The jury. Or somewhat so!

This Thursday morning until Friday afternoon, we had a peer to peer feedback session on our progress so far. In a three member panel, we each became a jury member equal to another group!

Though we smiled about it at first, it worked out pretty well by the end. The feedback was detailed, critical and helpful.

First of all, it was not just our own group feedback that rung the bell in our heads. Even while we sat for others, we realized very important things. For instance, we hadn't, so far, penned down our Vision Statement. What is it that we are trying to do ultimately? Of course, we had thought about it now and then, but never so seriously to define it.

So once we got down to it, we figured that in the whole Judicial System, the most important person is the Litigant. It's his problem and his right to get justice. All the others in the way; the lawyers, the judges, the staff; they're all simply facilitators. So we defined our Vision Statement to making it easier and quicker for the litigant to get justice; to reduce his unnecessary anxiety and make his entire experience less taxing. Why should he have to go through so much trouble just to get what he must rightfully have?

On the same lines, there were other points that came up in the discussion. There is always fear of something that we do not know about. So since people don't know about the working of the Judiciary, they're afraid of getting stuck in it. And clearly, we don't remember any of our civics lessons well enough that they be of any assistance. And one fine day you realize you're in the middle of the hassle and have no idea whatsoever how to go about it. So at what age and stage, and how must one be taught about this system? How can one be made aware enough that one loses the fear of it?

The whole process needs to be more user centric. It's not about you but about the system right now, whereas, reiterating, it is in fact the litigant who should be in the centre of things. 

The information must be accessible as and when one needs it and not so much earlier that one forgets it. Must the constitution be more readily available as well as easier to comprehend? Or will more information be more harmful than beneficial?

How can one deal with the active and passive waits? (In this case, the former would be when one is waiting for the next hearing, or other court procedures, and the latter when one's case hearing is going on, for instance. For more interesting insights on this subject, see another systems project from our class on waiting: http://waiting365.wordpress.com/ ) Is there a way to deal with the user's anxiety? There is a certain amount of satisfaction that one gets from knowing what is going on in something that one is involved in. Can there be a progress bar to quantify the process?

So one of the important suggestions was that because we are trying to keep the litigant as our point of focus, we can try to follow one case from start to end and talk to more litigants, and then use empathy tools, which is something we haven't been doing so religiously so far.

We also have to see that in the whole process, the stakeholders must not feel less important. The emotions, the human touch; they all have to be taken care of. ("Mera case hai. Achchhe se hona chahiye.")

Another suggestion was to study the Panchayat System as another self sufficient establishment. We hadn't done that beyond our knowledge from school level civics (which I have already mentioned we don't remember much of!)

Can popular media be used as a powerful tool to affect the system? Could and should the judges be linked to the litigants? What kind of an incentive can be given to the stakeholders to WANT to speed up the process? Will the jury system be better for India? If not, why?

These were some questioned that were still unanswered.

Trying to save ourselves from drowning in this pool of questions, at 4 am on a Sunday morning, this is Prithvi and Shivani, signing out to get some sleep.

But why the Judiciary??

So where were we? Oh yes! That one fine night when we questioned; why is the judicial system there as it is today? What was the whole point? The need? When you and your friend/your enemy/a stranger have a fight, you'd rather listen to a third person who you've never met or spoken to before and let them decide for you than settle matters among yourselves. Why is that so acceptable, even comforting?

So, we thought it's possibly human nature to want a Social hierarchy and Rules (please excuse the spelling error and dumb drawings!). That's how it's always been. There are kings, dictators, teachers, parents, judges, policemen, priests and many more who have always been higher in the social hierarchy, and then there are rules always guiding you. Religious rules. Parental rules. Democratic Rules. Moral rules (Ethics?).Traffic rules! And without them, there will be chaos.

At some point, they also collide because you want rules to bring about equality, so that everyone follows the same, and then you also want people to execute and enforce the rules, thus bringing them on another social level, thus breaking the equality you wanted in the first place!

