Part -3: e.Governance and e.Justice in India.

e.governance in India

In recent years the population of country has increased, and the world as a whole. The materialistic way of life has overwhelmed the society. The increase in financial and private institutions has favoured the ways towards the claim courts or recovery Tribunals. Lack of tolerance is another big problem in modern society, and speedy justice the sole issue of every litigant or refuse in an accused. Not only matters have changed but society and nature of crime grew more complex which affects the data to administer the justice system.

As part of its adjudication function, the Judiciary is in charge for the business of courts and the utilizing of court resources as well as the scheduling of cases and the obligation of judges. The Ministry of Justice is in charge for the budget and make a decision on staffing, the number of judges and physical facilities.

The cases, both civil and criminal, are increasing day by day in Indian society because of its massive population, the need for alternate methods and speedy justice becomes sole purpose of Indian judicial system. There were 2 crore cases, excluding disposable ones, pending in the judiciary which will overwhelm the institution in near future, and the time will not spare when the whole institution/system will collapse. In the recent reports by different experts mentioned that it might take nearly more than 300 years to dispose of the cases in India Praveen Dalal, techno-legal experts and MD of Perry4Law states that the justice in India needs techno-legal framework. He mentions," Till April 2011 we are still waiting for establishment of first an e-Court in India we have experts who can manage this". He further states regarding the illness tournament future and gadgets in the course, "Merely computerisation or procurement is of no use. If video conferencing and linkage of courts and prisons and other institutions is an e-Court model of India, we are heading towards nothing."

The speed-up hope of change is modifying the laws of game. Strategic thinkers must have broad vision. 25% of technology is getting absolute every year and change is occurring with great pace. Court technology leaders must focus not on the state of technology but the votes of technology change, and there is need to keep the food value of judicial system on which judiciary faces a head. Farrah the "electronic court strategy" means the plan to extend the choice for improvement and enhancement access to Justice. The "strategy" appeals to change the traditional ways of dealing with court. It demands irrespective of location of judicial staff must carry out duties in proper way and enable support judicial function. Withal "strategy and vision", the court leaders and managers should consider other issues, security, speed, integrity, consistency, flexibility, budgets, technology capabilities and accommodation of future change.

Speedy trial, one of the main aims of judiciary, a principle enshrined in the premable Indian Constitution. The Constitution has promised of securing to all of its cities in Justice and speedy trial under article 21, and only delay frustrates the right to life and personal liberty. Not only delay of cases denies Justice but it causes problem and anguish from both sides. It turns witness hostile because complaint enters from start of anguish to state of sympathy, and cause mental, physical and emotional harm to accuse it and to remain in jail for no reasons.

The Law Commission in its 230th Report states, “It is not uncommon for any criminal case to drag on for years. During this time, the accused travels from the zone of "anguish" to the zone of "sympathy". The witnesses are either won over by muscle or money power or they become sympathetic to the accused. As a result, they turn hostile and prosecution fails. In some cases, the recollection becomes fade or the witnesses die. Thus, long delay in courts causes great hardship not only to the accused but even to the victim and the State. The accused, who is not let out on bail, may sit in jail for number of months or even years awaiting conclusion of the trial. Thus, effort is required to be made to improve the management of prosecution in order to increase certainty of conviction and punishment for most serious offenders. It is experienced that there is increasing laxity in the court work by the police personnel, empowered to investigate the case.”

To overcome the sort of problems, Indian quadrant has taken steps to convert traditional courts to high-tech courts. The story of computerization in India actually took place when the need of technological upgradation was felt by the Law Commission of India in 1987 and inks it down in their Report. Chapter VIII of this Report depicts the need of technology in the judiciary.

 India has nearly 15,000 courts in 504 districts throughout country and the process to change judicial management to face after 2003 when law commission in December 2003 in its 188 the report proposed for "Constitution of high-tech fast track commercial division in High Court". The commission headed by Justice M. Jagannadha Rao proposal to Ministry of Justice in lieu of enormous political and economical changes in India, that investors, both foreign and domestic shall be dealt in "commercial division of the High Court" to provide speedy justice. In this respect commission proposal to provide courts with high-tech equipments like videoconferencing, computerisation etc.

In 1989 one computer was installed in the Supreme Court of India for caveat matching and in 1990 just as G C Bharuka at Patna High Court initiated the computerisation of court and in 1994 under to the introduction of ICT at Karnataka judiciary. (Karnataka judiciary has excellent role in adopting of ICT Sea action plan)

Indeed different inventiveness have been taken by the Government of India for the computerization of Indian Public Sector during nineteen eighties and nineties but a concrete step was taken up when under NeGP or National e-Governance Plan the Government of India pledged to make all public sector accessible to the citizens of India via electronic media/internet. It is under the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology and formulated by the Department of Information Technology (DIT) and Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievances (DAR&PG). This sketch was an outcome of the recommendations of the second Administrative Reforms Commission. The commission has scrutinized diverse features of e-Governance reorganization in India. The commission was of the view that still in any e-Governance project; the focus has to be on governance reforms with the technological tools offered by Information and Communication Technology being exploited to bring about essential changes in the governmental processes. The Plan comprised of 27 Mission Mode Projects (MMPs) and 8 components. It vision is “Make all Government services accessible to the common man in his locality, through common service delivery outlets and ensure efficiency, transparency & reliability of such services at affordable costs to realise the basic needs of the common man.”  One of the important NeGP include National Portal of India ,www.india/gov.in.

Central (9)

? Income Tax

? Central Excise      

? Passports/Visa

? Immigration   

? MCA 21

? National ID / UID

? Pensions

? e-Office

? Banking

? Insurance

State (11)

? Agriculture

? Land Records - 1

? Land Records - NLRMP

? Transport

? Treasuries

? Commercial Taxes

? Gram Panchayats

? Municipalities

? Police - CCTNS

? Employment

  Exchange

? e-District

Integrated (7)

? e-Biz

? EDI

? India Portal

? CSC

? NSDG

? e-Courts

? e-Procurement

Support Components (8)

· core Policies

· core Infrastructure.

· Support Infrastructure (cScs, etc.) 

