Category: Article

INDIA HAS SUCCESSFULLY BUILT CAPACITY, MUST NOW FOCUS ON QUALITY AND ENROLMENT

The Indian higher education system is, by far, among the largest in the world today. The latest available data from AISHE (All India Survey on Higher Education, Ministry of Education) for the academic year 2021-22 shows that 4.32 crore students are enrolled in the system, growing at a 4 per cent CAGR over ten years from 2.91 crore in 2011-12. There are 58,643 active institutions, including 1,168 universities, 45,473 colleges, and the remaining are stand-alone institutions. The total number of institutions has grown at a 2.3 per cent CAGR over ten years, indicating a significant increase in capacity. The Indian HE Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) stands at 28.4, meaning that 28.4 per cent of the eligible 18-23-year-old population is enrolled in higher education.

Table 1: Trend analysis of certain growth parameters in the Indian HE system with projections to 2031. Data from AISHE and Population Projection Report 2011-2036, projections computed by authors.

Projected enrolment growth at a 4 per cent CAGR suggests that student numbers will surpass 6 crore by 2030-31. According to India’s Population Projection Report 2011-2036, the population aged 18-23 will be just over 14 crore at that time, leading to a GER of 44. NEP 2020, FICCI, and other stakeholders have set an ambitious GER target of 50 for 2030. To reach an enrolment of 7 crore, which is 50 per cent of 14 crore, enrolment must increase at a 5.5 per cent CAGR from the current 4 per cent . With institutional capacity already sufficient, the focus must shift from expanding quantity to enhancing quality to improve the educational standards.

Gender parity in Indian higher education was achieved in 2019-20 and remains above 1. More women are entering higher education with greater aspirations. The 10-year enrolment CAGR for women is 4.7 per cent , compared to 3.4 per cent for men. In 2021-22, women constituted 48 per cent of total enrolment, up from 44.6 per cent ten years earlier. Women’s GER stands at 28.5, slightly higher than men’s at 28.3, and has grown more rapidly, from 19.4 in 2011-12 compared to 22.1 for men. This indicates that a growing number of women aged 18-23 view higher education as a pathway to a better quality of life. This positive trend points towards a significant increase in the qualified workforce. To fully leverage this, quality employment opportunities must be developed nationwide, enabling educated women to join the workforce near their homes and communities.

Table 2: Higher education enrolment across male and female categories. Data from AISHE

 

SPECIALISATION AND DOMAIN EXPERTISE

Growing economies need expertise across all domains — science and technology, finance and commerce, culture and arts, education, healthcare and doctors, law, business administration, and so on.

Total number of graduates in 2021-22 exceeded 1 crore. Of these, the top fields studied by number are Bachelors degrees in Arts, Science, Commerce, Technology and Engineering, and Education. While the 5-year CAGR of total enrolment is 3.92 per cent, the CAGRs of these five top fields are 3.53 per cent, 1.46 per cent, 1.7 per cent, -1.21 per cent and 12.68 per cent. The negative trend in B.Tech + B.E. enrollment is disheartening at a time when technology has become ubiquitous in our daily lives and India needs more STEM graduates to drive R&D, intellectual property, and technological production. M.B.B.S enrolment is growing 8.7 per cent CAGR; an encouraging trend given the dearth of qualified medical personnel in the country. The Central Government’s push to increase institutional capacity in medical sciences is clearly working and more can be undertaken in this direction to respond to India’s medical and healthcare needs.

Table 3: Enrolment and graduates in top undergraduate HE fields studied. Data from AISHE

Specialisation is crucial for a growing economy. It enables productivity improvements in society, an increase in innovation, and the ability to produce world-class products and services domestically to, both meet our growing needs and capture global markets. Specialisation can be directly measured by the number of PhD and post-graduates. 2 lakh+ students were enrolled in PhD programs in 2021-22, having grown from 80,452 in 2011-12 at 10.2 per cent CAGR. PhD graduates have grown from 21,544 to 65,176 in the same period. Post graduate enrolment has increased from 27.9 lakh to 51 lakh in the same period, whereas PG graduates from 11 lakh to 35.5 lakh. While these numbers are encouraging, India must produce many more PhDs and PGs for a country with 1.44Bn population.

