Author : Kenisha Anklesaria from Institute of Law, Nirma University Co-Author : Kalyani Gangakhedkar from Institute of Law, Nirma University
Introduction
Are technological advancements further solidifying the historical divides?
Think about Mohan, a farmer from rural Rajasthan. Mohan stands at the crowded district court, he presents his documents which must now be scanned and uploaded to the e-portal. The technological barrier emerges instantly. He manages to file an online petition with the help of a cyber cafe, the petition is then rejected. He has no way to access the rejection letter. The courtroom door remained open, but the pathway to the door went digital, leaving Mohan alienated from both.
India’s legal future is arriving fast. The question nobody is asking is- for whom?
This is not one story, it is the truth of millions in our nation. When the justice system itself becomes unapproachable to the common people- to people in those far off villages and towns, the very core of the nation for whom such an impartial system was created; then it becomes a key tool of institutional isolation. The digitalisation of the Indian Judiciary, when it leaves people behind, becomes a paradox, a refutation to the spirit and promises of the Constitution of India.
It is a threat to the fundamental guarantees under Articles 14, 21 and 39A.
Article 14:
Implementation of a uniform system of digitalisation in a country so deeply entrenched in systemic cultural and social divides violates the very foundation of article 14 which guarantees “equality before the law”. The state putting the digitally isolated on the same pedestal as the digitally literate is not equality. It is in fact an illusion of fair treatment.
Article 21:
When a citizen is blocked from online hearing portals or the physical courtrooms, their ‘right to life’ under article 21 is violated. Moreover, the unstable internet connection and the linguistic differences act as barriers hindering technology from functioning as an accessible bridge for the people. The inability to access online procedures is delaying the process of justice administration. This engulfs the right promised to citizens under Article 21 which by broader interpretation guarantees the citizens “speedy and meaningful access to justice.”
Article 39A:
With the rapid integration of technology in the judicial framework, it becomes imperative to scrutinize its effect on the citizens who lack equal access to the same resources as their counterparts, justice therefore in modern India cannot be denied to these same citizens because of their “technological disabilities”.
STATISTICS
These claims can be strengthened by reports which show how it’s not the failure of a single technological system, rather than a structured large-scale systemic failure.
As of today, Indian judiciary faces a staggering backlog of 5.1 crore pending cases, where district courts bear nearly 85% of this burden. Technological automation in a crisis situation such as this increases overall efficiency, significantly assisting in the justice administration system. However, what this fails to comprehend is the ground reality of our nation. National Sample Survey Office (NSO) data reveals a rather grounding truth- only about 20% of the Indians possess basic digital literacy while in rural areas more than 60% of the individuals who have access to the internet, fail to perform basic functional transactions without assistance.
More than two-thirds of the Indian population living in rural areas, the urban-rural digital divide continues to be a profound challenge. This is an accessibility failure; it stretches that the legal system going digital does not make it equally accessible to everyone. And for millions like Mohan, they remain searching for justice.
The Technological Shift
The modern discussion of the integration of technology in the Indian judicial system is single handedly governed by an optimistic narrative. Fueled by the pressing need to reduce the red-taped documents piling up in our courts, the State is very sure of its view in positioning emerging technologies as a catholicon – a cure for all. However, this very catholicon transforms into an administrative failure the moment the state starts to evaluate it solely on the basis of administrative speediness. Analyzing these technologies with the sociological fabric of India, it becomes rather evident how bureaucratic efficiency is consistently prioritized over equitable access, thereby making digital courtrooms a closed system which a large part of our population is unable to enter.
1. E-Courts, E-Filings, and Online Hearings:
The E-courts Mission mode project, which is currently in its 3rd phase, forms the main part of the technological transition. This phase aims to revolutionise the Indian judiciary by enabling a shift to fully paperless and digital courts- e filling, digitalized case records and virtual hearing.
These steps are undoubtedly going to yield promising returns, from reduced delays to streamlining of the paperwork.
The main issue of such a system is how it is capable of isolating individuals. The physical courtrooms act as spaces wherein litigants can navigate the procedures relating to a case but the digital interface assumes that every person has access to a stable internet connection, modern day electronic devices and an understanding of the English language and have knowledge about these online portals.
Thus, this digitalisation acts as a blockade for the marginalized. Learned legal professionals- advocates, judges, clerks are well equipped and can easily adapt to such widespread changes but then the marginalized people seeking justice are suffering because they are solely dependent upon the middlemen.
