The document discusses making courts more accessible to litigants. A group of legal professionals identified the main problem as citizens facing difficulties in navigating complex courtroom procedures and engaging lawyers, even for small cases. Two approaches were proposed - developing digital courts through online filing portals, hearings and integrated systems, and reforming procedural laws to simplify the process. The group consensus was that procedural law reform should take priority first to update laws for a digital system, before implementing digital courts.

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