Table 4 gives a snapshot of some important fields of specialisation pursued by PhD and PG students. India needs more quality researchers with PhDs to lead research and innovation efforts across several disciplines. Agriculture innovation will be an essential factor in India’s reorganisation of sectoral workforces; commerce, in India’s financial infrastructure development strategies; education, in determining new ways to educate, upskill, and enable continuous learning; medical sciences, as we re-engineer our healthcare delivery; Scientific and technological development, and others. The low number in I.T. and Computers is troubling; with the world’s advancements in artificial intelligence, machine learning, quantum computing, data analytics, and others related to I.T. and Computers, India must be more aggressive in this field.

India must study domestic and global scenarios to understand domains that will be valuable going forward and invest in building competencies there. China has set a great example in the realm of quantum computing and artificial intelligence. With in-depth investment strategies and incentives for their top talent, China is surpassing even the United States in this field. If India doesn’t start investing in domain expertise, we risk being left behind in the new world.

Table 4: PhD and post graduate scholars in select fields in 2021-22. Data from AISHE

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION HAS YIELDED RESULTS

Towards the objectives of inclusive enrolment and coverage, affirmative action has undoubtedly yielded results. Between 2012-13 and 2021-22, enrolment among various groups increased at astounding 9-year CAGRs – by 6.2 per cent (SC), 8.3 per cent (ST), 6.3 per cent (OBC), 6 per cent (Muslims) and 5.4 per cent (other minorities), all well over the average of 4 per cent. General enrolment is stagnating at 0.7 per cent. The Government’s focus on HE has enabled rapid development of previously deemed disadvantaged classes.

Table 5A: Population data from Census 2011, * from NSSO, HE data from AISHE

Enrolment proportions for the SC, ST and OBC communities in 2021-22 are close to their population composition –

For the SC community, 15.3 per cent enrolment against 16.6 per cent of the population; remarkably close

For the ST community, 6.3 per cent enrolment against 8.6 per cent of the population; this, too, is quite close

For the OBC community, 37.8 per cent enrolment against 40.9 per cent of the population; close, as well

Minorities, however, have not demonstrated the same progress. Minorities constitute 20.2 per cent of India’s population but only 7 per cent in HE enrolment. Low Muslim enrollment is a key issue, but the growth rates are impressive.
Disaggregating the social groups’ enrolment data by gender clearly revels Indian women’s aspirations.

Table 2 shows that across groups, women’s enrolment CAGR is ahead of men’s — 7 per cent (W) vs 5.6 per cent (M) among the SC community, 9.6 per cent (W) vs 7.2 per cent (M) among the ST community, and 6.8 per cent (W) vs 5.9 per cent (M) among the OBC community. Though the Muslim community’s representation in higher education is far lesser than its population composition, here too, women’s enrolment CAGR at 6.6 per cent is far higher than men’s at 5.4 per cent. The ‘other minorities’ group is the only one where this reversed — 4.9 per cent (W) vs. 6 per cent (M). In the general category, men’s enrolment has stagnated at 0 per cent CAGR as the enrolment in 2012-13 and 2021-22 is very similar. Women’s enrolment in this group is 1.5 per cent, higher than men’s here as well.

Table 5B: Gender Split in Enrolment Across Social Categories. Data from AISHE

Overall, social groups are faring well in higher education. Driving enrolment up in key groups and regions across India can be facilitated by expanding the capacity of existing institutions and setting up greenfield institutions in regions with low institutional capacity. Distance education can also be utilised to drive enrolment. The key point here is that increasing the cake will enable more people to partake, rather than slicing the existing cake any thinner.

ONE COMMON POLICY ACROSS INDIA WON’T WORK

India is an incredibly diverse country with high variance across economic indicators — state GDP, per-capita income, fertility and population growth rates, urbanisation, and education and skill development. The education profiles of 14 major states across India are represented in Table 6, showing vastly different institutional capacities, enrolment profiles and pupil-teacher ratios.

