As the Supreme Court re-opened in July, lawyers and litigants were welcomed with a refreshing sight of paperless and digitised courtrooms. Gone are the days when huge volumes of papers stacked under the table were a common sight. Instead, lawyers were welcomed with paperless courtrooms, digital screens, free-wifi, etc.
Now virtual courts can be managed by virtual judges whose jurisdiction can be extended to the entire state. Could working hours extend to 24X7, metaphorically speaking? Who knows?
That means neither the litigant would have to come to the court nor will the judges have to physically preside over the court.
The Vashi court in Navi Mumbai in Maharashtra is the first paperless digital court in the country, Bombay High Court judge Gautam Patel said while hailing lawyers who agreed with the concept and worked towards implementing it.
After the successful launch of the e-courts project, the e-courts filing software is available for use in 21 High Courts and 18,000 District Courts across India. Digital courts have transformed the world of legal professionals. The Statesman’s Chandrani Banerjee interviewed the former additional solicitor General of India, Raju Ramachandran, who was amicus Curiae (friend of the court) in Ajmal Kasab, 2002 Gujarat riots case, and Mumbai Attacks in 2008. Ramachandran talked about the digital world of courts, judges and lawyers.
Here are the excerpts.
CB: How has the digital era changed the professional world of legal eagles?
RR: It has transformed the entire legal profession. The way people used to perceive the lawyers so far was with a huge bag or jhola with loads of files and assistants to assist the senior advocates. Now the scene is different. A handy iPad has all the details. If I want to take out the details from the plaintiff before going to prepare another note it is there at a click of a button. And, the long travels and running up and down the corridors is the story of the past. Now, one can appear in two different cases in two different cities at once. Imagine the change. This is a welcome change for sure.
CB: Do you think lawyers need training to embrace this welcome change?
RR: What kind of training is required? Everyone is using WhatsApp. The technology has elevated to a stage where by just moving a finger one can reach another person, talk to them, see and hear them. There are options to go for live sessions and rework schedules and interact without spending a huge cost. And this is so basic that no one needs training. It is also something you learn while working. So, this is a huge respite for the lawyers.
CB: How did the litigants benefit from this digital court?
RR: Ultimate beneficiaries are the litigants. Litigation gets resolved early. The waiting period has been cut down. Of course not to nil but that shall happen soon. They also need to travel less. The stress level of the litigant is surely much lesser now. The documents can be easily sent to them. They can go online to check the details. So I think overall this is beneficial to everyone.
CB: The digital world also offers fun sharing. The lawyers handling important cases and judges should be on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram?
RR: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc, we can be on these platforms but there should be a limit to that as well.
CB: But Judges are supposed to maintain a certain aloofness as per the tradition and would it be okay for them to comment on any trending story on social media?
RR: No, they should not be on social media. There are certain requirements in any profession. The executives cannot talk about policy decisions. The three service chiefs cannot talk about planning and policy. Imagine if everyone starts talking wouldn’t it be chaotic? So this is not new. It is a professional requirement.
CB: The former Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad supporting the freedom of the judges said that judges are also free individuals and they can have their viewpoint. What do you think about it?
RR: Yes. They can post pictures of their friends and family. They can put videos of that nature. But anything related to the judiciary is a big no. I am sure the minister also meant the same thing.
CB: In the BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma’s matter, Justice Padiwala pointed out that attacking judges for their judgements on social media should be equal to contempt of court. What are your views?
RR: Absolutely. Attributing motives and targeting a judge is contempt of court. If a judge is criticized or targeted for his simple social media post then that is different. But if a judge is targeted, motives are attributes that are unfair that should not happen. It also attracts contempt as per law.
CB: On the one hand, a Supreme Court judge is saying that commenting on SC judgements should be equated with Contempt of Court while the SC live proceedings are available on YouTube. Isn’t this contradictory Your views?
RR: Discussing or analysing the judgment is not an issue. Attributing motives is an issue. And that is rightly pointed out by the Supreme Court judge. As far as the live streaming is concerned that is digital courtroom. That is fair and people should be happy that the medium will help ease the burden on the court. The waiting period for the litigants would be lesser. So these are two different things and not contradictory at all.
CB: Judges have been told to be careful about the language they use during live streaming by the Chief Justice of India. Do you think that this is possible while hearing a case?
RR: Yes. Actually, there is a relationship between the judge and the lawyer. The nuances of the language used between a lawyer and a judge are usually misunderstood by people who have no knowledge of legal work. They attribute all kinds of meanings to it. So, in the best interest, the judges should be careful.
CB: There are explainers, reels, and videos about various sections of legal functioning. Do you think such videos on digital platforms can mislead people?
RR: The video-makers need to be careful about sections and their meaning. If the video is by a person who is from the field of law or a practising lawyer then it is understandable otherwise it could certainly be misunderstood by people who do not understand the law. So whosoever is putting up videos should be careful.