Dalvoy Logo
Dalvoy
UPSC MainsGeneral Studies Paper IIGovernancePractice question

Technology in Judicial System and Access to Justice

While use of technology is a welcome step towards improving efficiency of judicial system, it must be understood that technology itself comes with set of challenges that makes justice even more inaccessible. Discuss.

Discuss~250 words3 min readmedium
Attempt it first, timed · optional

Write the answer on paper, as in the exam. Start the timer, keep to the word target.

00:00/ 11 min · 250 words

Done writing? Photograph the sheet and see how it scores against this model answer, with feedback on what to fix.

Upload your answer sheet

How to approach

Start by highlighting the constitutional imperative of access to justice under Articles 21 and 39A, contextualised by modern digital initiatives. Discuss the efficiency gains brought by judicial technology, then critically analyse the barriers and challenges that heighten inaccessibility. Conclude with constructive reforms such as hybrid models and phygital infrastructure.

Model answer

418 words

Introduction

Access to justice is a fundamental right implicit under Article 21, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan (2016), and a directive principle under Article 39A. While technological interventions under the e-Courts Mission Mode Project aim to address pendency and modernize court administration, an uncalibrated technological push risks erecting new procedural and infrastructural barriers for vulnerable litigants.

Efficiency Gains Enabled by Judicial Technology

  • Expedited Disposal and Real-Time Tracking: Virtual Courts have streamlined the adjudication of petty and summary offences such as traffic challans. Simultaneously, the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) offers comprehensive, real-time case tracking that enhances judicial administrative transparency.
  • Reduction in Logistical Costs: Video conferencing—endorsed in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018) to advance open justice—drastically curtails travel expenditure and enables cross-jurisdictional advocacy without geographic constraints.
  • Secure Transmission of Orders: Platforms like FASTER (Fast and Secured Transmission of Electronic Records) eliminate bureaucratic delays in communicating bail and stay orders, preventing unlawful detentions.

Challenges Exacerbating Judicial Inaccessibility

  • The Digital Divide: Disparities in smartphone ownership, rural broadband penetration, and basic digital literacy turn virtual courtrooms into exclusionary arenas for marginalized litigants and rural populations.
  • Stratification of the Legal Bar: Mandatory e-filing regimes disproportionately affect junior advocates and mofussil lawyers practicing in district and taluka courts who lack high-speed infrastructure, digital scanners, and technical assistance.
  • Dilution of Fair Trial Safeguards: Remote remand hearings often impede a magistrate's capacity to visually inspect an accused for signs of custodial torture. Furthermore, video-link testimonies make assessing witness demeanour and conducting spontaneous cross-examinations significantly harder.
  • Algorithmic Bias and Privacy Deficits: Integrated platforms like the Inter-operable Criminal Justice System (ICJS) and artificial intelligence deployment through tools like SUPACE lack clear statutory frameworks for data privacy and safeguards against automated biases.

Way Forward

  • Institutionalising Hybrid Hearings: In Sarvesh Mathur v. Registrar General (2023), the Supreme Court ruled that High Courts cannot decline virtual access, mandating a persistent hybrid model of adjudication.
  • Establishing Phygital Safety Nets: Physical-digital convergence must be achieved by universalizing e-Sewa Kendras across all court complexes and expanding NALSA's Tele-Law services via village-level Common Service Centres (CSCs).
  • Linguistic Inclusivity: Tools like SUVAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software) should be expanded to translate judicial orders and filings into all regional languages to democratise legal understanding.

Conclusion

Technology should serve as an institutional enabler of justice rather than an arbitrary gatekeeper. A citizen-centric model that balances modern digital tools with resilient physical infrastructure is essential to ensure that judicial efficiency does not come at the cost of substantive constitutional equality.

Key facts to remember

case study
Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan (2016)

The Supreme Court held that access to justice is a fundamental right under Article 21 and Article 14, establishing that adjudicatory mechanisms must be affordable and reasonably accessible to every citizen.

scheme
e-Courts Mission Mode Project (Phase III)

A Central Sector Scheme approved with a financial outlay of ₹7,210 crore aimed at digitizing court processes, establishing paperless courts, and integrating cloud-based judicial databases.

case study
Sarvesh Mathur v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana (2023)

The Supreme Court held that access to technology is an intrinsic part of the right to justice, directing that High Courts and tribunals cannot disband or refuse hybrid hearing facilities to advocates and litigants.

Frequently asked questions

How do virtual court proceedings undermine fair trial guarantees?

Virtual remand hearings can reduce judicial scrutiny over custodial violence by preventing close physical examination, while video testimony limits the judge's ability to observe witness demeanor and body language during cross-examination.

← All questions on this topic (65)