Making Courts Accessible to Litigants - GCPP Assignment - Shrikrishna Upadhyaya.pdf
- 1. MAKING COURTS ACCESSIBLE TO LITIGANTS GCPP (September 2022) Community Organisation Exercise 1
- 2. THE COMMUNITY § Reached out to 9 (nine) persons, primarily from legal backgrounds, to understand the biggest public policy problems in the legal sector. § These persons are in the age group of 25-27 years, each with a work experience of 3-4 years. The group consisted of 2 women and 7 men. § Their work profiles are diverse in terms of litigation, law firms, private companies, government, NGO, and consultancies. § Arranged an online meet-up on Tuesday, October 18th 2022 where the group met and held a productive discussion. § The group identified the most pressing problem in legal sector, two alternative ways to solve for it and an agreeable common solution. 2
- 3. 3
- 4. THE PROBLEM CONTEXT § If an aggrieved person has to file a case or petition before a court of law, there exist several barriers to easy access to courts: §Requirement of specialised domain knowledge on courtroom processes and the cumbersome nature of legal documentation §Reliance on legal professionals for fighting cases which costs money, with no ‘Do It Yourself’ alternative §Jurisdictional concerns of a court and the choice of right forum to file a case §Physical inaccessibility of courthouses, poor court infrastructure, opportunity cost of time and money spent on court visits, and mental barriers to plead before a judge 4
- 5. THE PROBLEM DEFINED Citizens’ easy and speedy access to justice is impeded by the complexity of navigating courtroom procedures. It is further exacerbated by the financial and mental costs of engaging a lawyer, even for small cases which could be pursued individually, and repeated physical visits to courtrooms. The rules of procedure in court filings make it difficult for a layperson to litigate on their own. The severe consequences of incorrectness or defects in filings, including dismissal of suits, deter petitioners from approaching courts in person. The poor levels of tech adoption in courtrooms adds to the problem of complexity in courtroom’s functioning. We must, therefore, solve for simplifying the process for approaching courts, pursuing cases, and bringing litigations to close in a timely manner. 5
- 6. APPROACH ONE Digital Courts: The Front-end 6
- 7. CHALLENGES § Courts have been slow in adopting technology, still rely on manpower and paperwork to do most of the case management work. § Lack of digitization in the court processes has created delays, rent-seeking opportunities and discretion in terms of admission, verification and listing of cases. § Court registries often function in opaque manners and citizens do not have a right to seek information and accountability. § Each court, tribunal, commission etc. has its own limited digital platforms which are not uniform and inter-operable. § The existing e-filing systems are still based on uploading PDFs of printed documents instead of a purely digital records system. 7
- 8. SOLUTION § Digital courts are accessible, inclusive and user-centric. Digital courts consist of digital case registry, case management system, digital filings and online hearings. § Much like DIY Income-Tax Portal, a digital case filing portal can be designed in a way to allow even a layperson to file cases and litigate the suit. Pleadings can be auto-generated after relevant information is fed into the system. § Added facilities like video appearances and online payments for fees & penalties can be built-in to the system. § Digital case registry automates the process of admissions and listing of cases as per the judicial roster and takes away discretion of authorities in the court registry systems. § Digital courts portal can be a single gateway for accessing all courts, tribunals and commissions and function as an integrated system. 8
- 9. APPROACH TWO Reforming Procedural Law: The Back-end 9
- 10. CHALLENGES § The civil and criminal procedure codes in operation today were drafted in an era where computers did not exist. Some High Courts even follow letters patent procedures which dates back to the British era. § The procedural codes are responsible for delays, complexity and legal arbitrage opportunities in litigations. It is almost impossible for a layperson to have a basic understanding of procedure even if it affects their rights directly. § The consequences of not following procedural rules are severe and can cost a litigant their case. This means the system places premium on procedure over substantive questions of justice. § Other than the procedural codes prescribed by law, each court has its own rules which govern filings and case management at its local level. This makes the system more complicated. 10
- 11. SOLUTION § Procedural codes, while important safeguards for liberty and justice, must be streamlined with the intent of hastening completion of cases and not frustrating the legal process. §Wholesale reform and replacement of procedural codes, with an emphasis on making them simple, understandable, user-friendly and tech-friendly. §Uniform procedural codes can take inspiration from rules of procedure at institutional arbitrations which are globally acceptable and reproducible in any system. § Reforming the procedural codes, which govern the conduct of any litigation, lock, stock and barrel will pave the way for enhanced access to courts and simplification of litigations. 11
- 12. CONSENSUS Approach Two Before Approach One 12
- 13. COMMUNITY CONSENSUS § The group deliberated on the two approaches. § While both the solutions are necessary for solving the problem defined earlier in a holistic manner, the group was of the opinion that Approach Two (reforming procedural law) should come before Approach One (digital courts) in terms of chronology of implementation. § This will ensure that digital court systems are built and enforced on the basis of a new procedural law which is attuned to serve the interests of a digital system, rather than making the switch later. § Hence, the government should accord priority to Approach Two in the immediate term. This is likely to be legislative reform, and hence, less expensive than setting up digital courts. §Over the medium to long term, the government must dedicate resources towards setting up digital courts in their full capacity. 13
- 14. THANK YOU 14