Table 6: Snapshot of states’ HE bases in 2021-22. Data from AISHE, NFHS-5

Uttar Pradesh’s higher education base tops the country, by far, in enrolment, number of graduates, and number of institutions. The state accounts for a significant 16 per cent of India’s enrolled students (69.7 lakh of 4.32 crore), 15.2 per cent of graduates (16.3 lakh of 1.07 crore), and 16.5 per cent of HE institutions (9,660 of 58,643). Maharashtra comes next with 10.6 per cent of India’s enrolled students (45.7 lakh of 4.32 crore), 11.2 per cent of graduates (12 lakh of 1.07 crore), and 11.9 per cent of HE institutions (7,003 of 58,643). Tamil Nadu comes in third with 7.6 per cent of India’s enrolled students (33 lakh of 4.32 crore), 9.2 per cent of graduates (9.8 lakh of 1.07 crore), and 6.5 per cent of HE institutions (3,790 of 58,643).

The National Education Policy 2020 recommends the consolidation of fragmented institutions into multidisciplinary universities of 3000+ students (more details on NEP 2020 are below). States with active university systems can quickly grow them into large multidisciplinary universities.

In terms of GER, Tamil Nadu by far leads the country with 47. Apart from Telangana, no other large state has even crossed 40.0 in 2020-21. In general, all southern states including Maharashtra have good GERs much higher than the all-India average of 28.4. GER is calculated as the ratio of the number of enrolled students to the eligible 18-23-year population.

All the states in the north-central-east zones, and Gujarat in the west, have GERs below 30. Rajasthan (28.6) and Madhya Pradesh (28.9) impressively are maintaining GERs above the India average, given their large populations. Uttar Pradesh and Punjab were doing well earlier but seem to have slipped behind after the pandemic. Crucial states like Bihar and Jharkhand have not crossed GER of 20, which is worrisome. Eastern states also have a very low number of institutions, which contributes to low enrolment, and indicates a lack of drive to develop human capital. Immediate planning is required to bring GERs in these states to at least the all-India average of 28.4.

Tamil Nadu leads by teaching staff as well, with 2+ lakh, followed by Uttar Pradesh with 1.78 lakh, Maharashtra with 1.67 lakh, Karnataka with 1.5 lakh, and AP with 1+ lakh. These are the only states with lakh+ teaching staff base in HE. Southern states have impressive average pupil-teacher ratios (PTR) of below 20, led by Karnataka and Tamil Nadu at 16.

On the other end, eastern states like Jharkhand and Bihar have absurdly high PTRs of 58 and 69. Uttar Pradesh comes next at 36, but given the large population and enrolment base, the state is showing promising results compared to other population-dense states like Bihar and Jharkhand. States with moderate PTRs are Odisha (25), Maharashtra (27), Gujarat (28), and Rajasthan (29). Of these, Maharashtra is the only state that has moderate PTR despite having a great teaching base because its enrolment base is also large. The other three — Gujarat, Odisha, and Rajasthan — have moderate PTRs because their enrolment base is lower than average as indicated by low GERs, and their teaching base is also low. Intensive effort to improve both must commence soon.

One common education policy across the country clearly will not work, and each state must formulate a specific policy responding to the needs of its citizens and youth base. In general, states in the north and east have younger, larger populations and must focus on driving enrolment and accessibility to education. States in the south and west have ageing populations, drastically lowered fertility rates, and better enrolment ratios, and can focus largely on improving quality of education and education-industry linkages.

FUTURE OF INDIAN EDUCATION

National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 was a transformational framework, enacted 34 years after the previous outdated policy in 1986. The system needs overhaul because it is rife with rigid structures with low flexibility to innovate and respond to today’s needs, an increasing shift to the private sector across all levels of education due to dissatisfaction with government-provided education despite education spending at ₹5-6 lakh crore annually, and rote learning favoured over learning abilities and outcomes. India’s HE system does not prioritise research and innovation and, in general, has been teaching the same curricula for the last twenty years.