· Technical Assistance

· R&D

· Human Resource

· Awareness & Assessment

· Organization structures

Indian e-Court project is going to change the business structure of the court and its users. The court working will be streamlined and through electronic Case flow management and document management, digital archiving, Tata sharing, access to digital libraries were where photos which will provide courts the equipments to improve "public safety and quality of life" and safe resolution of disputes and criminal cases. In next five years the judicial Department (with the help of NIC) will transform the business through the creation of statewide electronic court to provide a common experience for all citizens judges and legal community and will be existed through its web portals. We know that Indian judiciary is information intense you as the country ranks to second number in the world in software technology. The huge population gives this country of the demand for, withal provides its judiciary massive number of cases pending in its judicial Department, were more than 70% cases are pending in subordinate judiciary. This Department relies extensively on information because war depends on its flow and changes with the type of "communicative instruments available.". So this do for a Department relies on update accurate and available information to render fear and impartial Justice and inspire public confidence.

E-court committee.

The crucial inconvenience in the Indian judicial system were seen by reputed jurists constituting the National Commission to Review the working of the Constitution. They identified five problem areas in the functioning of the judiciary. These are:- 

a) ‘Undue delays in the disposal of cases and lack of sensitivity (accountability) to the mounting arrears of cases.’

b) ‘Injecting avoidable uncertainties in the law and thereby making the task of the Executive more difficult and sometimes unmanageable.’

c) ‘Lack of transparency in judicial appointments and transfers.’

d) ‘Poor management of resources and ineffective standards of judicial administration including legal aid.’

e) ‘Absence of strategic Action Plans for clearance of case arrears in courts.’

An e-Court committee was set up on December 2004 to digitise all courts throughout the country and a new horse set for one year. Continue what has been extended every year till February 2010 since it has been launched. The e.committe was set up on the proposal of Chief Justice of India in July 2004, and Ministry of law and Justice to coordinate with the judiciary and to "formulate international policy" to computerised the institution throughout the country.

e.court committee organises meetings and discussions with different institutions of information and complication technology to formulate a report which may guide judiciary in implementing the new regime. The report was made available to higher judiciary for further suggestions and editing. The committee had planned and frame the policy for its implementation for the fear of five years. "Based on the inputs received from persons having expertise in diverse Domians relevant for change management in Indian judiciary, the E committee has framed the present National Policy and Action Plan for its implementation during span of five years from the date of its effective commencement." The first phase was started in the beginning of year 2007 and the duration was for two years. The budget allotted was 854 crore and project had to be completed in five years. Budget estimation for the first phase was planned nearly 455 crores, for the 2nd phase (2 years) it was planned 225 crores and the 3rd phase (1 Year) it was estimated nearly Rs 174 crores.

One of the main purpose of the project was to dispose cases within limit time period because the disposal rate was very slow and it was considered that it may take more than 300 years to clear backlog of stock. The total pendency of cases in subordinate courts in India at the end of 2010 was over 2.7 crores, of which approximately 72% are criminal cases, and the reasons for delay exist within and outside the court system. Under the project, 12000 courts in 2100 court complexes were expected to be computerised by 31.3.2012 and 2249 courts in 969 court complexes are expected to be computerized by 31.3.2014. The total estimated cost of phase I of the project has been now estimated 935.00 crore.

Lack of experts and non-involvement of judicial staff has been considered a big hurdle to finish project in its given time scale. By close examination of the court project setup in other countries and international tribunals it has been verified that the establishment of project has a big hand of the employees within the judiciary because we knew what they were against. As Justice Madan B – Lokhar former judge at Delhi High Court has mentioned it in his article "case management and court administration", first and foremost, we need to get our facts and figures straight. Effective planning and management is not possible unless we know what we are up against …………, change is that may have to be bought about should come from within the system and not to superimposed by some other agency." The judiciary is not a place where experimentation can be done on a regular basis. Justice Madan B– Lokhar states, "Experimentation is good up to a point, but when it does not yield any results, it becomes a drag." One thing share to mention is that the big thing which NIC fields in their five-year plan, which was planned by the E.Committee, is "costless". It took two years for NIC to work on this project and to implement in Indian judiciary. In Jammu and Kashmir State the case information system (C I S) software start working in the middle of 2012 which actually should have been started before three years. It took months and years to introduce software and networking hardware is in the courts and judicial officers and other staff or not yet able to understand what they are up against and what is the fun of on un-user-friendly computers in the courts since it's starting in 2007 the e.court project is still for from its completion in 2012. It means every year crores of cases are filed in the courts.

The estimated cost and time which was planned in the "action plan" me to the E committee was 854 crores and for five years. The project was fixed for five years; phase 1 – two years, cost Rs. 455 crores; phase 2 – two years and costs 225 crores; phase 3 for one year and cost Rs. 174 crores. Since the project was started in February 2, 2007 and was completed in middle of 2012.

Planned by e-Committee & implemented from year Feb. 2007

Since Started in Feb 2011 till 2012

Amount

Time

Amount

Time

PHASE 1

455 Crores

2 Years

242

5 years & was proposed to be completed in Mar. 2012

PHASE 2

275

2 Years

-

Proposed to be completed in year 2014

PHASE-3

174

1 Year

-

-

TOTAL

854 Crores

5 Years

935

-Parliamentary consultative meeting was held on Monday 16th of May 2011 with the subject in progress in the court project and legal education. During the meeting of Ministry of more injustice which was also attended by NIC officials, different issues were discussed and reform of the major issues was the e.court project. The budget which was fixed at 844 crores was revised to 935 crore in September 2010 duty increase the number of courts and phase II to be completed in 2014 was planned in the meeting.

During the meeting different issues were discussed and one of the important issues which was discussed was regarding the open source software instead of proprietary software because it does not need much investment. Here I would like to mention that while always government seeks the way were they need to reduce budget. It's not only here which is always in front prayer to the goal and this creates the hurdles enthusiastic and emotional degridation, lack of confidence and loss of moral among the officials or committee working for the goal. Then there is the goal to be achieved within form must not get constrained by these problems. First there was a huge budget allotted for the eco-project now five years of implementation and on completion of the first phase has need for mental drive from the project, even there was rumours that the court committee has been dissolved. The lack of the court expert and un-active involvement of court officials are two main reasons behind the loss.

Other issues regarding software development and modification by the states and to impart regional language in subordinate courts software, technical manpower of good quality and other issues were discussed. In "action plan" the issue have already pointed out and one needs more attention is regarding software modification as per official language of the jurisdictional and it's have opened at state level. Since the 2007 when action plan was implemented very little has been done in this regard, the matter is two words the Jand K state judiciary is yet going to start the case flow management software prepared by NIC in Maharashtra at full-scale. It seems very far away when software development in regional language/state language will be conducted.

