Indian Courts Came To Be Re-imagined As Democratic Spaces, Not As Imposing Empires : CJI DY Chandrachud At J20 Summit In Brazil

Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud remarked at the J20 summit in Brazil that the perception of courts in India has evolved from being seen as authoritative 'empires' to becoming inclusive democratic spaces for dialogue.

"Our courts have come to be reimagined not as imposing 'empires', but as democratic spaces of discourse. COVID-19 pushed the frontiers of our court systems- which were compelled to change overnight. Courts became more than just opaque physical spaces," CJI said.

CJI also stated that judges can't be never seen as princes or sovereigns who are beyond accountability but are service providers to people.

"As judges, we are neither princes nor sovereigns who are above the explainability requirement ourselves. We are service providers, and enablers of rights-affirming societies."

 'J20' is a summit of Heads of Supreme Courts and Constitutional Courts of all the G20 members. The J20 summit is being organised by the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court in light of Brazil's presidency of G20 2024. The event happening at Rio includes key dignitaries and heads of various Supreme Courts of G20 members. As per the official list, these include participation from the African Union, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, European Union, France, Germany, India, Italy, Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, UK, Portugal and Spain.

 In his address, he outlined various technological adaptations undertaken by the Supreme Court which were necessitated by the COVID pandemic. He noted that the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated changes in court systems, transforming them from traditional, physically enclosed spaces into more accessible and transparent institutions.

Virtual hearings democratised access to Supreme Court : CJI

CJI spoke at length about the e-Courts project, the introduction of virtual hearings, online streaming of courts proceedings.

"Virtual hearings have democratised access to the Supreme Court. It has opened the space for people who could not appear before the Court without great difficulty. Persons with physical impairments, pregnant women, persons in their advanced years can now choose to opt to access the courtroom virtually. Over 750,000 cases have been heard over video conferencing. The proceedings of important constitutional cases in the Supreme Court are live-streamed on its YouTube channel - bringing constitutional deliberations to the homes and hearts of all citizens," he explained.

He underscored that the Supreme Court of India today is almost entirely paperless, with digitised and optical character recognition (OCR)- enabled paper-books. Attempts are being made to reduce the need for litigants' physical presence in court for adjudication of their disputes.

Highlighting India's judicial system, the CJI mentioned that the Indian Supreme Court's Case Management System is built on Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), making it the largest such system globally. He explained that FOSS not only reduces costs significantly but also enhances transparency, bridging communication gaps.

The CJI further elaborated on how the system allows litigants to track their cases daily, receiving automated emails with case details, hearing dates, judgments, and orders. Additionally, offline e-kiosks assist litigants in navigating the system and accessing case status information.

He also spoke about SUVAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software)- a machine learning, AI-enabled tool to translate judgments to 16 regional languages. Over 36,000 cases have thus far been translated.  Easy access to the judgments of the Supreme Court is provided for through Digital SCR (Supreme Court Records), where over 30,000 old judgements are available for free.

CJI Chandrachud also raised concerns about emerging technologies, including AI profiling, algorithmic bias, misinformation, and the opacity of AI models, stressing the need for ongoing dialogue and efforts to address these complex issues.

"Digital divide, representational asymmetry between parties to the same dispute, and low-connectivity locations are some of the other bottlenecks that we must tackle. When we speak of judicial efficiency, we must look beyond the efficiency of the judge and think of a holistic judicial process. Efficiency lies not only in outcomes but in these processes- which must ensure free and fair hearing."

Full Text of the CJI's address can be read below :

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It gives me great pleasure to address this august gathering on the auspices of the J20 Summit in the vibrant city of Rio. Just a few days ago, a saying on the walls of the Museum of Tomorrow caught my eye - allow me to quote - “As society, as living beings, as humans, our common challenge will be to devise new paths, routes and ways to navigate between what we are today and what we may become. Curiosity, spirit and imagination: that's what we need to set out to the seas”. I believe this is an appropriate encapsulation of what we are here for- to deal with ideal judicial systems and to turn them into reality.

Technology has re-negotiated our relationship with the law and the institutions that enforce it. In 1986, Ronald Dworkin wrote in 'Law's Empire' that [quote unquote] 'the Courts are capitals of law's empire and judges are its princes'. Judges are after all perhaps the only public functionaries who are perched on a raised platform, who punish for contempt, and make important decisions about the lives of others in discrete private chambers, without the fear of electoral losses. We are now having conversations about the explainability of the Artificial Intelligence decision-making mechanism- which means that AI cannot decide in a black box and there must be an explanation of why it decided the way it did. As judges, we are neither princes nor sovereigns who are above the explainability requirement ourselves. We are service providers, and enablers of rights-affirming societies. The decision itself and the road leading up to it, must be transparent, understandable to everyone with or without a legal education and must be broad enough for everyone to walk alongside.

There are two crucial areas in which digitisation and technology can help us create better justice delivery mechanisms. One is streamlining of the pre-decision processes and the other is the post-decision measures that improve access to and engagement with the decision itself. Courts across jurisdictions are using technologies ranging from basic organisation, to sophisticated artificial intelligence and machine learning tools.

