Opinion Released at 104: Lakhan Pasi’s case shows us why we need people-centric courts

Pasi’s case is not an outlier. It represents the court experience of a majority of litigants in India due to outdated colonial laws and the absence of good administration and governance in the judiciary, among other factors. One reason is, however, often overlooked: the court system is not centred around the needs and priorities of the people it is meant to serve — the litigants.

Taking the needs and priorities of the people as a starting point for the transformation of the courts holds radical potential for the future. Let’s take the delay in Pasi’s release as an example. It took 18 days for the release order to travel from the Allahabad High Court in Prayagraj to the Kaushambi jail where he was imprisoned. In a people-centric court, a release or a bail order would have been transferred in the blink of an eye. Similarly, an acquittal should mean an automatic refund of the bail amount. The justice system needs to be a single-window system, where its institutions — like the prisons, courts, and police — coordinate internally amongst each other, without the litigant running from pillar to post.

Pasi’s wife sold their only farmland to pay the legal fees. In a people-centric court, the judge would have proactively asked him if he needed legal aid. Currently, courts typically inquire about the need for legal aid only when a litigant appears before them without a lawyer. From our conversations with over 50 litigants, we learned that they usually appear before the court only after securing a lawyer, often after selling assets like land or jewellery. In these situations, the litigant keeps losing money and often never learns that legal aid might have been an option.

People-centric courts would give litigants the choice to file and plead cases on their own, and provide the guidance needed to make self-representation practical.

From our conversations, we learned that litigants are completely dependent on their lawyers for even the most basic updates on their cases. They have no direct access to case documents. In a people-centric court, litigants would be able to easily access any information related to their case — case status, number of adjournments sought so far, court fees paid — throughout its lifecycle. Ideally, such information should be proactively shared by the court through SMS, email alerts, etc. Alternatively, litigants should be able to enquire about their cases free of cost at court helpdesks.

What about the scheduling of court cases? A people-centric court wouldn’t ask litigants to travel long distances only to find out their case was adjourned at the last minute. It would prioritise the time of people, making case proceedings more predictable and accessible. It would minimise the need for synchronous hearings for simple aspects like sharing the status of summons. It would use more asynchronous communication — through email, messages, and online submissions — instead of requiring all actors to be available at the same time for a hearing, physically or virtually.

A people-centric court would also eliminate needless paperwork. Just like DigiLocker, which we use to share verified IDs directly with other institutions like banks, in people-centric courts, litigants and other parties would be able to authorise institutions to share authenticated documents — land tax receipts or income tax returns — directly with the court. Litigants and lawyers would not have to make formal applications for documents that should be available to them as a matter of right, like verified copies of the court judgment.

Most importantly, such a court would continuously refine itself based on people’s feedback. People would be able to raise any grievances with the court, and the court would be answerable to the people. Indeed, when a system really works for the end-users, it helps everyone in the system. A people-centric court would optimise the time and effort of lawyers and judges to focus on substantive legal work, rather than chasing administrative or procedural processes. Today, an estimated seven out of 10 Indians never approach the courts due to the procedural complexities. A people-centric court could change that by enabling more litigants to see courts as trusted sites for dispute resolution.

What role can we as citizens play towards building people-centric courts? As non-experts, we can bring fresh thinking and new perspectives to reimagine the court system. Our experiences as users of the justice system can offer exponential insights. The E-Courts Phase III policy sets the stage for our participation as “ecosystem players.” Let’s make courts that work for “We, the People.”

Singhal works with the non-profit Agami, an ecosystem enabler in the field of law and justice and co-leads PUCAR (Public Collective for Avoidance and Resolution of Disputes). Singh is a retired civil servant who founded the India Post Payments Bank and has served at the highest echelons of Government of India