The issue of state/regional/jurisdictional language is very important and which is also emphasises the E committee "action plan" and restated during their Parliamentary consultative meeting on 16 May 2011 because culture has a great role to impart impartial Justice and has impact on consumers. Culture is like a multi-vitamin complex consisting of different vitamin C minerals. Same is culture consisting of "complex of knowledge, art, belief, more and habits acquired by man as a member of society." War as product or manifestation of society is effected by culture. The main focus of Justice is usually lower strata or middle class of society because these are the main actors and contributors in the society and consists of more than 80% of population. And especially in countries like India Pakistan where the culture and traditions has a big role to play in Justice sector and one of the main reasons for judiciary to remain more traditional and concentrate you. The software is being job offers are usually in English which becomes constrained for a judicial employees usually use jurisdictional language in day-to-day judicial work.

I would like to mention here that the words written in the ‘Action Plan’ regarding the need to internal change in Indian judiciay. It states “A review of the computerization projects…during last 15 years ………reavels that unless the court functionaries like judges and he court staff show a personal initiative and involvement for bringing about a change in its work culture by use of technology”. In the report the commission has admitted the need of internal change and the scope and purpose to safeguard the notion of quality justice and “meaningful effectiveness” and implementation of information and communication technology in 5 years.

When summons/notices or being sent to other states the report mostly is received back written in the regional language. Let us be more clear, even in J and K State or in other judiciary is, visuals usually use jurisdictional/regional language event they know English very well. It is regional impact is especially found in judiciary only.

The crime usually occur in lower strata of the society Where the literacy rate is also low and most cases pending for disposal belong to this strata or lower-middle-class society. Language being important element of culture needs information to be delivered in local/regional language, because regional differences may be so delicate or precise as to be difficult to describe for example one language may mean one thing but in another language its meaning is completely different. In some cultures people nod to mean "yes" but in other cultures like in Iran they nod to signified "no".

Neologism, newly used phrase which means new – speech, used in the language because of technology boom. Sometimes it has meaning which can be understood by a person who has used it. These new terms, especially in Computer world has created problems for others to understand. So because of differences in values and assumption, it is not possible to translate word to word meaning. For example the "case flow software" used in Indian judiciary needs to translate from regional/state language, to English in its exhibit/order section, to update the information regarding the case. For example in J and K judiciary all previous and present orders written in urdu or then translated into English to update electronic Case file. But it is impossible to meaningfully translate "word to word" from one language to another. Which may sometimes cause serious problems to impart impartial Justice. So it is dangerous to rely on translated language and it imparts the need of voice recording of judicial cases as well. It may be one of the reasons why the E committee has emphasises to add and develop regional languages in judicial software.

The problem by the judiciary is regarding translation of e.g. orders in the regional/jurisdictional language by judicial/E court staff to digitise cases in case flow software. The staff encounters problems in exact word translation, which sometimes change the nation and concept for case and new appointee/transferred judge are unable to get the notion only the case is based and the "soul part" of India moral. Other thing is possible where a judge can call file from clerk or record, but the whole process will become lugubrious and bogus, and the rationale behind the e.court will lose its weight. So it is important for e.court management committee to find some other way, which can be in form of scanning all interim orders and put them as exhibits with digital file. It will also decrease workload and will lead to impartial Justice. So the basic formulation of "case flow" needs to be changed.

The "software" formulation will never be solved until the E committee at Central and State level actually call participation of judicia/clerical staff. It is the clerk who actually manages the judicial files and day to day work. Judicial officers are not able to give, or really do not know, more time for this type of work because of too much work load. The clerk knows how to tackle the problem of "cause list", how to administer and manage day-to-day cases, process warrants/summons. One cannot achieve the goal/increase the productivity until the ground realities are not known and recognised. There is dire need of experts, which should have interdisciplinary knowledge, saying) for its professional who has both knowledge of and bio- science. It's very hard for computer professional to train in judicial work but easy for judicial employee to train him of computer knowledge and e.court system. Same, it becomes for bioscience student to become more professional in bioinformatics field. It's worth to mention here that the words prepared by the e.committee for implementation of the regime that, the main purpose is to, "provide speedy, qualitative and cost-effective Justice reducing harassment and corruption or enhancing transparency and accountability."

In its 11th Report (2008), Second Administrative Reform Commission has highlighted and discussed the issues relating the failure of the e-Governance projects in developing countries.

The Commission has mentioned the report published in ‘The Economist’. In a ‘Special Report on Technology and Government’ published in ‘The Economist’, it has been tinted that “So far, though, the story of e-government has been one of quantity, not quality. It has provided plenty of reasons for skepticism and not much cause for enthusiasm. ... Indeed, its most conspicuous feature has been colossal waste of taxpayers’ money on big computer systems, poorly thought out and overpriced. … More often, though, big government projects stagger into operation but work badly… Only rarely do promised benefits materialize. Some of those who have studied e-government call it a “dangerous enthusiasm”: a technological quick fix that distracts from the real tasks – hard and slow – of reforming government and running public services properly.

The Commission has also highlighted the issues for the failure of these types of projects. They have stated in their Report that the main factor behind the failures are:-

i. The technological interface of the project did not match with the IT-preparedness of the organization owning and implementing the project.

ii. The organizational processes did not match with the application platform provided by the technological solution.

iii. The management structures were not conducive to implementation and sustenance of e-Governance projects.

iv. Adequate resources (time, money etc.) were not allocated to e-Government projects

Rationale and core reasons behind "action plan"

1-  To enhance judicial productivity to make Justice delivery system affordable.

2- The development and you of information technology IT in the Justice of the court to make change in work culture and attitude.

3- Today court of law traditionally administration for similar criminal Justice, characterises by an older age backwardness, the to the rest of public/private sector and to enhance technological communication and management related change.

4- To enable web-based interlink to enhance cooperation and support at all levels making project a successful one.

5- Asst Chief Justice of India in formulating a of "National Policy" on computerisation of the judiciary.

6- To concurrently check and evaluate the "action plan" own field of cases and for its implementation during the time of five years from date of its implementation.

7- The hardware deployment in the courts be made within two years; in first phase, signing, upgradation, centralised database creation, digital archiving, Wi-Fi and video conferencing, coordination of ICT infrastructure for judicial system, software implementation. Phase 3 – "ICT coverage of judicial process from fighting the execution and of administrative activities" comprising of biometric facility implementation.