Data indicates India is solving the capacity problem of equity and access but must aim to vastly improve quality over the next 20 years. For this, the autonomy of the Top 200 universities, by national ranking, is critical to pursue radical strategies for providing world-class education and ensure greater transfer to public research. Indian universities must also be encouraged to expand overseas and set up campuses in other countries. Today, more than 750,000 students study abroad spending $20Bn+ in fees. Indian universities must be empowered to capture some of that value. Globalisation of Indian education must be supported by both outbound and inbound strategies. NEP 2020 provides a ground-breaking framework and the flexibility to achieve these goals and more:

• Consolidation of the large number of standalone institutions into large multidisciplinary universities and educational clusters will enable superior specialisation and expand domain expertise.
• Multiple certification options like undergraduate, certificate, diploma, etc. will improve accessibility and flexibility of education.
• A central repository like an Academic Bank of Credit will help students who are returning after a hiatus or with continuous learning and upskilling.
• Internationalisation by inviting the Top 100 global universities to open academic centres in India will create a pull-up effect on overall quality of education.
• Expanding open and distance learning, especially with today’s technological tools will radically improve equity of access.
• Changing governance and autonomy structures will break the rigidity and inflexibility and allow for innovation education models.
• A steady research focus that will feed into the country’s science and technological leadership vision must be instituted. Towards this, the proposed National Research Foundation with an ₹50,000 crore outlay over five years will be a tremendous step forward.

Technology can significantly enhance education by making learning more engaging, accessible, and personalised:

• Personalised Learning: Adaptive learning software uses AI-powered tools that adapt to each student’s learning pace and style, providing customised resources and feedback. Learning Management Systems track student progress, provide personalised resources, and facilitate communication between teachers and students.
• Online resources and courses can be incredibly useful. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) from providers like Coursera, edX, and Udacity offer high-quality courses from top global universities. In addition, digital libraries and databases provide access to vast information and research materials online, such as Google Scholar or JSTOR.
• Virtual and Augmented Reality models can create interactive and immersive learning experiences, such as virtual field trips or 3D modelling for science subjects. Similarly, simulation software can provide realistic simulations for training in medicine, engineering, and aviation.
• Artificial Intelligence has a growing influence on education. Chatbots and AI tutors can provide instant help and tutoring outside of classroom hours, assisting with homework and study questions. Educators can use data analytics to analyse student performance data to identify learning gaps and tailor instruction accordingly.
• Interactive learning platforms are applications that turn learning into an engaging experience; leading examples are Duolingo for language learning and Khan Academy for various subjects. Gamification incorporates game-like elements such as points, badges, and leaderboards to motivate students and make learning fun.
• Accessibility can be vastly improved with assistive tools like screen readers, speech-to-text software, and adaptive keyboards that help students with disabilities. Similarly, translation apps enhance access to educational content and classes in other languages.
• Technology also allows for blended learning, such as flipped classrooms and hybrid models that combine online and in-person instruction to provide flexibility and maximise learning opportunities.
• Professional development and upskilling of educators can be undertaken via online workshops and webinars where teachers can continuously improve their skills.

India hosts one of the largest education systems in the world and has successfully established equity and access. These metrics are steadily improving every year. Concurrently, India has succeeded in population-scale socio-economic development over the last decade and has set sights on becoming a Top 3 economy over the next few years. To maintain economic and technological leadership, it is imperative to inculcate a drive towards superior quality education and internationalisation. Increasing institutional autonomy and public funding of research will serve India well.

INTRODUCTION

As we celebrate 75 years of our independence, it is a time to remind ourselves of our times gone by and the institutions of Governance set up to protect people and societies. The Judiciary is one such critical Institution of Governance.

