Introduction: The Problem
Any legal system we see is founded on courts. They are mandated to solve disputes, defend rights, and the rule of the law. Theoretically, the courts are present to offer clarity, closure and justice. Practically though, too much of the citizenry, the process of interacting with the justice system is characterized by time wastage, complexity and frustration. Cases that have taken long to be heard in court, adjournments, confusion of the proceedings process and increasing costs of legal proceedings have become normal occurrences in most jurisdictions, especially in a country where there is a vast and diverse population.
Simultaneously, there has been a fast digital revolution in the society. Technology has transformed the delivery and access of services across the board including banking and healthcare, governance, and commerce. Speed, transparency and simplicity are now the new standards demanded by citizens. The rate of courts changing with this has been slow. This increasing separation has led to a serious issue: is it possible to maintain an effective work of justice systems with the aid of the tools of a pre-digital age?
Legal Technology: The Solution
The modernisation of the court does not aim at substituting the judges or reformulating the principles of law. Rather, it seeks to enhance management of justice through enhancing the way courts handle information, communication with users and handling cases. In some nations, such as India, where the number of cases pending per judge is in the millions and the domestic judicial capacity is already strained, digital support of the judicial process is not only preferable, as it is also a necessity.
The article discusses the reasons why modernisation of court has become inevitable, the effects of legal technology in changing judicial systems, the difficulties encountered by courts in the process, the experiences of other nations, the criticism of digital justice, and the future of the digitalised court in the context of the modernisation.
Modernisation of the Courts: A Necessity
Most court systems were originally structured in a way that was appropriate in a society where conflicts were reduced, population was lower and evidence was mostly in a physical form. The role of courts operated in localised contexts with the assistance of paper documents and physical proceedings. The number of cases currently presented to courts is increasing steadily, most are complicated, trans-national and information intensive. This change has revealed structural flaws which can no longer be overlooked. Delay is one of the most topical problems.
Processing of cases in most jurisdiction takes years even decades before the case is resolved. Such delays destroy the trust of the citizens and make the justice system weak. To individuals, delayed justice can translate to long-term emotional distress, financial loss, and confusion of what is right and what is wrong. In business, any disputed issues might lead to a symptom or halt a project, discourage investment, and interrupt business dealings. With time, the continued delay destroys faith in the rule of law and promotes others that are done without the use of the formal law.
The other significant difficulty is the fact that paper-based systems are still in use. Hardcopy filing of pleadings, evidence and orders delays all litigation processes. All files should be stored, retrieved manually and transported by hand making them more likely to be lost, damaged or misplaced. Even finding one file can also be in hours or days in the busy courts. The administrative personnel consume a lot of time and effort in clerical work, which can be addressed in a much more effective and efficient manner in digital systems, leaving them with a smaller number of tools to give significant work to the judiciary.
Another issue that is still severe is access to justice. Litigants are usually required to physically appear multiple times in courts where they are required to file, hear, and procedural issues. This is a skewed representation of people living in remote regions, persons with disabilities, elderly litigants, and people who cannot spare a work break. In the case of first-time litigants with the absence of information that is easy to find, confusion and exclusion are further enhanced, and the justice system becomes distant and intimidating.
The type of conflicts has also evolved. The litigation of the modern era is becoming more and more concerned with digital evidence email, financial records, phone data, surveillance videos, and electronic transactions. Conventional courthouse facilities were not intended to process such amounts of electronic content. In the absence of proper systems this evidence cannot be reviewed and presented quickly, in a fragmented way and is subject to error. All these difficulties combined lead to the fact that without modern instruments a court can hardly fulfil the modern demands. Modernisation of courts has thus come into reality not just to ensure efficiency but also to maintain the legitimacy and effectiveness of the justice systems.
How Legal Technology Is Transforming Courts
Technology in the law is important in dealing with the structural constraints of the traditional courts. Its influence is the most apparent in the filing, handling, and hearing of cases and the interaction between the courts and the litigants and the general population.
Electronic filing systems enable lawyers and litigants to file documents online, which means that they do not have to use physical filing counters and manual processing. Digital case management systems have proven to keep the case records safe and immediately available to the judges and court personnel. This saves time in administration, increases effectiveness and enables cases to pass through the system more effectively. Litigants do not have to visit the court premises to monitor the case progress, and this enhances transparency and minimizes uncertainty.
One of the greatest transformations in the operation of the court is virtual hearings. Although remote hearings were practiced to a limited extent in the past, their use during the pandemic showed that they are practical. Procedural issues, bail proceedings and preliminary hearings are now being conducted as virtual hearings. They lower the travel expenses, decrease time conflicts during scheduling, and enable courts to maximise time. To both the lawyers and the litigants, this has allowed less load on them physically by traveling to the court to either make the short or routine appearances. Although virtual hearings cannot be applicable in every situation, the use of virtual hearings has already become an indelible and useful aspect of the current judicial system.
Technology has also helped in improving the management of digital evidence. The courts are currently employing systems whereby electronic material can be stored, searched and presented in a secure manner. These tools allow maintaining the integrity of evidence and allow the judges to examine more efficient complex data during the hearings and deliberating. Large amount of information can be comprehended with ease through digital displays and searchable databases, and it does not have to be done through the use of physical records.
Online dispute resolving (ODR) systems provide another avenue of addressing some form of dispute. These platforms save courts and give faster results because they permit parties to mediate or negotiate through the internet. They are also effective when dealing with low-value/High volume disputes, where the expense and duration of a conventional litigation tend to exceed the value.
