Judicial Sector Reform
In order to effect the judicial sector reforms that has been outlined in the Digital Courts Vision document, we need to unbundle the workflows in the judicial system and reduce them down to their constituent parts. We should then focus on the outcomes we are looking to achieve and re-assemble them using re-usable building blocks from existing stack infrastructure. Since much of the digitisation of the judicial sector can be expressed in terms of data flows we can achieve this by borrowing from the design of DEPA.
This article was first published in The Mint. You can read the original at this link.
Last week the eCourts Committee released its Digital Courts Vision and Roadmap charting the path for digital reform of the judicial sector. I read the 86 page report with interest given the extent to which it would likely impact my profession. But as much as I appreciate the vision, I believe it could have gone further.
The Context
It is important to recognise that the work of this committee is actually the third phase of judicial system reform in India - and as such it was constrained by what had already been done before. The focus, in Phase I, was on making the judiciary digital - as a result no effort was made to provide digital services to citizens. Phase II focussed on litigants, creating case information systems through which court filings could be accessed and systems for electronic filing of cases and payment of fees to improve the ease of service delivery. In Phase III, the committee has to build upon this work and carry forward the reform agenda in a manner consistent with modern times.
For the most part, the report has a clear and forward thinking vision. It places the emphasis on building digital infrastructure and is to that extent aligned with digital reforms across a range of sectors where the use of platform architecture has resulted in deep sectoral transformation. Too often, projects like this end up creating a suite of applications that neither deliver what they promise nor serve the needs of the user. I am glad that the committee decided against going down that path. I also appreciate the way the report underscores the importance of not just digitising paper processes but instead looking to fundamentally transform existing workflows to make them relevant to the digital environment.
Conflicts
That said there are elements that are going to be challenging to implement. For instance, privacy and security by design has been listed as one of the design principles for Phase III. While, no doubt a laudable principle I can see this conflicting with the design principle that calls for openness and interoperability. Perhaps more significantly, imposing an obligation of privacy could wreak havoc with the system of precedent on which our legal system depends. Judgments report full details of litigants and the circumstances that lead to their dispute. Litigants are afforded privacy only in a very limited set of circumstances - if they are victims of rape or other stigmatic events. If the Committee’s recommendation on privacy is to be fully implemented judgments may need to be carefully redacted before being reported, fundamentally altering our approach to precedent in the digital age.
While the Committee has painstakingly laid out their vision for the broad contours of judicial sector reform, I was disappointed that it did not do more to describe what exactly needed to be done. I would have expected the report to at least carry an outline of the elements that would go into the platform architecture that they were proposing.
Unbundling
I have long believed that the necessary first step to any digital reform is the radical unbundling of analog processes. In a previous article I framed it like this:
There is nothing like taking apart an entire ecosystem to help you realise that there are many other ways in which it could be put back together again than even you thought were possible.
It is far more efficient to re-think digital workflows from the perspective of the outcomes sought to be achieved than merely digitise existing paper based solutions. In the context of judicial reform this will require us to abstract out the core functions of the judicial system and build platform solutions to achieve the required outcomes.
If you keep that at the back of your mind as you read through the eCourts Committee Report, it will soon become apparent that much of what the committee is calling for can be achieved by improving the efficiency of data transfer processes - whether it be in relation to the service of summons, asynchronous hearings or even judicial research. If we think of the judicial system as a series of data silos that, at present, have no way of communicating with each other then presenting the proposed digital reform as a means to connect these silos so that data can be made to move freely between them as required, will, I believe, give us a sense of what the third stage of judicial reform needs to look like. The good news is that this is something we have implemented before - with considerable success. It will not take much for us to replicate that success.
Data Transfers
The data empowerment and protection architecture (DEPA) is a data transfer protocol that has been applied with some success in the financial sector and is in the process of being applied to the healthcare and telecom sectors as well. While different in many ways I believe that within its architecture there are principles that could easily be adapted for the judicial sector allowing for auditable, digital data flows between different actors in the judicial system.
What this will require, as a first step, is for the various actors in the judicial ecosystem - not just judges, lawyer and litigants, but also court registries, notaries, enforcement agencies and the like - to be identified and categorised. Each category needs to be thought of as a silo and the manner in which the data they possess should be allowed to flow to persons who are entitled to receive them should be well thought through.
If we think about the design of all the elements that go into making these data flows it should be possible to enable the creation of workflows for every occasion. This will allow judicial data to finally flow freely through the ecosystem removing much of the cholesterol that has long clogged the arteries of justice.