The judiciary in India has a rich and complex history, marked by significant transformations from the ancient era through colonial rule to the contemporary period. This evolution has seen the judiciary adapt to changing socio-political landscapes and technological advancements. The Indian judiciary is often regarded as one of the most independent, innovative, progressive, and powerful judicial systems in the world. It plays a critical role in maintaining the rule of law, upholding democratic principles, and shaping public opinion in the country.

The history of the Indian judiciary dates back to ancient times, when village assemblies and local panchayats served as the primary adjudicating bodies. The earliest document throwing light on the theory of jurisprudence, which forms part of practical governance, is the Artha Shastra of Kautilya dating back to circa 300 B.C. In medieval India, this changed and as custodians of justice, the Muslim rulers made the Sharia court subservient to their sovereign power.

But the rulers also set up a Court known as Mazalim (complaints), a secular Court. These courts dealt with disputes relating to the non-Muslim communities. The same system was followed till the British took over the power of India.

The formal judicial system, as we know it today began to take shape during British colonial rule. The British established the Mayor’s Courts in Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta in 1726. The promulgation of the Regulating Act of 1773 by the King of England paved the way for establishing the Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta. The Letters of Patent was issued on 26th March, 1774 to establish the Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta, as a Court of Record, with full power & authority to hear and determine all complaints for any crimes and also to entertain and determine any suits or actions against His Majesty’s subjects in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. The Supreme Courts at Madras and Bombay were established by King George — III on 26th December, 1800 and on 8th December, 1823, respectively. The India High Courts Act 1861 was enacted to create High Courts for various provinces and abolish Supreme Courts at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay and the Sadar Adalats in Presidency towns, which had been set up under Warren Hastings in his implementation of the Regulating Act, 1772. These High Courts had the distinction of being the highest Courts for all cases till the creation of the Federal Court of India under the Government of India Act, 1935. The Federal Court had jurisdiction to solve disputes between provinces and federal states and hear appeals against judgements from High Courts.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA — PROTECTOR OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

After India attained independence in 1947, the Constituent Assembly of India, engaged in extensive debates about the judiciary’s structure and independence. Recognizing the judiciary as the cornerstone of a democratic society, the Assembly’s discussions highlighted its critical role in safeguarding the Constitution and protecting fundamental rights.

Members of the Constituent Assembly emphasized that an independent judiciary was essential to prevent abuse of power by the executive and legislative branches. They argued that without judicial independence, the rights enshrined in the Constitution could become meaningless. One of the most contentious issues was the method of appointing judges. Concerns were raised about the potential for executive overreach and politicization of the judiciary. The compromise reached involved the President of India appointing judges in consultation with the Chief Justice of India and several safeguards for Judges were provided with security of tenure; they could not be removed from office except through a rigorous impeachment process by Parliament. These provisions were crucial in ensuring that judges could make decisions free from external pressures, thereby maintaining the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

Despite the creation of the Courts under the Constitution, the struggle for independence of the judiciary with the Executive / Legislature continued. In the First Judges Case (1981), the Supreme Court ruled that “consultation” with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in appointing judges did not mean “agreement”, and the Union Government had the final say. This was changed in the Second Judges Case (1993), where the Collegium of Judges would comprise the CJI and two senior judges, giving the CJI’s opinion more importance. The Third Judges Case (1999) expanded this group to include the CJI and four senior judges.

In 2016, the Supreme Court struck down the Ninety-Ninth Constitutional Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, which aimed to change the judge appointment system and reduce judicial independence. The Court ruled that these changes violated judicial independence and the separation of powers.

Though it has taken time to lay down the law widening the scope of liberties in 1950, soon after the setting up of the Supreme Court, while looking at the right to freedom of expression in Romesh Thappar vs. State of Madras, while dealing with the ban on dissenting media struck it down as unconstitutional. In Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that the “(T)he procedure prescribed by law has to be fair, just, and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary.

In His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru vs. State of Kerala, [1973] (decided by a Bench of 13 Judges) one of the most celebrated cases in the history of Indian Constitutional law, held that the “basic structure of the Constitution” could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment.”

