The Principal Magistrate of Bharat, D Y Chandrachud, has expounded that magistrates are not akin to monarchs or sovereigns, but rather function as providers of service and facilitators of societies that champion rights. He remarked that our tribunals have transitioned from being perceived as authoritarian dominions to becoming democratic arenas for discussion.
Speaking on ‘Digital Metamorphosis and the utilization of technology to elevate judicial effectiveness’ in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, within the framework of the J20 summit, the Principal Magistrate stated, “In our capacity as magistrates, we are neither sovereigns nor monarchs absolved from the necessity of explanation. We are providers of service and agents of societies that uphold rights”.
He underscored the imperative for transparency not only in the final judgment but also in the journey leading to it, ensuring comprehensibility for individuals regardless of legal acumen, and fostering inclusivity.
“Our tribunals have evolved from being perceived as domineering ‘realms’ to being forums of democratic exchange. The COVID-19 crisis expanded the horizons of our judicial systems, necessitating abrupt transformations. Courts transcended their physical confines to become more than just inscrutable physical spaces,” he articulated.
The Principal Magistrate emphasized that discussions on judicial efficacy should transcend the efficiency of individual magistrates and encompass a holistic approach to the judicial process, stating, “Efficacy is not solely measured by outcomes but by these processes, which must guarantee impartial and equitable hearings”.
He highlighted the role of courts as a “shadow institution” that establishes societal norms. “Effective communication between courts and other stakeholders is pivotal not only for the outcomes of individual cases but for the intellectual vitality of the institution, achieved through critical analysis of its rulings,” the Principal Magistrate remarked.
Regarding technology, he cautioned against viewing it as a universal remedy for societal inequalities. “Complex issues such as AI profiling, resulting stigmatization of individuals by large language models, algorithmic biases, dissemination of misinformation, exposure of sensitive data, and opacity of AI black box models require sustained deliberation and discourse on associated risks,” he cautioned.
Even post the Covid-19 pandemic, hybrid hearings remain prevalent in Indian courts. However, challenges such as the digital divide, imbalances in representation among disputing parties, and limited connectivity in certain areas persist and need addressing, he stressed.
The Principal Magistrate identified two pivotal domains where digitization and technology can enhance justice delivery mechanisms: optimization of pre-decision processes and post-decision measures aimed at enhancing accessibility to and engagement with judicial rulings. Courts worldwide are adopting various technologies ranging from basic organizational tools to advanced artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms, he noted.
He underscored the potential of technology in mitigating pre-existing inequalities, which are not compartmentalized but rather intricately interconnected realities.
“Virtual hearings have democratized access to the Supreme Court, providing a platform for individuals facing logistical challenges to participate. Individuals with physical disabilities, pregnant women, and elderly individuals now have the option to virtually attend courtroom proceedings. Over 750,000 cases have been heard via video conferencing,” the Principal Magistrate disclosed.
He highlighted the live streaming of significant constitutional cases in the Supreme Court on its YouTube channel, making constitutional deliberations accessible to all citizens.
“We believe that transparency is the most effective means of combating misinformation, and that accurate and accessible information serves as an antidote to disinformation,” he asserted.
In India, it is customary for judges to engage in debates with the legal fraternity and play the role of devil’s advocate to elicit robust responses. However, this practice sometimes leads to misconceptions about the court’s stance, with misleading excerpts from proceedings circulated online. Fortunately, a robust network of legal journalists provides live coverage of proceedings, helping to dispel misinformation, he concluded.