So, if this human trait is the need of this whole system, and suppose this system was never there, what could we come up with? A completely different alternative? I'm sure it's as crazy and complicated as it sounds, or more. But it sounds like a logical systemic way to think of this whole problem. Is there more we are missing out on? Where do we begin when we've landed right back into that endless sea that we tried to narrow down from three weeks back?

We thought. We talked. We saw.

With those initial ideas in mind, we started speaking to people; people inside the system or related to it. So that included quite a few phone calls along with a couple of more visits; to GNLU, to the High Court, and more.

So as we had already mentioned previously, our ideas so far were from inside the system, incremental mostly with the aid of technology, and then from the outside to assist the litigant, like the call centre idea. Now the funny part was that while on one hand, we were told that for reasons like the subjectivity of legal advice and the liability that would follow it, a call centre would not work, on the other we discovered that there was already a legal helpline in Gujarat under their Legal Services Authority of the State.

Above is, in short, how the Gujarat legal helpline functions from their office in Shahibagh, Ahmedabad. It runs along with the Legal aid and ADR, so together it can assist the litigant in a variety of ways.

So then we thought we could take the rough model of Gujarat and alter and improve it to fit another state with problems on a much higher level.

But then, one fine night, it dawned upon us...

The beginning of solutions, systematically enough?

Inspiring as they were, the existing systems ended up bringing out some pretty interesting points.

We had started building more connections. So it started off by mapping the system, then finding faults and finally picking out some of them and trying to find solutions with the help of other systems.

..As the spread increased..

..A lot more inter-connections came out..

..And we started recognizing stakeholders involved at each of the points.

The two perspectives that we started looking from were:
One, from inside the Judicial System, and
Two, from the outside, from the litigant's point of view.

In the former, we looked at a few incremental solutions based on measures that were already being taken to speed up courtroom and administrative processes. For example, computerization has already been taking place for a while now. They will probably digitize the process of filing also sooner or later and make the process paperless. (If not, well, we could recommend that too! But there will be some amount of getting used to required before people will be open to so much technology.)

But technology is not our solution. In this case, we are trying to look at making the best of what is already being provided. So, if filing be digitised, can changes be managed from the office of the lawyer. That'll save a few visits back and forth and make things faster and more convenient.

Can adjournments be managed before cases reach the court? (Above is a small model of how it could work out) That should save some time in the courtroom.

If they are already planning to set up E-courts, how well can one harness the potential of the screen? A common one, or personal screens for the judge/s and the lawyer/s? Can navigation through case files be made faster? Or will it be detrimental? May be a few quick pointers will help the judgement; like the number of adjournments that have already been taken in a case might help the judge decide whether to give another one or not. What kind of information can assist the judgement of a judge? With so many cases in a day, how can one reduce the cognitive load on a judge?

On the other hand, when we started looking at it from the litigants' point of view, there came the question of how much information do they want, and how much do they need to make their experience less anxious and more easy. They must not be cheated at any stage either. So we started juggling on the idea of a call centre for the Judiciary. Taking inspiration from how in Passport Seva Kendra, the incorporation of a call centre made things much more transparent and the middlemen then became only and only middlemen who did their jobs without being able to change the clients exorbitantly.

In a lot of states, cases can easily be tracked online, but clients still call their lawyers or clerks to ask for the status of the case. It is because internet is still a luxury for a good part of the population. If there is a means of communication that is at everyone's disposal, it is the phone. Everyone from the village to the metropolitan has access to a phone, and in most cases, their own mobile phone.

So it sounded sensible to tap into this mode of communication, and then not just for tracking. One could take legal advice, could be suggested to go for Alternate dispute resolution to redirect cases from going to court, or could even be explained the process of the court to be able to represent oneself, which is one's right. It could be channelized either through the State Legal Aid, or the Information Centre in Courts.