8- The creation of physical ICT infrastructure will include first, network planning and feasibility, study will include analysis of available structure in courts. Second "site preparation" for and other extra work. Third, ICT hardware and software system and infrastructure creation for "E committee" which include development of software by "in– house" ICT support staff. And to establish a link between courts and jails

9- to formulate a core group of technical staff, and researchers will support the committee for implementation of the goal.

10- The "in-house" consultants will be establishing to provide assistance for acquisition of hardware and software, and would identify the flow process of judicial system to formulate customised software .

11- To formulate "steering committee" of five High Court judges to overlook the tasks at the respect of High Courts.

12- Bodies involved in the process and implementation of gold consists of the committee, which will act as apex body for decision-making and controllers of overall process, the "steering committee" of judges, "central project coordinators, "district court project supervision committee", comprising of senior district judge visit to court officials having computer knowledge and to court staff having basic acquisition (knowledge) of electric and technical work; Tehsil/Taluka subdivision court in having senior/junior civil judge along with court staff having basic technical knowledge.

13- For the proper implementation of the code there is need for involvement of various agencies who will help in the project. Which will include; first NIC, for implementation of hardware/software in accordance with the request of the E- committee, second ‘Nodal agencies’to provide expertise in ICT management, installation and training of staff.

14- Creation of web portal with the address www.Indianjudiciary.in and Indiancourt.in for easy access to public and staff various issues and information is regarding case and judicial system. And to save time on various traditional methods of functioning. And to provide Internet service with more than 256kb speed.

15- Creation of "Dada base" for "Dada Central" for entering case and court related Dada at each court throughout the country," the vivid in real time, which will help in effect of case management and judicial decision-making. To provide individual e-mail ID to judges and the NIC will help in that project partially.

16- For development of "customising judicial software", which needs "full insight of organisational structure of judiciary."

17- Formulation/creation of in-house technologists and applications software which will meet international to find standards. Which needs the studies, analysis and software the open and at state level.

18- To impart training among judicial and administrative staff for smooth running of electronic court system. To create cellared manpower in-house who will act as promotional tours" and will execute various tasks involved in the project with selected personals of judiciary.

19- Upgradation of ICT infrastructure and setting up new one where visitors, particularly for supreme and high Courts the Wi-Fi system will be installed with catchment area of 1 km radius.

20- Use of court management and document management software tools for various judicial tasks like archiving, indexing etc

21- to digitise old case, library etc of supreme and high Courts within 3 to 5 years.

22- Creation of biometric facility at Supreme Court and all at all High Courts.

23- To make all and updated "statuary and case laws" readily available via Internet before the judges.

24- To install for full-scale is, DMS software for digitisation of all record in "the courtrooms" a district level.

25- Interconnectivity of all law libraries throughout India to avoid duplication, purchase and publishing costs.

26- To get "written commitment" from each state to bear the cost and maintenance after full implementation of the project (because the whole project is fully funded by central government)

27- one of the most important part of the project is videoconferencing between court and prison to save time and money of court and law-enforcement bodies.

28- Integrated digital document management system with digital inventory of files, properties, with digital signature and to create information gateway between court agencies and courts.

Comments and aftermath

the court project was formally launched on 9 to July 2007 by the work was started already in February 2007. The project is headed by the E committee and will be solely responsible for its implementation and ownership . And the agencies have to work in accordance with "recommendation" of the e.committee. During its first phase from February 2007 the laptops and printers with Internet facilities were provided to judges. Videoconferencing facilities were created, but only in high Courts, and which are not functioning yet in proper way or at some places it's working on experimental basis. The NIC was made responsible for the implementation of the project. At district level NIC personals are working under the district judge as a part of district project monitoring committee and the advice judiciary at district level regarding different activities of the court implementation. At High Court level high Courts have appointed central project coordinators for implementation of the project. NIC has made "comprehensive project progress monitoring system" to implement the project throughout the country. They have also numbered the number of court complexes, judges, High Court premises etc for appropriate action. Which includes distribution of laptops to individual judges, LAN, printers, computers for course, software installation and upgradation. The website as per 2009 report has 2280 court complex registration and it is upgrading time to time, 13365 laptops were distributed among judges. Home broadband was provided to them as per post of site preparation and installation at district level with servers. Each court has provided with 3 to 4 computers with laser and dot matrix printers. Training sessions has been provided by the court staff recruited by High Court according the guidance of NIC. But the main problem with these training sessions is that the judicial employees or facing hard to understand the language of computer technical personals. So there is dire need of interpreters, specially trained personals which can help both sides to understand each other's language.

Block diagram of key stakeholders for executing of the project

Regarding "judiciary Portal and e-mail services" of the two domain names Indianjudiciary.in and Indiancourts.nic.in has been chosen for the e-Justice business. There is another site eCourt.nic.in is available, where one can get information regarding the project, vendor and the committee login. The site has main purpose of project monitoring for "E-courts Mission, mode project". Software for digital signature on both Linux and Windows operating systems are also available. Which is free to install on computers and versions is valid till February 2013. Judicial laptop utility guide provides online help for users (judges) how to get family with their laptops and provides user-friendly solution for problems faced by judicial officers is in their day-to-day work. The site also provides tender documents for ventures, general guidelines for technologists, project documents and project reports. In future the service will include e.filing and the new interactive services. It was also proposed to issue unique e-mail ID to every judicial officer but unfortunately nothing has been reported upto district level or High Court level, still after four years of implementation event district court has no unique ID there is dire need for E committee and its heads to know where actually problem arises. Even High Court websites are meant for notices regarding staff transfers and cause lists. In the action plan it was planned that the portal will boost up the use of ICT and will help judicial management in taking decision at all functional levels and will bring ICT culture.

www.Indiancourts.nic.in is amalgamation of different high Courts of India and the Supreme Court. It is a nodal website which connects to other websites, or the user can find address of different High Court websites. It provides stakeholders the latest updates of judgements, orders, notifications, cause list, case-status with other information like rules, jurisdiction and history. This website is one of the greatest achievement of the court project, indeed they are all like Eunos present. It is user-friendly, easily accessible for common litigant and the needs of radiation i.e. Into more languages Hindi and Urdu at least. The hyperlink "JUDIS" provides information regarding judgement of Supreme Court and other courts of India and tribunals. "List of business information system" LIBOS which includes the auto generation of cause-list on respective dates so stops any manual manipulation with cause-list, and is regarded as "backbone" of every court as it contains information regarding new and old cases. The benefits of this system are; first cause list is generated automatically, second held in chronological order, third retrieves old and dismissal or disposal of cases within seconds, four statements are available with no time and daily activities are monitored. New Interactive services will include paying traffic tickets and fines. Usually it has been disgusted outside courts that the system has avoided some anomalies but the approach within judiciary is some different. For instance the auto generated cause list has also created problem and becomes time-consuming especially for those courts which have usually more than 50 listed cases. Like in Munsiff and subjudge-courts. When the cause lists are generated own dates a clerk which usually gets little time, has to sort of files as per auto generated cause list and again consumes more time and makes work hectic, laborious and frustration for a clerk.

