E-Courts In India Must Be Expedited

Pendencies of cases in Indian courts are normal phenomenon these days. Delay in resolution of disputes adversely affects the confidence of business community and international investors. While traditional litigation system of India cannot be reformed overnight yet effective steps in this direction must be urgently taken.

Technology can be a viable option for resolving judicial problems in India. For instance online dispute resolution (ODR) mechanism can be effectively used to resolve many disputes in an online environment. Similarly, e-courts in India can be established to reduce corruption and irregularities of Indian judicial system.

There is no second opinion that e-courts in India needed. However, establishment of e-courts in India is still a dream as e-courts project of India has failed to provide the necessary impetus in this regard. There are many reasons why e-courts in India failed to take off. The chief among them is the absence of necessary expertise to manage and implement e-courts project of India.

For instance, we have a single techno legal e-courts training and consultancy centre in India. It is managed by Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB). We need more such specialised institutions to successfully manage the e-courts project of India.

Recently on the occasion of Law Day, Union law minister Salman Khurshid shared his desire for making court proceedings paperless. He asked whether Indian Supreme Court can be paperless. Citing the example of Brazil he stressed that India needs to move in that direction as well.

The idea is good provided India has necessary expertise and will to implement the e-court project of India. Presently that seems to be missing and this make the paperless court a distant dream in India.

ICANN's Global Outreach And International Cooperation

The day Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) approved allotment of new Generic Top Level Domain Names (GTLDs), it was clear that it has to face many known and unknown “Challenges”. Further, “Cyber Security Issues” must also be on the “Priority List” of ICANN.

However, of all challenges, the one pertaining to manage “International Coordination” is the toughest one. Although ICANN has taken many far reaching decisions yet their actual implementation requires both National and International Cooperation. If this Coordination is missing, most of the initiatives of ICANN would fail.

Realising this truth, ICANN has started efforts in this direction in various parts of the World. ICANN has named Thomas Spiller to the newly created position of Vice President, Europe. The appointment was announced today at the organization's 41st public meeting in Singapore.

In his new position, Spiller who is a French national will be responsible for driving ICANN's strategic objectives in Europe. He will also manage the Brussels office and will be the focal point for regional issues.

"I look forward to reinforcing ICANN's outreach to all stakeholders and strengthening the ongoing inclusive dialogue with Europe's Internet users, national governments, EU institutions and business," said Spiller.

Naturally, ICANN would also establish similar posts at other crucial regions of the World and Asia is one of them. ICANN is also looking to appoint a vice president of Asia who is likely to be based in Singapore and will take charge of Asian strategic objectives.

The choice of Singapore is natural, logical and the best one. We are still not ready for Online Dispute Resolution in India and Singapore has definitely better “Technological and Legal Infrastructure” than India.

This does not mean that ICANN can ignore India all together. ICANN must enter into Memorandum of Understandings (MOU), Consortiums, Partnerships and Collaborations with other Asian Countries as well.

Online Dispute Resolution Services In India

Information and communication technology (ICT) has streamlined the way disputes are agitated and resolved. Legal proceedings are increasingly using online platforms and cyberspace for initiation of legal proceedings and their dispute resolution.

However, legal frameworks that can supplement and strengthen such disputes resolution are missing. For instance, the legal enablement of ICT systems in India is still missing. We have no legal framework for online dispute resolution in India (ODR in India) as well as for establishment and management of e-courts in India. Till now we are waiting for the establishment of first e-court of India and use of ODR in India.

At Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) we believe in the importance and use of ICT for dispute resolution. We understand the importance of ICT to the judicial system and important role of ICT in judicial reforms. Use of ICT in effective judicial system and dispute resolution is one area that deserves both national and international attention.

India is using alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms like arbitration, mediation, etc for long. However, there are very few ODR service providers in India. This is because in India we neither have awareness about ODR nor we have expertise to mange the same. Realising the same, Perry4Law and PTLB have provided the exclusive technology dispute resolution policy of India and ODR policy of India so that ODR may gain popularity and a wider acceptance in India.

At PTLB we provide the exclusive techno legal ODR services in India. These ODR services cover areas like cyber law, cyber security, cyber forensics, technology dispute resolution services, film and entertainment industry disputes resolution, etc.