That's what came to our mind till last week, and then we spoke to some people.

Let's get inspired

After understanding and questioning our own System, it was time to see the keys to success of other systems. What makes them so special, and what is it that we are missing?

Parallel Judicial Systems in other countries where technology has played an important role in speeding up the processes. There are High Tech Courtrooms in Virginia having flat screen displays, which makes evidence presentation electronic along with making it more convenient for remote and secluded witnesses to appear. Computerization of records has proven to prevent long delays because files don't go missing. This has been successfully helpful in several Indian courts as well.

Michigan courts have a Judicial Information System (JIS) that makes collection and dissemination of information automated and efficient. Case flow management allows timely disposition of cases by keeping track of time. Access to information is quick and easy. Summons can be printed. They have even incorporated the bar code technology. Along with that, traffic tickets can be paid online, which is automated, convenient and saves the time of a lot of court staff.

Both Passport Seva Kendra and VFS use outsourcing to enhance their efficiency. Digitisation of application, tracking and verification has made the whole process transparent, streamlined and simple.

Aravind Eye Care, on the other hand, has been inspired by the assembly line process, like in the case of Mc Donald's, which makes it highly efficient and cost-effective. Everyone does only and only what they are supposed to do and what they are good at doing. They use camps to spread awareness and use the local community's support.

All the three systems above facilitate the general public with services in a very efficient way, which is what we are trying to achieve in the Judicial sector.

World cafe is an interesting concept where they provide a hospitable space to host collaborative dialogue and international opinions on questions, and then share collective discoveries. We thought this was somewhat similar to initiatives like change.org, except in a physical form, where you pose a question, gather opinions and share insights, though the first is driven by a clear, strong motion to change something.

Toyota was inspiring because of its supply demand management, where they only produce when there is demand and save on money and stock storage space. Plus, there is no waste.

Mc Donald's, apart from it's successful assembly line production technique, gives the customer access to information so he can make an informed decision about what he eats.

There are a few more which we haven't charted down yet, but there's endless information out there, which we must keep absorbing. Right now, it's time to build some analogies. They're working their way in our heads, but give us some time to formulate them. Let's get back to you in our next post. Till then, any ideas are more than welcome.

THAT's what's wrong!

Once we had mapped the whole system, it was time to start pointing fingers! We had to figure out exactly where and at what point in the system what was going wrong to be able to define our scope (plus, it was high time we brought some colour onto our borin' old newsprint)

If efforts are made to improve the co-ordination between the Police and the Judiciary, the former being a major stakeholder in the system, there will be an improvement in the level of overall efficiency. There must also be interventions to make the filing and processing of information at the Police level faster.

The Government being the biggest litigant is another direction in which one can think; either from the point of view of reducing litigation itself, or else at least baseless appeals which waste the time of the courts.

Can adjournments be controlled if such relevant statistics are briefly highlighted before the judge, so he knows the number of adjournments already taken and decide accordingly? Or may be there's another way to deal with it, but this is another one of those things everyone you speak to about the Judiciary complains about (apart from the other clichéd 'There are very few judges' and 'It's a Government system, nothing can be done about it!')

If the process is sped up from the stage of case classification in the administrative department and the management is improved, may be the effect amplifies by the time it reaches the judgement. Or may be there are other levels of intervention required as well if we're looking at it from the administrative aspect.

We also made a trip to Gandhinagar National law University and spoke to some students and faculty, who gave us helpful insights on which areas we could focus on. Now, this whole thing being as vast a system as it is, we had to take measures to save ourselves from drowning. So, we kept one of our possible directions as 'scope for technological intervention'. After a discussion with Mr. R.K.Singh from GNLU, with this line of thought, we came up with some areas with scope for tangible interventions. Of course, technology is only one area we can look at. There's no reason to restrict ourselves so soon.

