What should a model causelist look like? DAKSH releases working paper

Legal think tank Daksh has announced the release of its latest working paper titled The Case for Improved Causelists..Authored by Ninni Susan Thomas, the paper explores the role of causelists in the Indian legal system, examines the challenges faced by stakeholders in the system with regard to the management and design of causelists, and underlines the critical requirement for causelists to be easily accessible and user-friendly. As per the paper's text, it seeks to spark conversations around often neglected issues within the legal system, such as the necessity for predictability in court hearing schedules and the need to challenge existing perceptions. It proposes practical solutions aimed at improving transparency, efficiency, and inclusivity in legal proceedings. .Chapter 1 of the paper, titled Issues Faced by Stakeholders and Possible Solutions, highlights eight key issues..1. Delayed and unclear causelist publicationAmong other issues, it was noted that "delayed publication, coupled with non-centralised and unclear updates, can lead to crucial court instructions being missed."Last-minute changes to causelists is another issue flagged by the study."One lawyer shared an incident where he missed a crucial hearing due to a last-minute change in the causelist...he missed the entire proceeding as his case had been moved to Court Y as per a supplementary note released at 10:30am," the report recounted. Releasing causelists well in advance is feasible, as has been shown by some courts, the report went on to add. For cases requested to be taken out of turn due to some urgency, a supplementary list could be issued the day before the hearing, it suggested..2. Lack of certainty in court hearingsLawyers typically determine the timing of their case hearings by going through the causelists and approximating the time at which their matter might be taken up, it was noted. However, risk of the case being taken up earlier or later than expected remain."Sometimes (lawyers) wait in court the whole day (around 6 hours) without their matters being heard. The repercussions extend beyond mere inconvenience," the report added. Female lawyers may face additional challenges."Female lawyers who often shoulder the responsibilities of childcare find their careers significantly impacted by the unpredictable and delayed publication of causelists, as well as the uncertainty over when a case will be taken up for hearing during the day."To address such uncertainties, Daksh has suggested that courts could allot approximate times for each hearing or split the day into forenoon and afternoon sessions.Given the inherent unpredictability of court hearings, lawyers should not be penalised for not being present in court before their assigned slot even if the cases before them finish earlier than expected, the report added. .3. Lack of indication of case purpose or stageIt was noted that causelists often do not have information about the purpose of hearing for each case. Including such information will allow lawyers to better estimate the time that may be taken and if and when their cases will be heard..4. Variability in court cause lists and chronology of hearingCertain courts use terms like the "800 list" or "1500 list” which will be unfamiliar to anyone who is not a regular practitioner at that court, the study pointed out. Since each court uses its own unique terms, it becomes difficult for those not familiar with the court to understand the causelist. What is known as an "advance list," "supplementary list," or "weekly list" in one court may be called differently elsewhere. This inconsistency may cause confusion.It was further pointed out that there is no standardised order in which various lists are typically heard across courts. Rather, this is left to the judge's discretion, making it difficult to assess when a case will be heard..5. Inaccessibility of case details in singular locationCauselists, often spanning hundreds of pages, are impractical to review in full. Crucial information such as hearing times or judge availability is not always provided in the causelists itself.Centralising all such information related to hearings in a dedicated causelist section along with with instructions specific to a court would improve accessibility, the report suggested..6. Lack of accessibility for persons with disabilities (PWDs)The report calls for accessibility audits of causelists and court websites to ensure compliance with accessibility standards of various disabilities. Ideally, persons with disabilities must be involved from the initial process of development so that their feedback can be incorporated, the report has said..7. Lack of comprehensive listing of names of all parties and lawyersIn High Courts and the Supreme Court, causelists typically mention only the first petitioner/respondent, with others indicated as 'Anr.' or 'Ors.' Providing names of all parties could be beneficial to all stakeholders, the report said. .8. Unavailability of causelists for technological solutionsVarious tech firms have now developed tools to streamline access to causelists. However, due to the design of causelists and the lack of a standardised and comprehensive location on court websites where all causelist-related information is published, these tech platforms sometimes miss matters.The report also notes that robust regulations are needed to safeguard privacy and data integrity when allowing such legal tech companies access to court data. .Chapter 2 acknowledges that certain courts in India have adopted commendable practices to include relevant case information, improve accessibility and streamline navigation within the legal system..Chapter 3 goes beyond just India and deals with the best practices adopted by eleven countries to enhance the accessibility and usability of causelists."While adopting these practices is beneficial, it requires a tailored approach that addresses the specific complexities of the Indian judicial system. Implementation must be strategic, considering various factors to ensure alignment with India's goals of transparency, efficiency, and accessibility in legal proceedings," the paper states..Chapter 4 of the paper outlines the key components of a model causelist for court websites, aiming to promote transparency, efficiency and accessibility. Drawing on best practices from both Indian and international courts, it addresses the evolving needs of the legal community and suggests 24 components for an effective causelist..Chapter 5 of the paper delves into the factors that must be considered when implementing the proposed changes, including policy decisions, standardisation of terminology, the complexities of individual cases, scheduling challenges and the lack of comprehensive listing rules.It calls for clear and transparent guidelines regarding court practices related to causelists and emphasises the importance of comprehensive listing rules in enhancing the understanding of and transparency in court procedures..Notably, Daksh has also created a prototype for an interactive and accessible causelist. This website serves as a prototype for visualising a model causelist..[Read Paper]