There’s something about the sound of a courtroom that sticks with you. The shuffle of papers, the sharp word “My Lord,” the heavy wooden doors that seem to decide who speaks and who waits. For many, stepping inside isn’t empowering; it’s frightening. The law, in its grandeur, can feel cold, distant, and even alienating. But what if the law could listen? What if it could heal?

This is the world that Therapeutic Jurisprudence dares to imagine. Justice should not be measured only in convictions and sentences, but in restoration, dignity, and emotional healing. What sets Therapeutic Jurisprudence apart is its insistence on evaluating the psychological consequences of law. In India, the disconnect between law and mental health is stark. For instance, under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017^[i], people with mental illnesses are recognized as having a right to community-based care and dignity, yet many end up in jails because local courts and police lack awareness or resources to divert them to proper treatment. Hence, the law can unintentionally reinforce trauma if it treats people as cases rather than humans.

A Justice System That Feels

Therapeutic Jurisprudence isn’t new, but it seems radical in a system that still values retribution. Developed by legal scholars David Wexler and Bruce Winick in the late 1980s, Therapeutic Jurisprudence sees law not just as a set of rules but as a social force that can bring healing or harm.^[ii] It asks: What are the psychological impacts of how we write, interpret, and enforce laws?

In India, this question feels particularly important. Courtrooms are crowded, charged spaces where victims, witnesses, and accused people often leave more broken than when they arrived. A traumatized rape survivor facing harsh cross-examination, a person with a mental illness stuck in jail due to a lack of care, or a child caught in a family dispute that drags on for years all remind us that justice, as we know it, isn’t always therapeutic. The law may aim for noble intentions, but the experience can be brutal.

Punishment as Habit

The main model in most of India’s criminal justice system is retributive. The wrongdoer must suffer in proportion to their crime. It’s moral arithmetic: a harm done must be repaid. However, over time, this model has shown its flaws.

Prison statistics reveal what retribution overlooks. According to the National Crime Records Bureau’s 2023 report, over 75% of India’s prison population consists of undertrials – people who haven’t yet been convicted, but are caught in a system too slow to differentiate between guilt and waiting.^[iii] Overcrowding, poor mental health support, and isolation only worsen cycles of trauma. Punishment in these cases doesn’t deter; it merely displaces pain.

Similarly, procedural practices in India often exacerbate distress. Consider Victim Impact Statements, which the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973^[iv] and now the BNSS allows, but which are rarely incorporated meaningfully in sentencing. This omission is not just procedural—it reflects a psychological oversight. Therapeutic Jurisprudence would argue that allowing victims to voice their experiences is not a courtesy but a necessity: acknowledgment of trauma can reduce long-term mental health burdens and improve perceptions of fairness, strengthening compliance and social trust.

Law and Psychology: Intersecting Pathways in Justice

Psychology and law intersect in profound ways. Psychological research shows how trauma, stress, and even subtle biases influence behavior, while the law has the power either to protect dignity or to deepen harm. Take pre-trial detention: long delays can intensify anxiety and depression, undermining rehabilitation and leaving individuals even more vulnerable. Similarly, procedural tools like Victim Impact Statements under Criminal Procedure Code §357 offer survivors a rare chance to be heard, acknowledged, and respected; proof that legal processes can be restorative when psychological insights are integrated.

In India, Mental Health Courts and juvenile rehabilitation programs provide concrete examples of this intersection. Judges who understand trauma can explain rulings with empathy, lawyers can tailor cross-examinations to minimize retraumatization, and courts can divert those with mental health challenges toward treatment instead of punishment. Studies show that when legal actors consider the psychological impact of their actions, participants experience greater fairness, reduced stress, and higher compliance with court orders.^[v]

In practice, the collaboration between law and psychology transforms courtrooms from intimidating spaces into environments that can support healing, accountability, and personal growth. By consciously integrating psychological awareness, Indian law has the potential to move beyond punishment alone and toward a justice system that genuinely restores human dignity.

When the Law Begins to Heal

Therapeutic Jurisprudence suggests that the law can become a source of healing, not by eliminating punishment, but by redefining its purpose. Instead of just asking, “What law was broken?” or “Who is to blame?”, it asks, “What harm was done?” and “How can that harm be repaired for everyone involved?” This shift isn’t just theoretical. We can see it beginning in India.

