Wednesday 11 December 2013

The Propositions

(click on link to see the map in detail)

With some help in the illustrations in there from more capable persons, we have tried to include some of the ideas into our system model. The model itself uses the metaphor of a manufacturing process and how to fix the flaws at each of the error points.



PROPOSITION ONE.



Inspired by the complete traceability of the Passport making process and the existing system of the Legal Services Authority of the State, Gujarat, which collaborates with Legal Aid and Mediation Centres to aid the litigant.



A pamphlet as a guideline for the Key Stakeholder: The Litigant.



PROPOSITION TWO.


This proposition caters to the anxiety of the litigant at the points of wait inside and outside the courtroom. Once one subscribes to this service, at any point, one knows one will be informed about any updates regarding one's case.


Inspired by the access to information given by Mc. Donald's to its customers so they can make an informed decision.



A pamphlet as a guideline for the Key Stakeholder: The Litigant.



PROPOSITION THREE.


Management of adjournments, if and when possible, outside the courtroom will save precious court time. This, in the longer run, will add to quicker delivery of justice.


Inspired by the online appointment management system at VFS.



A pamphlet as a guideline for the Key Stakeholder: The Lawyer.



PROPOSITION FOUR.





A pamphlet on how the System will work; in what ways a screen can be beneficial to the courtroom.

Wireframes for the interface of such a System:






Status Updates.

After 10 weeks through the Systems project and a month celebrating Diwali, we're back with some updates on our Judicial side.

So, once we had been through the whole process of research, understanding, mapping, some more research, analysis, analogies and ideation, it was time to judge our ideas to take them to the next level. Along with that, to attain better understanding, we were expected to make a System Model.

When it came to judging our ideas, we tried to understand what it was that we were ultimately trying to do. So, while the current system of the Indian Judiciary caters fairly well to the needs of the Judge, the Lawyer and all the other paid staff, the litigant seems to have been sidelined. When the system was, in fact, set up for the benefit of the latter, the former has more assured benefits, at least monetarily. Can we make the system more litigant-centric? Or, least of all, we can work towards making it more friendly for them and reduce their hassles to make things easier.

So, we looked at it in two ways. One was to directly cater to the litigant to reduce his anxiety, and the other to indirectly speed up the proceedings of the court to add up to making his case go faster.

Wednesday 2 October 2013

After jury realization

The day after the jury, we figured what to do next based on the feedback given to us. So we mapped the opportunities we could see.


Praveen also defined for us the possible forms of deliverables.



And to add to that, we made ourself check lists (not exhaustive) for our project, to be able to assess our ideas objectively.




..And then went on to putting our ideas on paper.

There were some from the administrative point of view:





Some in-courtroom solutions:





Others from the point of view of the litigant:









And a couple of random ones!



Saturday 21 September 2013

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.