Despite this, post the declaration of the Emergency, came a low point of the Supreme Court when in ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivakant Shukla it was ruled that while a proclamation of emergency is in operation, the right to move High Courts under Article 226 for Habeas Corpus challenging illegal detention by State will stand suspended. The dissenting opinion of Justice HR Khanna where said — “detention without trial is an anathema to all those who love personal liberty… A dissent is an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day, when a later decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting Judge believes the court to have been betrayed” catapulted Justice H.R. Khanna into one of the most celebrated liberal judges and as the protector of democracy. The said judgement came to be set aside only recently in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (retd.) vs. Union of India and Ors., (2017) (Nine Judges). The Supreme Court held— “The view taken by Justice Khanna must be accepted, and accepted in reverence for the strength of its thoughts and the courage of its convictions…”. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. in his concurring judgment said: “…the ADM Jabalpur case which was an aberration in the constitutional jurisprudence of our country and the desirability of burying the majority opinion ten fathom deep, with no chance of resurrection.”

The Supreme Court has always been the harbinger of the rights of the citizens It has from time to time included various rights as part of the right to life, be it a person’s right to die with dignity (Francis Coralie Mullin(1981); the right to die by Euthanasia within parameters which may be documented in a Living Will, (Common Cause (2018)); the liberty to choose their sexual orientation, seek companionship within private space (Navtej Singh Johar(2018)); “right to education” (Pawan Kumar Divedi, (2014)) and the Right to privacy (Aadhar case). It emphasised Gender Justice amongst all communities. In Shah Bano’s Case (1985) it held that the maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., was truly secular in character and is different from the personal law of the parties and that a Muslim woman was entitled to maintenance too. The Gender Justice was further extended in 2017 when the Supreme Court held the Triple Talaq to be Unconstitutional or when it upheld the right of women to enter the Shabari Mala temple. It pushed for electoral reforms and information about the candidates to be informed to the voters.

Similarly, while dealing with Criminal Law and fundamental rights the Supreme Court has been provocative and regularly taking steps to protect the rights of the citizens. The Supreme Court has been crying hoarse about arresting a person only when necessary and not merely because there is a power to do so. It also lays the mechanisms for making arrests more transparent and the police more accountable for violations of rights and issued a number of requirements / guidelines to be followed in all cases of arrests and detentions as preventive measures in D.K. Basu as well as in Arnesh Kumar requiring the need to balance individual liberty and societal order while exercising the power of arrest, which has now been incorporated into the statute.

The creation of Public Interest litigation or the Curative jurisdiction where it could correct its own errors under exceptional circumstances the most innovative remedies possibly in the world. SC also came up with the Vishaka Guidelines which paved the way for legislation dealing with workplace sexual harassment. It has also played an active role in protecting the environment; by propounding the principle of “Absolute Liability” after the Bhopal Gas Tragedy or the concept of polluter pays principle as an integral part of sustainable development.

One of the other areas where the Supreme Court has played a significant role is in the area of bail in criminal law. The jurisprudence of bail in post-independent India is anchored on the bedrock of Article 21.

The presumption of innocence is a foundational postulate in India’s criminal jurisprudence. This is the main reason why an accused is released on bail pending investigation and trial. However, in the recent past much more is desired from the Courts in this field and the Supreme Court has been slow in upholding the personal liberty rights of the accused in high-profile cases.

Effective 1st July 2024, a significant change is being brought about in Criminal Law. The three laws foundational to the criminal justice system are being repealed and replaced with The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (The Indian Penal Code), The Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (The Criminal Procedure Code) and The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (The Indian Evidence Act). Whilst investigative techniques are progressive and the introduction of technology is dispensation of justice is necessary, the Indian Judiciary will be tested in its ability to uphold the Constitutional Rights of citizens, victims and accused, considering the many fundamental, though unnecessary, changes brought about in these legislations which have stood the test of time. “Laws”, especially criminal law, must always be clear, certain, and predictable. The repealed legislations have been in existence for over a century and have been interpreted repeatedly to ensure clarity, conciseness, and certainty. That is now being disrupted to an extent.

