Speaking at the two-day National Seminar on Mediation and Information Technology at Ekta Nagar in Gujarat, the CJI said: “The rapid development of technology has led to increased complexity even in the legal landscape and country regulations.
“For example, technological developments such as cryptocurrency, data protection, encryption, and artificial intelligence have caused courts and law enforcement to tackle new issues. Over time, there is a possibility of increased litigation over these issues,” he predicted. .
Quoting an English drama that adopted the famous phrase “money is good – but data is power,” said CJI Ramana in the 21st century, computing capacity has grown a billion times , while the law regulating the same has not been able to catch up.
“The past three decades have seen a massive increase in processing power, the explosion of data, a significant reduction in data management costs, and an increased availability of sophisticated machinery and software,” he said and stressed the urgent need for judges, lawyers, law enforcement authorities. and all actors of the justice mechanism to familiarize themselves with new technologies.
He said technology has the potential to simplify processes. “Indian courts have started using the technology. E-Committees have taken various initiatives such as development of e-filing, computer aided transcription, document display system and integration of courts into one IT infrastructure “, did he declare.
“Harnessing modern technology, the Supreme Court recently launched the “FASTER”, a digital platform for the fast and secure delivery of urgent court orders in encrypted electronic format, to stakeholders. This would ensure efficient enforcement of orders Several High Courts have taken transparency to a new level through live streaming of proceedings using cost-effective technology. I’m sure many more would love to emulate this model,” said he declared.
Recounting the benefits of mediation, he said what India needs today are skilled mediators, who are essential in bringing the parties to agree on a settlement. He said a qualified mediator would not allow an unfair settlement, which would be to the detriment of a weak party.
“What is the duty of a mediator if the settlement reached is manifestly unfair to the weaker party? Should the mediator be a silent spectator during such negotiations? These are just some of the questions that need to be arise, especially in a country like our diverse social fabric. Ideals of substantive equality must also be reflected in the resolution process,” said CJI Ramana.