These processes can lead to miscommunication and an impasse for the people.
2. Autonomous ai systems as an aide for bureaucratic efficiency, mirage of rural inclusion
Similar to the administrative digitalization, is the integration of AI into the Judiciary system through tools such as SUPACEdesigned to increase efficiency by processing large sets of data sets and assisting judges and SUVAS an AI driven tool which supports bi-directional translation between English and 19 Indian regional languages.
The state’s optimistic vision that these AI legal assistance automated systems democratize the legal system for individuals, which is progressive for the most part, fails to consider the realities of the digital divide. Ultimately, any ai system remains bounded by the hardware and network infrastructure.
Moreover systems like SUPACE are built to maximise internal administrative efficiency rather than agency for citizens and by demanding advanced digital literacy these systems shuts out the very citizens it claims to serve. For citizens shut out of the digital administrative system, a sophisticated ai translation tool might be a step in the right direction but that does not ignore the fact that they’re still not able to access these systems as effectively as their counterparts.
3. E-Seva Kendras and the 3 A’s Framework
There is a huge mirage that exists in front of the common litigants; One where the government has initiated set ups such as E-sewa kendras to assist the litigants but are actually just a hoax. In official records, these kendras have been established in every high court and every district court but there are major issues that persist in its proper implementation. The stark realities can be examined through the 3A’s framework:
Awareness: The India Justice Report has brought to light the limited awareness among the rural people about the existence of government sponsored legal aid establishments. This makes them vulnerable and overly dependent on third-party intermediaries.
Access: The rural population does not have access to stable high speed broadband connection and thus they are left with no choice but to travel miles just to access an E-seva kendra or cyber cafes. The BharatNet Project aims to connect all 2.5 lakh Village Panchayats, government audits show that fewer than 2.5% of these rural panchayats possess commercially functional, stable broadband.
Assistance: The E-sewa kendras which have been set up with the purpose of aiding litigants oftentimes tend to add to their misery. The kendras are under-staffed and the staff members do not have the linguistic efficiency to communicate with people in languages they are well versed with. This puts the litigants in a position where they have to rely upon cyber cafes and other mediatories, which charge wholesome amounts for services that should be ‘free’ as stated by the government. This leads to severe extortion and loss of public faith in the system to which they come to, for seeking justice
Discrimination and Regulatory vacuum
1. Technological discrimination
Technological discrimination in its literal sense can be understood as the systemic discrimination assumed through the functioning of the digital systems themselves. In modern working of the legal system, exclusion does not have to be direct or intentional at all times, policy makers when they simply assume that every person on the other end possesses equal access to technology or digital literacy create architectural exclusion which can then be referred to as “technological discrimination”.
It is not hidden that India’s legal system is distinguished by deep socio-economic inequalities. Increasing the dependence on technology further risks widening this gap.
According to the National Sample Survey Office and TRAI reports only about one-fifth of Indians above the age of 5 possess basic digital literacy while only about 40% of individuals aged between 15-29 years can perform basic digital tasks.This reveals a dark reality – those lacking access to stable internet or technological resources are placed at a significant disadvantage in accessing justice so guaranteed by our constitution. Instead of acting as an equalizer, technology in such a demographic places individuals with significantly more resources at an advantageous position as compared to those who don’t.
2. The Legislative and Regulatory Vacuum
The rules and regulations that currently exist to regulate the digitalization process are administrative and have a system first approach rather than a citizen first approach and thus there exists a vacuum that tends to leave people behind in this rapidly changing environment of the Indian judiciary. The existing regulations include:
Practice Directions and Video Conferencing (VC) Guidelines: Individual High Courts have prepared guidelines related to VC and e-filing, largely derived from the Suo Motu directions issued by the Supreme Court during the 2020 lockdowns.
The e-Courts Project (Phase III): This is an intensive initiative aimed at enhancing technical infrastructure, creating electronic repositories, and creating physical e-Sewa Kendras within court premises.
Virtual Court Proceedings Bill (2024): Although the bill seeks to formally authorize the use of virtual courts in tribunals and commissions, the fundamental objective remains that of procedural facilitation, not of a substantive citizen’s right.
These frameworks are without any doubt robust and inclusive but they fail to include certain essential aspects:-
1). Right to digital access: The Supreme Court has previously recognized the ‘right to digital access’ under Article 21 of the constitution but it does not have such machinery to enforce this right in actual practice, for those sections of the society in the villages and small towns that form the major part of Indian population. Like the right to education required a specific RTE act for its implementation, there is no such act for the implementation of this right to digital access. Thus, there lies a vacuum of a mandate and act for the actual implementation of this right. The constitutional promise of Article 21, without any concrete statute remains a mere abstract promise.