CHALLENGES FACED BY THE INDIAN JUDICIARY SYSTEM

The Indian judiciary faces challenges such as a significant backlog of cases, delays in justice delivery, and concerns over judicial transparency and accountability. This is a combination of both a lack of infrastructure as well a lack of quality manpower. The backlog of cases and delays in the Indian judicial system often results in the process itself becoming a form of punishment. This prolonged wait for justice leads to significant emotional, financial, and social burdens on individuals involved in legal proceedings. Victims may face extended periods of uncertainty and stress, while accused individuals might endure prolonged pre-trial detention. Such delays undermine the principle of timely justice, eroding public trust in the judicial system and effectively punishing people through the very process meant to deliver justice.

The Government, which is the largest litigator in the Country, has proposed a National Litigation Policy to reduce Government litigation in courts so that so as to achieve the Goal of the National Legal Mission to reduce the average pendency time from 15 years to 3 years.

The overburdened Indian judiciary, grappling with an overwhelming backlog of cases, underscores the urgent need for the use of alternate dispute resolution mechanisms such as arbitration and mediation. There has been a substantial push towards direction be it by way of amending the Arbitration Act from time to time to bring it on par with International Laws or by enacting a law to provide for the establishment and incorporation of the India International Arbitration Centre for the purpose of creating an independent, autonomous and world-class body for facilitating institutional arbitration, or even the amendment to the Commercial Courts Act in 2018 which provided for mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement (PIMS) mechanism for certain commercial disputes or even the Mediation Act, 2023, which provides for institutional Mediation, but more needs to be done. Similarly, on the criminal side, the use of plea bargaining as a way of reducing the burden, though attempted, has not made much headway.

The burden on the criminal courts is equally heavy. The use of tribunals for criminal matters has not yet been looked at. It is worth considering shifting offences which are punishable with a fine only to tribunals thereby reducing the burden on the Court system and introducing AI methods in dispensing justice. In fact, even the cheque-bouncing cases, which are primarily a civil proceeding which has been given the colour of a criminal proceeding and forms a large number of pending criminal proceedings, could also be shifted to tribunals to reduce the burden on courts.

By aligning our legal framework with contemporary societal needs, we have embraced a more progressive, pragmatic, and humane approach, reflecting a nuanced understanding of justice and social change. In recent years, we have embarked on a transformative journey in our legal landscape, prominently featuring the decriminalization of various offences through legislative means such as the Companies Act amendments (done twice) and also under the Jan Vishwas Act.

USE OF TECHNOLOGY

The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed the integration of technology into the judicial system, expediting access to justice and bringing legal services to everyone including the poor or those in rural areas. The Supreme Court and various High Courts swiftly adopted virtual court proceedings to ensure the continuity of access to justice. E-filing systems, virtual hearings, and video conferencing became the norm.

The advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI) marks a significant milestone in the evolution of judicial systems and is assisting in changing the landscape of Indian litigation. AI technologies are being developed and deployed to assist, replace, and even disrupt traditional judicial processes. Be it Supportive Technology where AI serves as an advisory tool, providing information and support to legal professionals or Replacement Technology where AI replaces some human interventions in judicial processes including automated document review, e-discovery, and the use of chatbots for initial consultations and routine legal inquiries or Disruptive Technology where AI fundamentally changes how justice is dispensed.

AI is poised to revolutionize dispute resolution by analysing legal documents and past rulings to predict outcomes, offering efficient and cost-effective alternatives to traditional litigation. Susskind, one of the foremost thinkers and proponents of AI and Legal infrastructure and who served as Technology Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales in his book “Online Courts and the Future of Justice,” predicts that global courts will undergo digital transformations, leveraging AI to enhance access to justice. Susskind argues that technology can address these problems by shifting court services online, making legal resolutions more accessible and efficient.

GLOBAL BEST PRACTICES

In December 2019, China announced that millions of legal cases are now being decided by “Internet courts” that do not require citizens to appear in court. The “smart court” includes non-human judges, powered by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and allows participants to register their cases online and resolve their matters via a digital court hearing.