Judiciary is different from other public or private departments or organisations, the place where Justice delivered a place where Jeff sits to bring a judicial mind, mind to "it reminded of what is fair". It is the place where people aggrieved of legislature and come for Justice. Indeed the Challenge in this century is to dispose of cases in speedy manner, but substantial justice to the aggrieved party. The Justice Department should not get afraid of increasing number of cases but should be aware that the people turn to the judiciary for getting Justice. In the same way judges usually call the cases as per his or her human instinct because he/she has to use "judicial mind" for the disposal of or hearing the case or argument. Some judges prefer to take particular case at first stage, some at middle and some at last stage of their daily work schedule. Let's be clear with a simple example if an argument/witness five under section 302 RPC has been listed for a particular date and judge wants it to be called first because its needs more attention and should be fresh minded to hear this case, but the auto cause list generation by the ‘software’puts it at last which creates problem in the system and to deliver in a personal Justice. So it is imperative for e.court experts and technologist is to upgrade the software to meet the requirements of judiciary, not judiciary shall follow technology. It should be made on "scientific analysis"" requirements. The NIC technologists should design the software not only on information provided by judicial officers but by holding interactive sessions with active court staff, which is the main motive of "action plan" for e.court implementation to achieve the goals. The software developers have full insights of organisational setup of whole judiciary and should have knowledge of special local laws (SSL) as well. Educated in the "action plan" "the analysts must have a clear knowledge and perception of court processes both on judicial as well as administrator side……… and should have a clear study of all the reform reports and findings given by the expert bodies."

But unfortunately we don't have real e.court experts in India and it is ironical that the followers and implementers does not know even what they are following and what is the notion of the court implementation. They simply do their job is the auto of their daily work. In its "implementation strategy" he court committee has stressed that own "cultural change" inside judiciary and "cultural change" is impossible unless change is made at grass root level and needs dedication and enthusiasm.

E committee has also mentioned that the software prepared by Karnataka High Court in-house for its subordinate and district courts in the State and was still use it. But the background reality is that the work was started at ground level with the dedication and keeping requirements of the respective court in front. So e-committee had made excellent job in this regard by preparing the standards for preparing of a "comprehensive and integrated software" to support at judicial as well as administrator level, where the committee has stressed that the software should be made on international standards and "the e-court committee may require the studies, analysis and software development to be conducted at state level." Which means there is necessacity of expert or professional with international experience of e.court tools and has knowledge of different laws found in the country with IPC codes.

The committee was very much aware of the judicial setup and its difference from other organisational setups, its traditional, conservativeness, and hard to adopt new technologies. They knew that if there is need to bring the change in Indian judiciary where most of the cases are in Munsiff court's and most litigants and respondents are illustrates or less literary, and staff being more concerned with due, there is essential need that a person from within system will have outsider to implement/achieve the goal, so "identified personals" will accompany the IT professional who can be an interpreter in court official and IT professionals. One can easily imagine the need of interpreter, so he/she should be able to convey the right message of both sides to each other. The e-court committee has defined these personals as "troubleshooters" and have stresses to have a cadre of "troubleshooters" for every court complex and "would be in a position to take charge of ICT infrastructure". So they should be given training and work with the e-court staff from the beginning but unfortunately nothing has been done in this regard. Because again the in-charge personal at state and district level has no or fewer knowledge about the concept and values of "action plan" made by the e-court committee or not interested at all.

Regarding digital archiving the eco-committee found it imperative to convert all record in Central/district record rooms into digital format by the help of computer attached scanner, so that the difficulty to maintain the massive record in form of Mountainous piles of rotten paper will be solved. And the document management software (DMS) can be used for its proper archiving. In India we have more than 600 record rooms and it is presumed that more than four years will take place to convert this paper into digital format.

With the advancement in technology the 25% of technology becomes absolute every year. Same like we had once "WAV" format file which takes towards space and then came, now we have a MP 4 format. In future the technology will be completely different than nowadays. So the technology is continuously changing with time and the digital file formats are changing with it. It means the software and its usage or so changing in other words the viability depends on technologies that rapidly change. So it becomes imperative for e-court administration to keep these facts in front and should have some technical staff which can continuously monitor and update digital archiving because digital archiving is not mere digitisation of court records but they are chain of processes which needs attention after its implementation.

Main procurement and plan for implementation of e.court regime in India (see action plan)

To implement all plans and achieve the goal, there is need to act now. That is to prepare site for hardware procurement to administration manage the e.Court System. In court complex and higher judiciary the general "guidelines" have been prepared, located at more than 2500 places.

(i) Computer centre (rooms)

the computer room is first important place where computer must be located which will be connected through LAN and WAN minimum speed of 250 6Kbps to BSNL. These things need proper cabling, for backups, air conditioning, proper flooring and furniture. In each court the number of computers are to be five with three printers.

(ii)  Video teleconferencing facility.

The establishment of video teleconferencing at 500 locations throughout the country has also been in the plan to decrease the rising graph of pendency of cases in the courts. This is the video teleconferencing has imperative effect, especially countries like India where the transportation and roads are not well established and usually in disturbed states, the law and order problem prohibits police to present the accused before the court on the date of hearing. The E committee has stressed to link courts with the prison to solve these types of problems through video teleconferencing.

(iii)    National Judicial Software, ‘Case Information System’ (CIS).

CIS is the latest and the first judicial software of Indian Judiciary designed and developed by the National Informatics Center (NIC) under e.Court Mission Mode Project..(write from cis)

(iv)    Laptops

laptops were provided of judicial officers which may forced and ICT culture in the judiciary. Withal Internet connections were also provided to them and in future they will use digital signatures for which software is free to download via an e-Court website with their unique e-mail ID, administrator user ID and password. It will help them to access different judicial databases, having their judgements on World Wide Web. More than 13365 laptops where provided to respect to judicial officers at district and taluka level throughout the country.