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has been planning to expand the list of generic top level domain names (gTLDs) among several issues. The same was put as one of the items of the agenda to be voted and decided by ICANN at the second public meeting of the year on 20th June 2011 at Singapore.

Finally, after a long gestation period, ICANN has approved the idea of allotting new gTLDs. Of course, this allotment would not be simple process and filing of gTLD applications would need good techno legal expertise.

Further, these gTLDs allotment would also give rise to many unforeseen challenges and domain name, brands and trademarks disputes in the future. An improper representation of a case or domain dispute may result in loosing the same. Thus, before agitating a domain name dispute at national and international level, knowing of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy of ICANN is a must.

We hope this note would help all the present and future domain name holders and ICANN’s new gTLDs applicants.

The Role Of ICT In Effective Judicial System

Information and communication technology (ICT) has a crucial role to play in the timely and effective justice dispensation. Online dispute resolution (ODR), e-courts, video conferencing, digital evidencing, sending bail orders and notices through e-mail, knowing online status of cases, online delivery of certified copies of judgments, etc are some of the examples of use of ICT for effective justice delivery.

Successful establishment of e-courts can take care of all the abovementioned aspects of use of technology for effective judicial system. E-courts can take care of issues ranging from filing of cases to the delivery of certified copy of the judgment.

In the Indian context, we are still waiting for the establishment of first e-court of India. Although media reports of establishment of e-courts in India have been surfacing from time to time since 2003 yet as on data we do not have a single e-court in India. Media reports have confused “computerisation” with e-courts as all that has happened in India is computerisation of some traditional aspects of litigation and nothing more.

E-courts require the capability and expertise to provide all litigation services in an online environment. To achieve that purpose we need to have e-courts skills development initiatives in India.

Law Ministry of India must urgently take initiative in this regard as sufficient funds have already been allocated for establishment of e-courts in India and for improving the judicial infrastructure of India.

It has been more than 8 years since it was first declared that e-courts would be established in India. However, lack of expertise has failed this much needed integrated mission mode e-governance project of India. Time has come to give it a dedicated try.

Online Dispute Resolution For Cross Border E-Commerce Transactions

Online dispute resolution (ODR) is the latest trend in dispute resolution services, especially in European countries and developed nations. For instance, European Commission has recently suggested use of ODR to resolve various disputes.

Even otherwise projects are in process in Europe where technology would be used to enhance access to justice. Even international organisations like World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) are considering use of technology dispute resolution services through ODR in one form or other.

European Commission has in the past recommended use of ODR for cross border consumer disputes. Further, the intentions of international community to use ODR for cross border e-commerce transactions are also well known. So what is this ODR and why it is assuming so much importance these days?

ODR essentially involves innovative use of information and communication technology (ICT) to resolve disputes. ODR is an improvement of the traditional alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms like arbitration, mediation, conciliations, etc. Although all these forms of ADR mechanism are still used in ODR yet the main difference is that of technology.

Being technology driven, ODR is a very wide field. It can be used for resolving various interpersonal disputes including consumer to consumer disputes (C2C) or marital separation; to court disputes and interstate conflicts. However, the most significant use of ODR is its application to e-commerce.

In particular ODR is most suitable for resolving disputes arising out of business to consumer (B2C) and business to business (B2B) online transactions.ODR is also conducive for resolving disputes between parties that are residing in far away and opposite countries of the World. In this ICT connected World, ODR is increasingly used for resolving disputes arising out of cross-border electronic commerce transactions, including B2B and B2C transactions.

However, ODR cannot succeed in the absence of harmonised legal and regulatory framework. There must be a common standard and best practices for ODR to succeed. Similarly, another key factor for the success of ODR is efficient enforcement. Without efficient enforcement ODR would lack the appeal to the parties to adopt ODR for dispute resolution.Although the journey of ODR has begun yet it has still to cover a long gap.