Pre-decision processes

Indian Courts' tryst with information technology advancements began in 2007 with the e-Courts project- a country-wide project for improving judicial efficiency and creating citizen-centric justice-delivery services. The front-desk experience of approaching courts has changed completely. We now have the facility of filing cases at the click of a button through our e-filing platform. Over 150 thousand e-filings have been done so far just at the Supreme Court, with a consistent rise in the share of e-filings compared to physical filings. For context, the Indian Supreme Court exercises a wide jurisdiction and acts as both a constitutional court and an appellate court, hearing appeals from the twenty-five high courts and various tribunals across the country.

The Indian Supreme Court's Case Management System has been developed on Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), and is the largest case management system in the world. FOSS helps us cut costs significantly, and provides greater transparency, as opposed to proprietary or closed source software. It bridges an important communication gap and allows litigants to keep a daily check on case status- it sends automated emails to litigants with case details, hearing dates, judgments and orders. We also have offline e-kiosks which assist litigants navigate the systems and supply case status information.

Even after the pandemic, hybrid hearings continue to be a feature of our courts. Virtual hearings have democratised access to the Supreme Court. It has opened the space for people who could not appear before the Court without great difficulty. Persons with physical impairments, pregnant women, persons in their advanced years can now choose to opt to access the courtroom virtually. Over 750,000 cases have been heard over video conferencing. The proceedings of important constitutional cases in the Supreme Court are live-streamed on its YouTube channel - bringing constitutional deliberations to the homes and hearts of all citizens. The Supreme Court of India today is almost entirely paperless, with digitised and optical character recognition (OCR)- enabled paper-books.

We are also attempting to reduce the need for litigants' physical presence in court for adjudication of their disputes. On a pilot basis, we are using artificial intelligence for traffic fine cases- which are high volume, repetitive, and relatively uncomplicated cases. This is similar to the Mexican 'Experitus' - an Artificial Intelligence tool that analyses past claims to decide who is entitled to social security.

The Supreme Court monitors judicial data of the entire country in real time by using the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) and iJuris - information sharing platforms for the district-level judiciary. They track real-time data on pending and disposed cases and monitor vacancies and infrastructure. The NJDG, a repository of nation-wide judicial data about 3000-odd district courts, the High Courts, and the Supreme Court is now a click away.

Post-decisional measures

Once the decision is delivered, it must be swiftly uploaded on the courts' website for the parties to execute it or explore further remedies. Time is of essence in some cases more than others. An order granting bail to an undertrial ought to reach them in time for the 'right to liberty' to materialise. The interoperable criminal justice system (ICJS) is an initiative of the Supreme Court to enable transfer of information among the police, courts, jails and forensic laboratories. The PDPJ modules of the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil have been a pathbreaker in technology adoption in justice delivery.

The complexity of procedures and inaccessibility impact not only the litigants but also those not before the courts directly, and overall hurts timely resolution. Courts perform a “shadow function” – they create guidelines for society. Communication between courts and everyone else becomes central to not only the outcomes in individual cases but for the discursive health of the institution, through critical engagement with its decisions.

We believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant, and that correct and accessible information is an antidote to disinformation. The Brazil Supreme Court's Program to Fight Disinformation targets disinformation by enabling access to the judgments and creating an ecosystem of stakeholders. In India, it is quite common for judges to engage with a bar and play the devil's advocate, in order to extract their best response. However, this is sometimes mistaken as the opinion of the bench and misleading clips of the proceedings are circulated on the internet. Fortunately, we have a robust network of legal journalists who live-report the proceedings and help dispel disinformation. We are using SUVAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software)- a machine learning, AI-enabled translation tool for our judgments of 16 regional languages. Over 36,000 cases have thus far been translated. There is also live streaming and YouTube recordings of important constitutional cases that provide the complete context. Easy access to the judgments of the Supreme Court is provided for through Digital SCR (Supreme Court Records), where over 30,000 old judgements are available for free.

Our courts have come to be reimagined not as imposing 'empires', but as democratic spaces of discourse. COVID-19 pushed the frontiers of our court systems- which were compelled to change overnight. Courts became more than just opaque physical spaces

Digital divide, representational asymmetry between parties to the same dispute, and low-connectivity locations are some of the other bottlenecks that we must tackle. When we speak of judicial efficiency, we must look beyond the efficiency of the judge and think of a holistic judicial process. Efficiency lies not only in outcomes but in these processes- which must ensure free and fair hearing. Substantive opportunity depends on “conversion factors” as Dr Amartya Sen says, “the degree to which a person can transform a resource into a functioning”. The potential of technology lies in how we convert it to minimise pre-existing inequalities. Inequalities are not neatly stacked compartments; they are rather a complex web of interwoven realities. Technology is not a one-stop panacea for all social inequalities. Complicated issues such as AI-profiling and consequent stigmatisation of individuals in large language models, algorithmic bias, misinformation, exposure of sensitive information, and opacity of black box models in AI must be tackled with sustained deliberative efforts and engagement about the dangers.

Professor Urs Gasser talks about 'Guardrails'- similar to the physical guardrails along the side of the road. The idea is to think about choosing the appropriate normative qualities for this guardrail rather than focussing on the operational capabilities of our technologies alone. While we adopt technologies that support rather than substitute decision-making, this metaphorical value guardrail, which is deliberated upon in gatherings such as this one, could serve as an important guideline.

On this note, I conclude my address. I am grateful to everyone present here for creating the space for this deliberation. Thank you!