So, by far we have pin-pointed some areas inside the system that seemed interesting to work upon. But haven't a lot of people inside the system already done that? There have been countless reports by lawyers and judges who have a clear idea of the working of the system; much more in detail in their own field of work than we could have achieved in these few weeks. They have given well thought-of recommendations to make the system efficient.

So what is it that we are trying to do as designers, that people inside this system themselves can't do as well, or possibly better than us?

Well, studying the system was the beginning, and so was absorbing and contemplating on the obvious. The important part comes now (which is also going to be the more challenging part I'm anticipating), where we do what we're trained to do. Now that we've seen the points of view of all the stake holders, let's take a step back and see the system from the outside, a bit more holistically. 

There, I see a black robe, catch hold of that guy!

We started off to get our hands dirty in the field; questioning at first, and then questioning some more.

Ours was a rather unfamiliar topic for the rest of the class (other topics being Solid waste management, Experiences of pre-schoolers, Waiting, First Response and Water). To begin with, we had to understand the system of Judiciary ourself, at all its different levels, to then be able to analyse, appreciate and criticize it.

But right at this point, a mosquito bit and the two of us split.

So, for the next two weeks it was Shivani at one end and Prithvi at the other. While the former recovered and tried to do some research from Allahabad, the latter ran around from police stations to courts to offices in Ahmedabad, back and forth with permission letters, and then revised permission letters to the whims and fancies of government officials.

In the midst of all this, there were interviews of police officers, lawyers, judges, administrative officers and office clerks along with several courtroom and police station visits in Ahmedabad and Allahabad.

Some of the initial mapping of the procedures

A graphical representation of a courtroom

A division bench. The judges' chairs at the back and the secretary/steno's seat to take dictations in front.

At the end of the two separated weeks, on the last day of August, the two wavered souls re-united in the spirit of Judiciary, and things started to make sense again.

And then it was time for some serious mapping.

From the FIR to the Courts

Plus the sub-systems around Judiciary (not so exhaustive a list, we realised)

Mapping of interviews of High Court Judges

Finally, we SOMEWHAT knew what went about in the complexities of this system!

Stepping into our topic and Research Methodologies

By the beginning of the second week, most of us had narrowed down to our topics of interest. We first narrowed down to two: Judicial Reforms and Education among Nomads, and after a lot of discussion, confusion and levelling of pros and cons, we finally stepped into the former. So, Judicial Reforms it was, for the next 9 weeks. And addressing the topic made a lot of sense. Why should it always be "Court kachehri ke chakkar mein nahi padna bhai!"? It's a fundamental right; justice really shouldn't be this messy and time taking a hassle to get into.

In the second week, we had another workshop for research methodologies, with reference to Ideo Method Cards that ask you to Learn, Look, Ask and Try. It demands questioning your strategy at every stage, and in some cases not just once but five times!

Among updates so far - The first week of Systems Design

Starting the 29th of July, 2013, fifteen of us from Product Design, Undergraduate 7th Semester, stepped into the realm of Systems Design; the final project of our academic curriculum.

We started off by simple brainstorming for topics that we could take up.

What followed was a very interesting mapping exercise, tweaked to make it simple enough for newbies like us. So, for our first mapping, we needed no Google, nor any extensive library research. It had everything to do with 'I, me and myself'.

It had everything from pretty looking, well thought of maps to cluttered, confused, personalized or even completely detached ones. Well, we were learning.

So, we moved ahead, with no clue of where this would take us 9 weeks later.

The next bit was a very interesting, not to forget with a minute to minute strict schedule, workshop on 'Wicked Problems'. So, we reported sharp at 9:18 one Friday morning and registered our names in.

In return for registering, we got an enlightening talk defining what 'Wicked Problems' are (I'll try and make it short and simple here: They're crazy, complicated problems in which neither the problem nor the solution is clear) along with a whole bunch of stationery to get to work!

So much for now. More updates soon. :)