2). The state must bear a duty of care when such a system is undergoing a drastic change from physical set ups to online ecosystems. At present, there is no such liability of the state and without this, the state would not bear any responsibility if there are any technological changes or portal crashes in this transition. Such a scenario would flip the situation and the liability to deal with all these troubles would lay upon the poor litigant.
3). Currently, the system is governed by varied courts rather than a formalized mandatory statute, and thus the accessibility and availability of digital support remains highly fragmented. It is formalized in one court while in some other court, the support system may be very inconsistent. Moreover, the aiding mechanism is going to be at the discretion of individual registries making it inefficient and inconsistent.
Such flaws in the regulations and laws is making the transition of the judicial system very difficult and is ultimately defeating its entire purpose. The transition to the digital system, which is mainly for the betterment of the common people, is only going to make their situation worse and extremely troublesome.
Reimagining The Legal Future
1. Moving beyond technological optimism
The growing digital divide within the Indian judicial system illustrates that the solution does not lie in overthrowing technological advancement altogether. Adaptation to technological revolution is a must and cannot be avoided as its ability to track cases, systemically arrange data and shorten the procedural timelines is essential for such a vast system dealing with a backload of some hundreds of cases. Thus, the true crisis lies in the fallacious belief that the digital revolution in the justice system is automatically going to complement the expansion of judicial access to all the citizens of the country.
To ensure a truly inclusive legal future, the technological revolution must be approached through the lens of equity, rather than the convenience of the administration. The pre-existing assumptions that a litigant is from an urban area, has fluency in the English language and is comfortable with the nuances of the digital technology; are not valid grounds upon which the judiciary can be redesigned. The success of this digitalization shall not be measured according to its efficiency in serving institutions but how effectively it is able to meet the needs of disadvantaged individuals either financially, geographically, linguistically, or technologically- those who remain at the highest risk of exclusion.
There is also a need for a shift in the paradigms of legal education and admin policies. The law schools can no longer treat technology as a means for contract automation and as a way to expedite legal research. There is now a whole new dynamic to technology and the legal profession, which schools and academic institutions must introduce to the students. They must pivot to teaching technological equity such that the lawyers, judges, policy makers and students can analyse how the design and algorithm biases influence decision making and the foundational constitutional values. The benchmark of success for legal technology should no longer be whether or not it is fast enough for the court but how well it protects the ordinary citizen.
2. Concrete structural prerequisites
To safeguard against the impediments of digitalisation aforementioned and ensure that technology does not deepen the divide that already exists because of the inherent unequal nature of the Indian legal system, it becomes critically very necessary to ensure that this digitalisation is preceded by working on the grassroots level.
First, for the technologically disadvantaged citizens the state must establish mandatory assistance booths at village, gram panchayat levels itself. For a citizen not equally equipped with the technology as the other, the state must provide mandatory human assistance at all levels of the legal process as well.
Second, as observed in the recent state bar association protests as well, frequent mandatory and abrupt digital shifts issued by the court registries more often than not, lack localized capacity and witness a system breakdown as the server crashes. This is where the proportionality test should come into force, before shifting to an online system as such, the registry must pass an institutional test. If it cannot guarantee server uptime and high-speed public terminals keeping up with the local caseloads, manual submissions should be still acceptable to prevent total denial of access.
Third, Judiciary should not treat an AI system such as language conversion models like SUPCAE as infallible, as a translating system does not simply increase efficiency and promote inclusivity but also actively shapes precedents, a system therefore where the litigants do not have access to the working of such tools because they operate as opaque “black-box” creates a problem that should not be ignored. A mistake does not remain merely a “technical glitch” but transforms into systemic injustice.
CONCLUSION
and months later, Mohan’s case still remains open. with no outcome and no proper support, Mohan hangs in the middle of nowhere back in his town in Rajasthan.
While the integration of the judiciary with evolving technology has been effective, this effectiveness is only administrative, as it has resulted in the emergence of discrimination. In a country so deeply entrenched in socio-economic divides, such layering of the justice administration system with digital infrastructure is only codifying and not bridging the gap. This has only one consequence- upgradation of the administrative system while leaving behind the most valuable segment of the society.