IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iim/iimawp/14639.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Public perception of courts in India: unmeasured gap between the justice system and its beneficiaries

Author

Listed:
  • Ram Mohan, M.P.
  • Faisal, Muhammed K
  • Alex, Jacob P
  • Shiju, M V

Abstract

Understanding how people view the courts and the legal profession helps in identifying some areas of friction, and thereby provides critical insights into the measures needed to improve the working and management of the justice delivery process. This study examines the influence of gender, age, education and court experience on citizens’ perception of the Ernakulam District and Sessions Court, Kerala – a state with the highest social indicators in India. Using a total sample of two hundred and fifty (n=250) respondents, the study assessed perception of the court using three attitudinal scales, perception of the court’s concern and respect, fair procedure and outcome, and overall perception of the court. A multivariate regression analysis was used to gauge the significance of the influence of each demographic factor and court experience on the respondents’ perception of the court. We find respondents with personal experience in courts perceive it negatively; gender has no significant influence on attitudes toward the court; and regardless of their demographic characteristics and court experience, people perceive the court as being too costly and too slow for settling legal disputes.

Suggested Citation

  • Ram Mohan, M.P. & Faisal, Muhammed K & Alex, Jacob P & Shiju, M V, 2020. "Public perception of courts in India: unmeasured gap between the justice system and its beneficiaries," IIMA Working Papers WP 2020-11-02, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    • Handle: RePEc:iim:iimawp:14639
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.iima.ac.in/sites/default/files/rnpfiles/5343282302020-11-02.pdf
    File Function: English Version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gibson, James L. & Caldeira, Gregory A. & Baird, Vanessa A., 1998. "On the Legitimacy of National High Courts," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(2), pages 343-358, June.
    2. Sun, Ivan Y. & Wu, Yuning, 2006. "Citizens' perceptions of the courts: The impact of race, gender, and recent experience," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 457-467.
    3. Fossati, Thomas E. & Meeker, James W., 1997. "Evaluations of institutional legitimacy and court system fairness: A study of gender differences," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 141-154.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. James L. Gibson*, 2007. "“Truth” And “Reconciliation” As Social Indicators," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 81(2), pages 257-281, April.
    2. Emily Hencken Ritter & Scott Wolford, 2012. "Bargaining and the effectiveness of international criminal regimes," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 24(2), pages 149-171, April.
    3. Tom S. Clark, 2009. "The Separation of Powers, Court Curbing, and Judicial Legitimacy," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 971-989, October.
    4. Jeffrey K. Staton & Georg Vanberg, 2008. "The Value of Vagueness: Delegation, Defiance, and Judicial Opinions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(3), pages 504-519, July.
    5. Mohammed Hossain & Yasean A. Tahat & Naser AbuGhazaleh, 2024. "Unlocking the Sustainable Workplace Equality Policy (SWEP): Evidence from an Emerging Country," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-22, January.
    6. Nathan T. Carrington & Logan Strother, 2023. "Plugging the pipe? Evaluating the (null) effects of leaks on Supreme Court legitimacy," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 669-712, September.
    7. Nikolai Wenzel, 2010. "From contract to mental model: Constitutional culture as a fact of the social sciences," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 23(1), pages 55-78, March.
    8. Nicolas Lampach & Arthur Dyevre, 2020. "Choosing for Europe: judicial incentives and legal integration in the European Union," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 65-86, August.
    9. Buckler, Kevin & Cullen, Francis T. & Unnever, James D., 2007. "Citizen assessment of local criminal courts: Does fairness matter?," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 524-536.
    10. Garcia, Venessa & Cao, Liqun, 2005. "Race and satisfaction with the police in a small city," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 191-199.
    11. Cary Coglianese, 2011. "Process choice," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), pages 250-261, June.
    12. Ganghof, Steffen & Manow, Philip, 2005. "Mechanismen der Politik: Strategische Interaktion im deutschen Regierungssystem," Schriften aus dem Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung Köln, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, volume 54, number 54.
    13. James L. Gibson & Gregory A. Caldeira, 2009. "Confirmation Politics and The Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court: Institutional Loyalty, Positivity Bias, and the Alito Nomination," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 139-155, January.
    14. Augustyn, Megan Bears & Ray, James V., 2016. "Psychopathy and perceptions of procedural justice," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 170-183.
    15. James R. Rogers & Joseph Daniel Ura, 2020. "A majoritarian basis for judicial countermajoritarianism," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 32(3), pages 435-459, July.
    16. Sun, Ivan Y. & Wu, Yuning, 2006. "Citizens' perceptions of the courts: The impact of race, gender, and recent experience," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 457-467.
    17. Clifford J. Carrubba, 2003. "The European Court of Justice, Democracy, and Enlargement," European Union Politics, , vol. 4(1), pages 75-100, March.
    18. Lai, Yung-Lien & Cao, Liqun & Zhao, Jihong Solomon, 2010. "The impact of political entity on confidence in legal authorities: A comparison between China and Taiwan," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 934-941, September.
    19. Juan A. Mayoral, 2017. "In the CJEU Judges Trust: A New Approach in the Judicial Construction of Europe," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(3), pages 551-568, May.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:iim:iimawp:14639. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eciimin.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.