    There has been grievances that the Mozilla web browser and open office software cannot be upgraded. These types of problems causes problems during saving and retrieving the documents. Also MIC personal and other software professionals have clearly far is that the "open source does not accept any upgradation of the existing software". “CPC, Punjab & Haryana High Court mentioned that Mozila Web Brouser and open office software cannot be upgraded in the laptops given to Judicial Officers.  On enquiry by DG, NIC the representative of Red Hat clarified that because of the configuration of a customized scheme under the supervision of E-Committee, the OS does not accept any upgradation of the existing software. DG, NIC expressed concern that Judicial Officers are facing this difficulty and directed that the necessary technical measures should be done to ensure that browers, open office, tools and other software provided in the laptops can be upgraded without any problem.”

Challenges and difficulties.

The appropriate strategy and operational planning process is to access the variety of ICT application and the ways which can be integrated within courtroom. Which features resources court can use to prepare for future can use to fear for the future, including material on visioning, environmental scanning, future thinking, strategic planning, focus group etc. There are useful tools for planning and change management and aim to understand and cope with long-term forces of change.

Marco Febri, a Techno-legal researcher, depicting the problems faced by the E-Justice in European justice sector states, “ E-government projects in many EU judiciaries tend more and more to be outsourced, both because of lack of ICT development skills within court systems and because outsourcing is felt to be more cost efficient…In particular, the shortage of skilled people in ICT in the administration of justice, where salaries are generally not comparable with the market, is becoming a very sensitive problem, strengthening a problematic dependency on the vendors.” At other place he says that the investment in ICT sector in judiciaries are still driven by decisions made in the past, and this problem creates a big challenge for courts in future. If the technology becomes obsolete after 4 years then how it is possible for courts to remain parallel with other organization if decisions made are implemented after decades. Indian judiciary is facing the same problems for the implementation of ICT in courts. Clerks which are eyes and ears still get 1/10 of pay of a judge and most of the Indian states are reluctant to pay their judicial clerks as per the already recommended Shetty commission pay plan. Whereas the judges are getting their monthly salaries as per the Commission.

The implementation of the court School has failed to more or less extent because of lack of foresight on the part of those who are managing the e.court project. The most pressing procurement of the e.court is at ground level, computerisation or procurement without proper training of judicial staff is of no use. If video teleconferencing, presentation of evidence and link of court prison for implementation of software is electronic court tomorrow then we are heading towards nothing, but e-Court is much more than mere connectivity and computerisation.

As stated in 11th Report of Second Administrative Reforms Commission , for Promoting e-Governance :-

‘e-Government is not about ‘e’ but about ‘government’; it is not about computers and websites, but about services to citizens and businesses. e-Government is also not about translating processes; it is about transforming them. e-Government is concerned with the transformation of government, modernisation of government processes and functions and better public service delivery mechanisms through technology so that government can be put on an auto-pilot mode’.

The problem in this country has been discussed by Geeta Obroi in her article. She discusses the challenges which Indian judiciary still faces in this high-tech age. She discusses in her article ‘The Limitation Of The Training Discourse For Continuing Professional Development Of Judges’ when Judge Morrison England of the U.S. District Court, demonstrated how the new reforms from past one decade has transformed the federal courts in the United States enormously. He demonstrated to trainee judges from Maharashtra’ how he accepts e-filings, e-documents and digitally signs and writes his orders and judgments through his I-Pad even without being physically present in the court or the country’. She writes… “rather than accepting the benefits that accrue if they take advantage of the advancements in the judicial profession around the world, started questioning the usefulness of all this progress. This negative response to the electronic court management process stems from the fact that the government of India has not allocated laptops to all the judicial officers in the trial courts, and not completed the computerization of all the trial courts. Therefore, even now there are trial courts with no computer and internet connectivity, no soft sources of law which can be easily accessed and incomplete libraries for reference. Most of the judges do not know how to use computers and draw a blank when acquainted with their benefits.”  The story does not stops there but the same type of problems are faced in every road which leads to the modernization of courts in every respect which is in form of training, computerization or else. If training is imparted it is imparted in wrong way. It is just given for the sake and to put down their burden and get compensation or take booty form the allotted funds. During my tenure I have not seen a single person which is working with dedication or for the sake of change. It is not because of their mistake but the working conditions and the practical guidelines issued by higher authorities. For the God Sake how it is possible for a judicial department which has Vigilance Department and its registrar is heading the e.court of the state. When this section is not able to do justice with his employee who has sent, not one but thousands of representation on his behalf to solve his pending case in the Vigilance section for lost of document or a file during his time as a clerk, or a person accept his guilt because his promotion has been either stopped or he not getting his full salary for years even he request his innocence with representations but still nobody in the Vigilance section is ready to see his representation. Or even the e.court staffs are not getting monthly salaries for months. And now how can one expect full scale and right implementation of e.court project in India.

Geeta Obaroi also comment on Justice Ayer’s statement where he states “…choices are almost personal, uncontrolled by socially accountable canons and compromises among the thesis. The candidates once selected or rejected are jettisoned or again midwife for unknown grounds. The bar and the public are in the dark. Judges, transferred for suspect behavior emerge as chief justices of a high court or even members of the Supreme Court. One high court judge who rarely attended court or wrote a judgment was made chief justice of Kerala High Court by the bizarre wisdom of the feudal few of the apex court accidently at the top. To be brief, in the art of choice, the process is a riddle wrapped in mystery, inside an enigma. Management of the judiciary needs vigilance, research, social perspective and national commitment, people’s concerns and socialist, secular convictions.”

To participate successfully in a network based global economy, governments requires to be equally leaders and facilitators. The developing countries like India faces another big problem that when a government or a planning commission or any commission present their recommendation every person tries to enforce the recommendations as per their own choice. Let me be more clear with an example, the E-Committee and other documents reveal that there is need of speed and speedy disposal is important to reduce backlogs and pending cases in the Indian judiciary. Also High Courts of the states under the pressure of either Supreme Court of India or by central government pressured the bottom line courts for the speedy disposal of the cases. It has been observed that this pressure also creates problems and that problem is worse than the problem if the case remains pending in the courts for years, and that problem is the volunteer acceptance of guilt by an accused or under pressure by the concerned judge who just want to reduce his backlog and increase its points in the ‘contested cases’ row of monthly statement. This is not the way to deliver justice. The injustice any where is injustice everywhere or ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere’. Another problem which our country faces is that there is still a ‘wide gulf between our policy initiatives and intents and the actual achievements’. As stated in 11th Report on e.Governance that, ‘Despite important policy initiatives and significant achievements in the economic and social sectors in our country, we still have a long way to go before achieving our full potential for development. This is because there is still a wide gulf between our policy initiatives and intents and the actual achievements’. 

