Digital justice - the many facets of virtual justice delivery in India

The digitalisation of courts is a double-edged sword, and needs careful deliberation before implementation.

 Digital justice - the many facets of virtual justice delivery in India

---

• The story: The CoWIN portal issue eventually reached the Supreme Court of India, which clearly pointed out that there were problems - inadequate digital literacy across India, inadequate digital penetration, serious connectivity issues in remote regions, etc. The intentions were good, but the benefits were not reaching everyone due to structural problems
• Observation: The SC was clear that relying solely on digital tools can be wrong, as a large percentage of India's population may be left out totally. Delivery of vaccines via digital means has faced the same problems as 'delivery of justice' via digital means did. Using technology to deliver justice, during Covid-19 times, is praiseworthy, but is deeply problematic.
• E-Filing: In May 2020, the SC began the new system of e-filing and and A.I.- enabled referencing (artificial intelligence). Why do this? To bring efficiency, transparency and access to justice for all. This was not just a solution for Covid-19 related problems, but to try and clear the backlog of crores of cases, and huge judicial vacancies too.
• Major shakeup needed: All courts need a "deep house cleaning" and an outreach to crores of litigants in a cheap, efficient and convenient manner. It surely is time for long-lasting changes in India's justice system, but to imagine that technology will transform justice delivery on its own, is a wrong notion. What happens with vaccination? First, a detailed trials phase is carried out, and then comes the universal vaccination programme. Similarly, in judiciary also, performance audits and sandboxing is crucial.
• All through the years: In 2007, the Phase I of e-Courts was started, but Covid period showed that judiciary didn't really do well. Why so? Because pendency reached an all-time high in this period of pandemic when Courts were functioning virtually (district courts suffered in 2020, with pendency rising 18.2%, and 25 High Courts saw pendency rising by 20% - NJDG). Year 2020 showed that video-conferencing in criminal trials has not shortened trial period nor the number of people awaiting trial.
• Resolve the patchy access: Uneven digital access is a problem - everyone owns a mobile, but good internet connection in rural areas is patchy. Lawyers in non-urban areas find digital hearing very problematic (due to connectivity issues and poor understanding).
• Vacancies kill: Pending vacancies in courts must be filled on priority now; in 2018-19, High Courts had 38% seats vacant and District Courts 22%  (August 1, 2021 - 40% High Court judges' seats were vacant!).
• Summary: Open Court is the fundamental principle in delivery of justice, and public access to digital courts cannot be avoided. This is an ad hoc problem for now, and must not become a norm. Phase III of e-Courts project - latest Vision Document - it wants to build an infra that is "natively digital". All efforts must be made to make systems easy to use, and to train all concerned well, if digital judiciary is to succeed at all.
• EXAM QUESTIONS: (1) What is the goal of virtual courts? Are they able to deliver justice? (2) What are the three major problems in ensuring full computerisation of any major public system in India? Explain analytically. (3) What are the core tenets of justice delivery in India? Can digitalisation and AI implementation aid those goals? Explain.
  

#DigitalJustice #VirtualCourts #eFiling #IndianJudiciary

 

Join PT courses | PT Youtube | PT App | Contribute |  Testimonials