Page 128 - Constitution

70 Years of Indian Years of Indian

Constitution
Constitution

For the public at large, virtual courts have
and litigation. Susskind further says in his book that
an important motivation that makes the case for online enabled better participation in delivery of
justice. Litigants are closer to the process by
courts is a moral one - justice. He says ‘the removal of
watching the live court proceedings in their
manifest injustice’ primarily drives the case.
Justice is always talked about in conversations about devices. Compare this with the physical hearing
the court, but not sufficiently expanded. Susskind
explains various conceptions of justice which come
the Supreme Court, entry is controlled by a pass system
together to deliver justice. They are “substantive justice
and limited by the number of persons who can attend the
(fair decisions), procedural justice (fair process), open
court at a time. Digitalising the court has meaningfully
justice (transparent), distributive justice (accessible
made access to justice a reality, for those with resources
to all), proportionate justice (appropriately balanced),
of a smart phone and an internet connection.
enforceable justice (backed by the state)” and “sustainable
Digitalisation also expedites the process of litigation
justice (sufficiently resourced).” Justice delivered through
and checks law’s delays. Studies show that even
technology plausibly combines and augments these
computerisation had the effect of reducing the backlog
elements and ultimately lead to better courts. This
in the Supreme Court -- one lakh cases in 1989 got
is especially so in India, the 7th largest country in the
reduced to 27,000 in 2003. The Indian top court has
world with a population exceeding 136 crores, where we
travelled a long road since then. Presently, cases with
have a centralised Supreme Court that acts both as a
significant constitutional importance are heard virtually
constitutional court and an appellate court.
and pleadings are filed and exchanged online. The
Let us look at open justice, for example. In physical
continuous functioning of the court since March 2020 has
hearings, litigants are often kept in the dark about the
resolved the worry that an online court is impractical.
proceedings that transpire. They usually get a reported
While acknowledging the merit of the system, its
version of the events, through lawyers or staff. Their first-
challenges also must be adequately met. Access to internet
hand presence is rarely the case, except in situations
and smart phones in the rural parts of the country remains
where they are required by the law or the judge to
distant. Absence of sufficient infrastructural facilities among
appear. This has damaging impact on accountability and
the poor remains a significant threat to access to justice for
legitimacy of the court as whole.
all. The poor face twin problems in the case of digital courts:
For the public at large, virtual courts have enabled better
lack of economic access and lack of technological know-
participation in delivery of justice. Litigants are closer to
how. The guidance note titled ‘Ensuring Access to Justice
the process by watching the live court proceedings in
in the Context of COVID-19’ issued by United Nations
their devices, with compare to the physical hearing. At
Office on Drugs and Crime recognises this limitation,

128 70 Years of Indian Constitution