Transparency has also been increased by technology through the public access portals. The status of a case, the date of the hearings, and even verdict are available online to litigants and members of the population. This transparency builds confidence in the justice system, accountability and less visits to court offices. Automation of the administration also contributes to the efficiency of the courts. Electronic scheduling, electronic notices and electronic reminders cut down on missed hearings and procedural errors. Such systems release the workloads of the court personnel so that they can devote their time to other duties that are handled with human judgment and discretion.
Implementation Challenges in Court Modernisation
Although the advantages are evident, the application of legal technology in the courtroom is faced by a number of challenges which extend beyond technology problems. The issue of financial constraints is quite a challenge. Modernisation of the court not only presupposes the initial investments in infrastructure but also constant spending on its maintenance, improvements, and cybersecurity. Most of the judicial systems have limited budgets and therefore, it is hard to fund over a long period without a robust institution and political goodwill. Temporary financing without a long-term strategy may lead to partial or obsolete systems.
The other challenge is resistance to change in the system. Courts are historically conservative organizations, and both the judges or employees might be resistant to new technologies. Reliability concerns, data security concerns and unknown workflow tend to retard adoption. In most instances, resistance does not occur due to resistance of change; rather it happens because of the lack of training or consultation in the process of change.
Digital divide creates a severe threat to the availability of justice. Litigants cannot all access the internet, have appropriate equipment and be digital-literate. In the absence of proper protection, vulnerable populations may be inadvertently left out of digital courts. Hybrid systems, assisted filing centres as well as legal aid support are necessary to make certain inclusivity and fairness.
Other crucial issues are also of cybersecurity and the protection of data. Courts possess delicate personal and legal data, such as financial, medical records, and confidential evidence. Violation will be highly legal and ethical. It is also important to note that strong security set-ups and evident accountability systems are needed to ensure that people can trust. Procedural and legal systems also have to change. Numerous procedural laws presuppose hard copy and face-to-face hearings. To elaborate on these rules and make them more digital, legislative reform must be undertaken, and it could be time-consuming and intricate.
Lastly, there is the need of training and capacity building. Technology does not work unless the users know it and have confidence in it. Litigants, judges, court staff, and lawyers have to undergo regular training to make sure that digital systems are used in a proper and consistent manner.
Lessons from Other Jurisdictions
The use of experiences of other countries can help in the effective modernisation of the courts. The example of a digital-first justice system is rather good in Estonia. Its courts work as part of a wider digital governance system of which is electronic filing, digital verification of identity, and online access to records. The achievements of the courts of Estonia prove the significance of a single digital infrastructure of the government institutions instead of the individual reforms.
The judicial system in Singapore has adopted an electronic litigation system, which facilitates online filing, tracking, and electronic management of all documents in any court. Such a standardizing practice lowers the chances of fragmentation and provides consistency to the user who can be a litigant, lawyer or judge.
During the pandemic, the use of virtual hearings grew very fast in Canada. Their practice demonstrates the importance of flexibility in procedures and clear guidelines to make remote hearings fair, especially in the cases where face-to-face hearings are not possible.
Rwanda has also taken a people-centered strategy by coming up with mobile friendly judicial systems. Understanding that mobile phones are more accessible to the realities on the ground than the computer, Rwanda has customised its digital solutions to the local situations enhancing access to justice by ordinary citizens.
The present stance of India in the transition to a digital judiciary is valuable. The e-Courts Mission Mode Project has revolutionized the administration system of the courts by involving the implementation of digital case information systems, as well as public access portal. Its next stage is the development of a unified national judicial ecosystem based on cloud-based infrastructure and AI-based technologies. Programs like automated transcription and AI-assisted legal research are assisting judges to deal with excessive workloads and still retain human supervision and judicial autonomy.
Criticism of Court Modernisation
Despite its promise, court modernisation has attracted criticism that warrants careful consideration.
The possible risk of exclusion of vulnerable populations is one of the concerns. Online systems might not be easy among the elderly litigants, rural dwellers, and those with poor digital skills. The digital courts, in the absence of inclusive design and support mechanisms, may increase the inequalities already present, instead of minimizing them.
There is also the fear of excessive dependence on technology especially artificial intelligence. Although AI can be used to help with research and administration, it should not take the place of judicial judgment. Some of the mistakes that include wrong citing or biased productions present a necessity of tight human control and responsibility.
Data protection and privacy are burning questions. Digitisation also brings a lot of sensitive information to online space which has raised concerns with misuse, surveillance and data breaches. There should be robust protective measures by courts towards individual rights. According to some critics, digital proceedings make justice less human and symbolic. The atmosphere of courtrooms is more serious and authoritative, which virtual platforms may not be able to adopt entirely. Regional unbalanced application is also a problem. The difference in the rate of modernisation leads to the different standards of justice met by litigants, which contradict the equality before the law.
Conclusion
The provision of justice is taking a new approach due to legal technology and judicial modernisation. Courts can become faster, more transparent, and more accessible, though not in place of good legal principles and human judgment, with the help of digital tools. To achieve the success of modernisation, technology should be adopted with a clear intention towards inclusiveness, equity and transparency. Courts are forced to strike a balance between innovation and tradition, whereby they make sure that digital systems reinforce the process of justice and do not undermine it.
The transformation of gavel to algorithm is already in progress. The next task is to make sure that such transformation can benefit all the citizens and strengthen the confidence of the population in the rule of law. Court modernisation cannot just enhance efficiency when properly done. It rekindles the assurance of justice itself.