At Perry4Law we would always strive for the betterment of ODR in general and parties to the dispute in particular. Our specialised Techno Legal Segment Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) has been working in the sphere of “International Harmonisation” regarding ODR.We are not only providing Techno Legal ODR Services but are also working in the direction of Research, Training, Education and Policy Making regarding ADR and ODR. We hope our initiatives and efforts would prove useful for all concerned.

Perry4Law and PTLB are presently working in the direction of formulating a framework that is compatible for both national and international ODR and technology dispute resolution institutions and organisations. We would come up with the same after some time once our national and international cooperations and collaborations are clear.

European Commission Suggested Use Of Online Dispute Resolution

European Commission has been actively involved in using information and communication technology (ICT) for dispute resolution. Whether it is alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or online dispute resolution (ODR), European Commission is recommending use of technology to resolve various disputes.

Recently European Commission suggested use of ODR for cross border consumer disputes. Tilburg Law School at Tilburg University has also launched a project that would sue technology in Europe to broaden access to justice. Now European Commission has suggested use of ODR for consumer dispute resolution. The Commission says this will be a cheaper and possibly more effective way for consumers to get redress in disputes with traders

The European Commission wants member states to introduce online alternative dispute resolution (ADR) schemes consumers can use when in dispute with traders. The Commission is concerned about an absence of ADR schemes in some market sectors. It also said the lack of information available to both traders and consumers about ADR schemes needed to be addressed.

While European countries and developed countries are adopting ADR and ODR to a great extent, ODR in Asian countries has not been successful. In the Indian context we have no ODR Policy in India. Even we do not have a Technology Dispute Resolution Policy of India. Now we at Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) have provided ODR Policy of India and Technology Dispute Resolution Policy of India. We hope this would be helpful for all concerned. We also hope India would also consider active sue of technology for dispute resolution.

Technology Would Be Used In Europe To Broaden Access To Justice

Access to justice can be broadened if we use information and communication technology (ICT). For example use of online dispute resolution (ODR) and e-courts can greatly enhance the access to justice to a vast majority of population that is still not being able to get the same.

Further, open source software can come as a handy tool for establishing these technology driven platforms for ODR and e-courts. We need not to spend a hefty amount upon proprietary software in order to establish an ODR and e-court platform. Of course, we need technical skills and e-courts skills in order to achieve this purpose.

A consortium, led by Tilburg Law School at Tilburg University has appointed Connect Internet Solutions to develop an application to help legal practitioners measure the costs and quality of their legal procedures. This would broaden access to justice. Once completed, the application will be available in 6 European languages and support those who provide online dispute resolution, including mediators and advisors. It will be particularly relevant for cross-border disputes. It’s being developed using an open source framework, based on a Linux platform.

Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) have been advocating use of ICT for a broader access to justice in India, especially for marginalised segment of population. Let us hope that Indian government would also undertake a good project like this.

Online Dispute Resolution In Asian Countries

Online dispute resolution (ODR) is an emerging dispute resolution mechanism. It uses information technology for effective and speedier dispute resolution. Online dispute resolution in India (ODR in India) is also gaining momentum but the pace of its growth and adoption is very slow.

Overall, the use of ODR in Asian Countries is not very good if we exclude few exceptional countries. Indian business environment is not great in the absence of suitable dispute resolution mechanism. The traditional litigation method of India is a real deterrent to bring foreign direct investments and foreign companies into India to do business.

Dispute resolution in cross border technology transactions is an area that has tremendous potential. However, ODR in India is facing many legal roadblocks that are preventing India from deriving benefit out of such disputes. There is an urgent need of International harmonisation of ODR norms and standards.

At the International Level, United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) is working in the direction of providing a “harmonised legal framework” for ODR. There are very few “ODR Providers” in India and, unfortunately, none of them are part of the recently constituted “Working Group on ODR” of UNCITRAL. This would “drastically reduce” the changes of “adequate and forceful representation” to be made to the Government of India for suggesting use of ODR in India.

Even the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism of India needs suitable rejuvenation. For instance, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 of India needs an urgent amendment to make it conducive for effective and speedier alternative dispute resolution in India.

While the European countries and developed countries are adequately utilising ODR yet Asian countries and developing countries are lagging far behind. If India wishes to be a global hub for ADR and ODR, it has to work really hard in this direction.