green shoots of progress. The Home Ministry reports that over 12 lakh police personnel and 2 lakh judicial staff have undergone training on the new laws. Digital filing systems such as e-Sakshya for electronic evidence and e-Summons for paperless communication have been rolled out in several states. In Rajasthan, Amit Shah claimed that conviction rates rose from 42% to nearly 60% after the state implemented BNS and BNSS. While independent verification is limited, the rise indicates a possible improvement in coordination between police and prosecution, something the new laws explicitly target. The BNSS also empowers victims by mandating that victim statements be recorded via video, reducing intimidation and procedural lapses. Forensic examination has been made compulsory in offences with punishment over seven years, which, if implemented sincerely, could strengthen evidence-based justice and curb wrongful acquittals.

Expert skepticism: effectiveness or early enthusiasm?

However, legal experts caution against premature celebration. Justice Madan Lokur, retired Supreme Court judge, remarked in an interview with The Hindu that “effectiveness cannot be measured by conviction rates or political claims within a year; it depends on fairness, access, and consistency.” Critics argue that the government’s narrative of “decolonizing justice” has often overshadowed the real challenge of capacity building. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam introduces digital evidence admissibility, but India still lacks enough cyber-forensic labs. The National Forensic Science University can train a few thousand students a year, far short of the tens of thousands needed to operationalize the forensic mandate. Moreover, the new provisions may inadvertently increase workload. For example, mandatory videography, forensic sampling, and online document authentication demand high technological reliability still inconsistent across rural courts.

The people’s perspective: accessibility and affordability

On accessibility, the story is mixed. Digitization has helped urban litigants, but rural citizens continue to struggle with legal illiteracy and poor internet access. According to India Justice Report 2024, over 70% of undertrial prisoners come from economically weaker backgrounds, and 30% have not been produced before a magistrate within the mandated 24 hours a violation despite the new procedural emphasis on citizen rights. Affordability remains another unresolved area. Legal aid mechanisms are overstretched. The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) reports that while 2.5 crore citizens received free legal aid in 2024–25, most aid is limited to initial advice rather than full representation. As a result, justice is still a privilege for the financially secure. Effectiveness can’t be measured merely by faster convictions or digitized procedures. True effectiveness must balance speed, fairness, accessibility, and credibility. On these parameters, India’s justice system shows incremental improvement but not transformation. Yes, the colonial baggage is being shed. Legal language has become more comprehensible. Procedural rigidity is easing. Police accountability, at least on paper, is rising. But substantive justice ensuring that the poor, women, and marginalized actually experience fairness remains a distant goal. As legal commentator Prashant Bhushan put it bluntly, “You can rename laws and rewrite sections, but if you don’t reform the mindset of the enforcers, justice will still depend on power, not principle.”

The way forward

For Amit Shah’s vision to materialize, India must pair legislative ambition with institutional investment. That means expedite - Filling judicial vacancies and doubling judge strength, Expanding forensic labs, public prosecutors, and court staff, Ensuring real-time data transparency on case progress, Building public trust through independent audits of conviction and acquittal quality.The new criminal laws mark a necessary modernization, but reform without resources risks becoming rhetoric. India’s justice system has taken the first step toward modernization — yet calling it “effective” may be premature.Amit Shah’s optimism embodies a national aspiration a justice system that works swiftly, transparently, and fairly for every citizen. The legislative foundation for that goal now exists. But the bridge between law and justice is built not by promises but by persistent reform, human capital, and accountability. India’s new criminal codes may indeed usher in a golden year but only if they shine not just in statutes, but in the lives of those still waiting for justice in crowded courtrooms and forgotten jails. Until then, the system is becoming more effective - not yet effective.