Page 127 - Constitution

70 Years of Indian
Constitution
he problem of access to justice is not merely
fictional. In India, it is a big challenge for the
T majority with poor resources and knowledge
about the functioning of judicial institutions. Article 39A
of the Constitution mandates the state to ensure “a
legal system that promotes justice, on a basis of equal
opportunity”. It also talks about free legal aid to the
needy. Justice Krishna Iyer described this provision as
“each Indian’s title deed to equal justice through the legal
system.” The quintessential relationship between this
provision and Article 14 of the Constitution saying about
the fundamental right to equality is remarkable, opined
Iyer. The Supreme Court said that Article 39A is designed
to achieve the goal of welfare state.
During 2020, the Supreme Court faced one of the
biggest challenges in its recent history since the outbreak
of the pandemic made physical court hearings near to
impossible. However, this challenge has led to a significant
revolution which took place in the justice delivery system,
and at the top court. Even in a deep crisis, the court could
find out an opportunity. Many lawyers across the country
were able to address the judges of the apex court and
argue their cases. They often represent ordinary and
poor citizens. Some of them could not have even come
to the top court, but for its present transformation into
an online court. One finds the materialisation of Justice
Krishna Iyer’s imaginative theme through this change.
The advantages of the online Supreme Court to a large
number of the public have been incredibly enormous,
despite the limitations.
During 2020, the Supreme Court faced
one of the biggest challenges in its
recent history since the outbreak of the
pandemic made physical court hearings
near to impossible.
In September 2020, a Parliamentary Committee on
Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice proposed
that virtual courts may be made permanent, even after
the days of the pandemic. This suggestion is significant
and deserves to be explored in detail.
As the top Court started virtual hearing in March 2020,
guidelines were also issued for effective functioning. The
present system has made clearer the impact of technology
in the justice delivery mechanism. Merits of the virtual
system are many. For context, it must be recognised that
the Supreme Court is a highly inaccessible institution, to
large number of people. The exorbitant fee charged by
some lawyers, the location of the court and reasons of
mobility make access difficult.
For lawyers, evidently, the digital courts have radically
altered opportunities and access. Digitalisation of the
court was an act of democratising and decentralising the
institution. It has at least diluted -- not eliminated -- the
economic challenges to access to the court. This has
brought in egalitarianism within the legal profession and
led to blurring of hierarchies. Richard Susskind, the author
of ‘Online Courts and the Future of Justice’ argues that
virtual courts have the potential to transform lawyering
70 Years of Indian Constitution 127