Key issues faced in the e-Court project implementation

i-       Lack of interest:- One of the key issues faced in the e-Court project implementation is the lack of interest among judicial officers and court staff. But the lack of interest of judicial officer regarding e.court project implementation is of main concern. This problem was also felt by the E.Committe which stated, ‘A review of the computerization projects undertaen in the Indian courts during the last fifteen years mostly at the High Court levels and in 1997 at District Court level reveal that unless the court functionaries like the Judge and the Court Staff show a personal initiative and involvement for bringing about a change in its work culture by use of technology, the efforts can hardly succeed at the touch stone of speed and quality’.

 The judicial officers are often unwilling to abide by the orders issued under the project implementation which directly impacts working environment of the whole judicial work. I would like to produce an example in this regard that when I was working as a institution countering charge in the court of principal district and sessions judge Srinagar, Kashmir. A clear order was issued by the principal judge that the courts within the Saddar court complex first ensure before instituting any case should have been given the computer number at the institution counter so that information regarding every file "complex should be uploaded in the main database. The order was issued keeping in mind some major problems, which was discussed between the principal district judge and the institution counter charge because lawyers used to play a tricky game when the file was allocated from the main allocation court i.e. principal district and sessions judge’s court, to other courts having jurisdiction for that case. Sometimes lawyers used to bring the same case 3 or 4 times so that it could be allocated to the court where they wish to allocate that case. The other purpose was to stop redundancy, accountability and proper allocation.

      Unfortunately it was observed that after issuance of the order regarding this matter the judges did not gave any concern to this issue by which problem arose in the proper implementation of the e-Court project. Sometimes it was seen that the judge issued the interim or status quo orders without having any computer number on the file, also the concern clerks did not showed any response when they see that the judicial officer is not also willing to implement the order. I had also aware some judicial officers regarding this matter but in spite of that they never showed any response. There are many factors which cause the non-obligation of the orders by higher authorities or even suggestions or advices by the concerned or senior clerks or administrators. Some of the main issue are ‘poor quality of legal training’ to judges and staff, lack of ‘enthusiasm’ because of heavy work load, poor legal education, ‘lack of motivation’, ‘training by employing methods of fear, sanctions and disciplinary techniques’ are few among the major problems.

ii-       Inadequate funds:- Because of inadequate funds the project cannot go further, indeed the e.court project of India is fully financed by the Central Government although the state has to take over the project after full implementation which was planned as per the Action Plan prepared by the E-Committe. In J&K state the state government has undertaken the project partially in beginning of 2012 in which they provide just the salary of e.court staff, but unfortunately the monthly salary given is not paid on monthly basis but in instalments which also cause the lack of interest and enthusiasm among the e.court staff. During the digitization of case fillies, which only includes the main information like title and addresses of the parties, the e.court heads of the state has promised judicial employees who voluntarily digitized the information in the computer for Rs 8/- per file, nothing has been given to them which also made volunteer judicial employees unconcerned and a bit of hate between higher and lower staff, which higher authorities actually does not feel.  

iii-       Absence of In-house technical staff. – Usually in other court countries and some international tribunals there are in-house technical staff but NIC is the present control of the project and indeed place their monopoly in the judicial business which may be prejudicial to render impartial Justice. And the court is dependent on external staff/agencies over which court administration has no control. There is need of personals who are “well versed with information technology and the particular Justice delivery system”. This problem has also been highlighted by the e-court committee in their Action Plan that, "implementation of ICT in judicial system has suffered setbacks for want of an in-house dedicated technical and forming part of its establishment and cadres. The court had to depend for technical support of external agencies, over which the court administration had no control." It also causes non-cooperation and/or obstruction among the judicial staff and the staff of external agency because the judicial staff has a feeling that why they will get orders from those personals who are not the part of judiciary. Sometimes this gap creates differences and badly affects the main goal.

iv-       Senior staff; more or less most senior staff over struts the way of implementation of the e-Court project because if a person has worked for more than 20 or 30 years in a traditional way, it becomes very hard for him to change his style of working and this hampers the whole system because ‘every activity is related to each other.’ But it has also been seen that some senior staff which are nearer to retirement are able to understand how to deal with new e-Court regime and its implementation. Even I have seen the age old guys who have worked within judiciary for more than 25 years in a complete traditional way, with age more than 55 years, still do better job than the young personals who are not interested for the proper implementation of the e.Court System in the Indian judiciary. 

v-       lack of proper Trainer and inefficient e.court staff: As discussed above if a person even a 55-year-old guy will be properly handle or trained, he will be in a position to understand how electronic court system works and what are the benefits of this new system. But unfortunately it has been observed that lack of professional trainer can create a big problem in multi-million projects because the need of training is not just to make people understand how thing works but to create enthusiasm and to boost the morale of a person/student. The trainer is considered as the main stakeholder in the training programme because his/her attitude influences the other participants in a training program and helps to realise the objective of training because each partaker forms their own observation towards training and he removes all ‘mental blocks’ of trainee.

          During different training programs I have personally observed that the trainers who were giving training to the judicial staff during the initial time of the e.court implementation were never professional trainers before, and was first time giving training will court staff. It was observed that court staff who were participating in the training programme were not able to understand what those simply IT professionals were saying and what they were understanding, it was just simply a training regarding computers and its history. Where it was required first to make them understand why they were in the training programme and what benefits they can reap from it. In opposite, it was found that the court staff which was present in the training programme found it a burden on their shoulder and a formality to join training program because of pressure from higher authorities. 

     A big problem of unprofessional training is the redundancy in every court. By redundancy the author mean that in every court the information and data regarding the case file is stored in digital as well as written format. In all jurisdictions of Jammu and Kashmir judiciary the data is stored in both digital and written format. A clerk maintains a physical file in which he keeps the record of the case as he was doing before in the traditional way and also keeps its digital record, which is then uploaded to the main server. What has been observed in every court in Kashmir jurisdictions that the proper information which needs to be uploaded in the case Information Systems (CIS) software is not properly done, and very brief information regarding the case file is uploaded in the database. The main reason behind this problem is the doubling of work load i.e. both in digital as well as physical format. The clerks does not know then what is the fun of digitising the case record, and the problem remains with the unprofessional and weak training by the e-court trainees.