The Chinese Internet courts handle a variety of disputes, which include intellectual property, e-commerce, financial disputes related to online conduct, loans acquired or performed online, domain name issues, property and civil rights cases involving the Internet, product liability arising from online purchases and certain administrative disputes. In Beijing, 98 per cent of the rulings have been accepted without appeal.

The Canadian commercial dispute process is paperless. A document management platform sifts through all parties’ documents to flag relevant vs. non-relevant documents. A subsequent platform reviews the relevant documents and tells you that your case has the stronger evidentiary background.

The Indian Income Tax Act is, in a sense, experimenting with Internet Courts. Having made its assessment proceedings not only faceless but technology-driven, this quasi-judicial function is now conducted by use of AI and data analytics.

INITIATIVES BY INDIAN JUDICIARY

India’s judiciary has begun integrating AI to address inefficiencies and backlogs. Notable initiatives include:

— SUPACE (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court Efficiency): This AI-driven tool assists judges by summarizing case files and suggesting precedents, thereby expediting the decision-making process. Its functioning would be restricted to data collection and analysis.

— SUVAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software): An AI-based translation tool that translates judicial documents into regional languages, ensuring wider accessibility.

Technology and AI have also been incorporated in relation to the Income Tax proceedings, where faceless assessment has been introduced to optimise resources as well as to use AI for standardised examination of draft orders, with a view to reduce the scope of discretion.

However, these are just the initial steps. Future plans include expanding AI’s role in predictive analytics for case outcomes and enhancing administrative efficiency. By analyzing historical case data and identifying patterns, AI would predict the likely outcomes of legal disputes with remarkable accuracy. This capability will not only assist lawyers in formulating strategies, but also bestow to clients a better understanding of their prospects of success. For example, lawyers can use predictive models to advise clients on whether to settle a case or proceed to trial, based on the probability of winning. This data-driven approach can lead to more informed decision-making and better resource allocation.

CHALLENGES IN THE USE OF AI

However, the accuracy and ethical implications of the predictions and information by AI remain a concern. Ensuring transparency in how these predictions are generated is crucial to maintaining trust in the judicial system. The integration of AI into the predictive process poses several challenges:

— Bias and Fairness: AI systems can perpetuate existing biases if they are trained on biased data. Ensuring fairness requires careful design and constant monitoring of AI algorithms.

— Transparency and Accountability: The “black-box” nature of some AI systems can hinder this, necessitating clear guidelines and explanations for AI-driven decisions.

— Empathy vs. Bias: While AI can ensure consistency, it lacks human empathy. Balancing AI’s data-driven approach with the empathy inherent in human judges is crucial for just outcomes.

Whilst the Chinese experience and other experiments need to be closely watched, in my view it is essential that there is always some human oversight that ensures that the AI never takes over the Judicial Process. AI should be to assist and not to Act. To this end it is necessary to establish clear guidelines for the use of AI in judicial processes, emphasizing transparency, accountability, and ethical standards implement robust monitoring mechanisms to regularly assess AI systems for bias and fairness; Provide training for judges and court staff on the effective use of AI tools; Engage with the public to build trust and awareness about AI’s role in the judiciary and also learn from international best practices and collaborate with global judicial bodies to adopt and adapt AI technologies effectively. Moreover, the rise of AI in law necessitates a shift in legal education and training. Future lawyers must be equipped with not only traditional legal knowledge but also an understanding of technology and its applications.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

The future in law is one of profound transformation. By automating routine tasks, enhancing access to legal services, and leveraging predictive analytics, AI has the potential to revolutionize the judiciary and legal profession. However, realizing this vision requires addressing ethical concerns and ensuring that legal professionals are adequately prepared for the technological shifts ahead. In essence, the legal landscape is where technology and human expertise coexist harmoniously, ultimately leading to a more efficient, accessible, and just legal system. As AI continues to advance, the legal profession stands on the cusp of a new era, one that promises to reshape the way judicial and legal services are delivered and experienced.