The Nirbhaya Act amendments of 2013 came from anger, but they also sparked deeper discussions about survivor dignity – from needing one-stop centers for counseling and legal aid to the trauma-informed procedures outlined in guidelines by the Ministry of Women and Child Development.^[vi] The Supreme Court’s Vishaka Guidelines also showed a similar awareness, acknowledging the emotional impact of sexual harassment and creating preventive frameworks that respected women’s dignity before harm occurs.^[vii]

In 2022, the Madhya Pradesh High Court launched India’s first Mental Health Court pilot project, inspired by Therapeutic Jurisprudence principles.^[viii] It aims to steer individuals with psychological conditions away from prisons and toward community treatment – a model seen in places like the U.S. or Australia, now finding a voice in India.

The same reasoning drives the juvenile justice framework, where focusing on rehabilitation over retribution echoes therapeutic jurisprudence.

The Human Face of Healing-Centered Justice

At its core, Therapeutic Jurisprudence isn’t about new laws or grand doctrines. It’s about how people within the system act. A judge who explains their reasoning kindly, a police officer trained to recognize trauma, a lawyer who knows when to hold back on harsh cross-examination.

Research supports this human approach. A 2023 study in the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry found that participants who felt heard, respected, and informed by judges and lawyers were much more likely to view justice as fair, even when outcomes didn’t favor them. This sense of “procedural justice,” the study concluded, directly reduced stress and increased compliance with court orders. In other words, healing and justice aren’t opposites. They support each other.^[ix]

Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Healing-Centered Justice, go beyond trauma-informed care. They ask not just “What happened to you?” but “What’s right with you?” recognizing resilience, community, and personal power. In India, where marginalized groups often enter the justice system already weighed down by issues related to caste, gender, or poverty, this mindset could be revolutionary.

Imagine community courts collaborating with local women’s groups, mental health professionals working within district legal services, or even restorative dialogue spaces where survivors and offenders can safely rebuild trust. Justice, in that sense, wouldn’t just be a verdict; it would be a conversation.

The Danger of Cosmetic Compassion

But a word of caution: not everything that sounds “therapeutic” genuinely heals. Without structural change, the idea risks being reduced to soft language in hard systems. Healing can’t just be a buzzword attached to the same old punitive machinery.

India’s legal institutions need to examine the structural trauma they perpetuate — delays, over-policing, custodial violence, and lack of access for people with disabilities. Scholars like Amita Dhanda argue that for Therapeutic Jurisprudence to matter in India, it must confront systemic inequities, not just individual cases. Healing must be collective, not cosmetic.

Listening, Not Just Judging

At its best, Therapeutic Jurisprudence redefines what it means to “do justice.” It requires empathy from a system built on detachment. It reminds us that people enter courtrooms with wounds the law didn’t inflict but often worsens.

It’s time for the law to learn to listen — to view healing not as mercy, but as true justice. In the Indian context, this isn’t a fantasy. It’s already starting in pilot courts, restorative justice initiatives, and the increasing inclusion of counselors in family and juvenile cases.

Perhaps the future of law in India won’t be defined solely by legislation or verdicts, but by tone, process, and care. When justice starts to heal instead of harm, it finally begins to do what it was always meant to do — make people whole again.

Endnotes

[i] The Mental Healthcare Act, No. 10, Acts of Parliament, 2017 (India)

[ii] David B. Wexler & Bruce J. Winick, Therapeutic Jurisprudence as a New Approach to Mental Health Law Policy Analysis and Research, 45 U. MIA. L. REV. 979 (1991), https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol45/iss5/3

[iii] NCRB, Prison Statistics India 2022 (Government of India); “State of Undertrial Prisoners in India” https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/state-of-undertrial-prisoners-in-india

[iv] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 357, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India)

[v] Int’l J. L. & Psychiatry, Procedural Justice and Forensic Mental Health, 97 INT’L J.L. & PSYCHIATRY 101773 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2023.101773

[vi] The Nirbhaya Act amendments of 2013

[vii] Vishaka v State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241.

[viii] WP-9320/2021 & WP-8391/2020, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Order (30 September 2021) https://mphc.gov.in/upload/jabalpur/MPHCJB/2021/WP/9320/WP_9320_2021_Order_30-Sep-2021.pdf

[ix] Jack Tomlin, Sarah Markham, Ciska Wittouck and Alexander Simpson, ‘Procedural Justice and Forensic Mental Health: An Introduction and Future Directions’ (2023) Med Sci Law 64(2) 157-163.

The central idea of the pice is nice but it lacks legal backing, and appears more of an essay. The link being between psychology and law need to be defined more. The article need refining.