The Promise And Perils Of Digital Justice Delivery

Context: ­­­­­Digitisation of justice delivery offers immense potential and is the need of the era, but the draft proposal of Phase III of the e-Courts project is trying to do too much and goes off the tram line.

Need for digitisation of justice delivery

• To address long delays: According to data released by the Supreme Court in June 2020 newsletter of the e-Committee, 3.27 crore cases are pending before Indian courts, of which 85,000 have been pending for over 30 years.
• Streamlining judicial processes: For example, to address the problem of cases pending simply for service of summons, Phase II of the e-Courts project saw the development of the National Service and Tracking of Electronic Processes, a software that enabled e-service of summons.
• Proved to be a necessity during times like COVID-19 pandemic: When physical courts were forced to shut down.

About the e-Courts project

• Phases I and II: Dealt with the digitisation of judiciary, i.e., e-filing, tracking cases online, uploading judgments online, etc.
  • Even though the job is not complete, particularly at the lower levels of the judiciary, the project can so far be termed a success and helped in justice delivery during pandemic.
• Draft vision document for Phase III: Recently released by e-Committee of Supreme Court of India.
  • Noble objectives: Commitment to the digitisation of court processes and plans to upgrade the electronic infrastructure of the judiciary and enable access to lawyers and litigants.
  • Ecosystem approach to justice delivery: Suggests “seamless exchange of information” between various branches of State, such as between judiciary, police and prison systems through the Interoperable Criminal Justice System (ICJS).

Concerns regarding Phase III draft proposal

• Exacerbate existing class and caste inequalities: That characterise police and prison system-
  • Centralisation of data under ICJS paves way for further institutionalisation of colonial-era practices like criminalisation of entire communities under the Criminal Tribes Act of 1871 by labelling such communities as “habitual offenders”.
• Data management concerns: It becomes a cause of concern as the proposal envisages data collection been combined with extensive data sharing and data storage.
• Privacy concerns: A case for violation of privacy standards set in Puttaswamy v. Union of India case 2017, especially since India does not yet have a data protection regime.
  • Creating a 360-degree profile of each person by integrating all of their interactions with government agencies into a unified database opens possibilities of state surveillance.
  • Lack of checks and balances: No clear explanation has been offered for why the Home Ministry needs access to court data.

Conclusion

• Uphold fundamentals: Reforms should fit within the framework of our fundamental rights, the e-Courts must move towards localisation of data instead of centralisation and prevent “seamless exchange” of data between branches of state that ought to remain separate.
• Revisit the role of technology: Technology plays an important role in the project, but it cannot be an end in itself.