       The inexperienced e-Court staff is one of the main problems behind the less productivity e.court project and its implementation. The Recommendation of the Administrative Reform Commission’s Forth Report on ‘Ethics in Governance’ also takes the issue of departmental specific activities. It states “For computerization to be successful, computer knowledge of departmental officers needs to be upgraded. Similarly, the NIC needs to be trained in department specific activities, so that they could appreciate each other’s view point and also ensure that technology providers understand the anatomy of each department (paragraph 6.4.7c)”. As the court or more resistant to the chains because of the reasons mentioned at various places in this discourse, the e.court trainers must be stupid with the state of art mental ability to change the mental aptitude and traditional behaviour of judicial officials. As one of the writer has once said that if a time traveller of 16th century will come to the earth in this age, he will recognise two places is really, one is the court and other will be church, and and it is the place where the E-court trainers and the E-courts staff has to work. As technological change has always caused anxiety for those people whose task it is to negotiate the change between old and new media.

It's not only in India that we are lagging in this field, but the problem is throughout the whole world, where IT bureaucracy has created more problems in the way. It's not the place where anyone with Ph.D. or MBA can tackle the situation in simple way, but the word is really hard to face. The author of one of the leading book on E-Justice has recognised that the implementation of "ICT have been, until quite recently, generally much slower and programmatic" and the judiciary is divided between "cyber optimism and cyber pessimism" because those who consider it as negative feels that it may put fundamental rights "in danger" and will cause "legal insecurity", "illegal use of information, privacy loss, and those who consider it positive i.e. "cyber – optimism", or news that it will cause independent judiciary, ‘authenticity of documents’, impartial Justice and ‘accountability’.

vi-       Power cuts: the other main problem which is considered as a big hurdle in maintaining the continuous work during the official hours is power cuts. We are living in a country where power cuts remain a challenging problem in both public and private sector industries and the same is effecting the proper judicial work in the courts which are now dependent on electricity than before. If a person is working on computer for a half day and for second half he/she is without power supply which forces him to follow the traditional system of working, especially in the courts where the workload is very high. It is frustrating when a clerk or judicial officer who is working on computer and has done half work and left without power supply to complete another portion of his work. The power backup is not a continuous thing on which the whole court or a court complex can rely for more than 3 or 4 hours especially when it is winter time and some areas are without power supply for days. The generators are also money consuming product which needs lot of fuel. There are other ways in which the solar energy is the best way to overcome the power cuts states like Jammu and Kashmir especially in winter time. Jammu and Kashmir state has established a solar power project at go government women's polytechnique in Srinagar which provides more than 100 MW of power supply to the whole college.

vii-       Un-friendly User Software: The installation of an user-friendly software is also another problem for the smooth implementation of electronic court project. More sober people throughout world or acquainted with Microsoft software and routinely use it in their day-to-day life. It has been observed in the courts that the software installed on thin clients which are mostly used in the courts, especially by the clerk's and court staff, always face the problems and sometimes clerks get frustrated because of this un-user-friendly software. Also the training in this regard is very cheap and mostly the pirated software are used in the judiciary and even used by the high ranks of judicial officers which are the saviours of law, breaches the copy right laws by their own hands. It has been viewed that some clerks or especially steno-typists or P.As have installed pirated software of windows on their computers because they are not able to work on the software provided to them on their computer which they are not even able to upgrade. Or even it is upgraded then they have to make so many requests and then after waiting of long time they get some alternate or up-gradation. If it has been some user friendly software then even e.court staff does not need to give training to the staff which need more budget or if the problem arises then mostly the staff sort out the problem by their self as they are already acquainted with that software. Mostly what happens that the PAs or steno-typists need to take whole data or remaining part of work to their home and they always face problems in opening the word files because their systems are usually or always windows based system. What is in theory but in practical world these problems arises and the whole court staff faces these problems in their day to day life.

The other reasons for delays & pendency as identified by authorities including the Law Commission are:

a. Interruption in implementation of various recommendations and deprived resource distribution to the judiciary together with the absence of will to introduce transformation.

b. Be deficient in effectual will to introduce reforms.

c. Restructuring proposals to do with manpower planning being hotchpotch, ad hoc and unsystematic solutions to the problem. And Lack of sufficient training and appropriate orientation.

d. Nonexistence of hard technological information and analysis of manpower planning

e. Be short of observance to fundamental measures and principles of case-management and disposal. And lack of appropriate tracking of cases and pendency.

Legal framework

The concept of e-Justice is relatively new for the countries like India. As there is no particular legal framework in our judicial system which can force government to establish and implement meaningful ICT within judiciary. But from vast few years the new rules are attempts by the law with technology and organisational realities generated by the tremendous growth of electronic data bases, e-mailing and the Internet. The court to be faster in the real sense needs to get more nearer to technological change is happening around. Otherwise the courts has to suffer the tremendous burden of waste for, redundant review. In turn the main stakeholders require to clearly understanding the electronic retention policies (protocols).

Let me here make it clear the legal policies and changes within domestic and international legal system for the adoption of modern technology in the judicial system. In international judicial system at international criminal court for the advancement of its core technology, three important rules have been formulated in their legal text and much concern was given by the "Assembly of States parties" to adopt the rules which could add up future technologies. First, regulation 26 of the "Regulation of the court" provides that the courts are set in place a reliable, secure and efficient computer system, para to of the same regulation authenticates the Registry to implement the system in this regard. Regulation 24 of the "Regulations of the Registry" describes the filing of documents, materials, or orders and decisions with the Registry and Para 2 authenticates the electronic version of filings in order to overcome the geographical and spatial limitations as well as the time limitation for work force. Pursuant to article 64(10) of the Rome Statute; Rule 137 after "Rules of procedures and Evidence" and Regulation 41 and 52 of "regulation of the Registry" the Registrar has been given the responsibility to ‘take necessary measures to make’ and preserve(archive) proceedings in different formats and ensure full and accurate model of means of audio – video recording of hearings. And to put in place a system of electronic management of evidence held by, and exchanged between, the parties to its proceedings, and pursuant to rule 52(1), the evidence ‘shall be presented in electronic format’. Pursuant to hold 19(b) of Rules of procedure and Evidence, the president of ICTY (International criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia) adopt the "Provisional Practice Direction on the Application of an Electronic Court System" in order to provide a framework for a reliable and secure electronic system to support the efficient management of court proceedings.