Resolve Without Litigation Your Disputes From Any Part Of The World

Disputes are not desirable but yet they do happen in every walk of the life. We have many options to resolve these disputes and approaching a  court is the last option. But for many people this is the first option and this is a wrong strategy on their part. By approaching the courts at the first place we are over burdening them unnecessarily when these disputes can be resolved outside the court. The over burderned courts  would have no choice but to give lengthy dates as there is no way a handful of judges in Indian courts can handle such impossible target.

This mindset is not a problem of ordinary people but our state governments and central government too. A big chunk of litigation in courts is  from government departments. State governments and central govt are notorious for not only denying remedies to citizens at the first place but they also keep on appealing against adverse orders against them to higher courts. So not only original cases but also appeals from the  adverse orders against state governments and central government are increasing burden upon Indian courts.

We at Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) have been working in the fields like online dispute resolution (ODR) and e-courts since 2004. We have launched few techhno legal fields in both ODR and e-courts fields. We understand the significance of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) very well. We also understand how technology can be used to strengthen ADR in India by converting traditional ADR into ODR.

As the field is new, some sort of confusion and uncertainty is natural. That is why we launched two different online portals on ODR for world wide stakeholders. The first one is a pro bono platform where we are helping people to not only understand useage of ODR but also  helping them free of cost.

The second platform is a professional one where our clients and big companies can avail our techno legal services on a regular and professional basis. All they need to do is to use our ODR clause in their agreements. If both the parties agree, they can also use our ODR portal without any agreement if they agree to our ODR clause at any stage of the dispute. The process is simple and very effective.

Now comes the best part. Some of the unique features of our ODR portal are:

(1) Our ODR services are available throughout the world and even if parties to the dispute reside in different countries.

(2) It is not mandatory that the dispute must be an Indian dispute but any dispute in any part of the world can be resolved using our portal if the same can be resolved using mediation, conciliation, arbitration or ODR as per the laws of respective countries.

(3) Our ODR services can be used at any stage of the dispute even if there is no pre existing ODR clause. Such an ODR agreement can be formed by simply accepting our ODR clause by parties to the dispute.

(4) Parties to the dispute need not to move even out 0f their homes to avail our ODR services. So travelling expenses and travelling time is totally saved.

(5) All required documents can be shared with us through the online portal, secure e-mail, secured chats, etc. No cost for sending documents through post would be incurred.

(6) We are the only techno legal Institutionalised Arbitration Centre that is dealing in ODR world wide.

If any company or government department wishes to have training about how to best use our ODR services, we can also ensure the same.

If Indian government is serious about better access to justice and ensuring justice for all, we are more than happy to have a colloboration with it. We are also open to colloborations with foreign governments and international organisations if they have similar projects or wish to expand their existing dispute resolution capacities.

We may update this article with more information and details for the larger benefit of all. Please visit regularly this blog in general and our ODR portals in particular for latest developments of our projects.

E-Courts In India (2007)

The traditional legal system primarily relies upon litigation as a premier method of dispute resolution and the same equally applies to India as well. This dependence upon a single medium of dispute resolution has unnecessarily overburdened Indian courts. There are certain matters that can be effectively taken care of by “Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanism” (ADRM). This ADRM consists of methods like Arbitration, Mediation, etc. These methods are not only effective but also economical and efficacious. They will go a long way in empowering people with right to speedy trial in India that is a Fundamental Right within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

With the advent of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) both the traditional legal system as well as the ADRM got empowerment and strength. As a natural corollary the tool of ADRM also got a transformed counterpart in the form of “Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Mechanism (ODRM). The ultimate solution to the “backlog” problem in Indian courts is the optimum use of ODRM in India. The same may, however, face the jurisdictional issues arising within India as well as outside India. Although ODR in India has started gaining momentum yet there is lot to be done. If we analyse the culture of ADR in India then one fact is very clear. In India we have not yet given due importance to the ADRM, much less to ODRM. The e-governance plan of India is silent in this regard. This is one of the flaws of the ICT strategy of India that is not in conformity with the contemporary standards. The e-governance in India is not taking care of the ODR perspective and the same will be a fatal mistake by all counts. We do not have a base for Intellectual Property Rights and International Trade related disputes. Even the domain name dispute resolution in India is missing. Similarly, International Commercial Arbitration in India also needs a different outlook in the present circumstances. We need to capatilise “collective expertise” and an “ideal public-private partnership” base in India. The launch of PTLB as the premier authority for ADR and ODR in India would go a long way in transforming ADR into ODR in India. The initiative titled ICT HELPDESK and WTO will cover the International Trade segment. If India has to survive the increasing dispute resolution pressure then it must cover the journey from ADR to ODR as soon as possible.

Similarly, efforts must be undertaken for the establishment of electronic courts in India. The establishments of digital evidencing and techno-legal base[1] are absolute requirements in India. There is also a dire need of judicial reforms in India keeping in mind the requirements of ICT. The establishment of e-courts in India would be a good step in this direction. These mandates have been sufficiently indicated and suggested in the annual evaluation of Perry4Law titled ICT trends in India in 2006. We have to take care of both technological as well as legal issues associated with the use of ICT. Thus, a techno-legal base is the need of the hour. We have launched the first ever Techno-Legal Base in India that is known as Perry4Law’s Techno-Legal Base TM/SM * (PTLB TM/SM*). PTLB TM/SM* and ICT HELPDESK TM/SM* are coordinating various International and National initiatives that primarily rely upon ICT for their successful operation and existence. PTLB TM/SM* would develop and implement an Inter-Country teaching and research infrastructure in the legal field that would be capable of meeting the challenges posed by the ICT regime. It would try to improve the current legal education practices by adapting them as per the ICT mandates.[2]

The Government must change gears now as the speed of reforms is grossly inadequate. It is high time that the Government must establish a specialised institution as per the requirements of UNDP and European Union so that foreign aid and grants can be utilised appropriately and legally. We must have a suitable e-infrastructure that is capable of meeting the needs of contemporary society. Perry4Law’s famous Techno-Legal and ICT Segment PTLB TM/SM* will provide Techno-Legal and ICT service pertaining to Cyber Law, Cyber Forensics Cyber Security, Techno-Legal E-learning Services, Due Diligence Compliance, Techno-Legal Audit, E-commerce, E-governance, ADR and ODR, IPRs, International Trade etc. We would also provide a “legislative framework” that could be effective for meeting the requirements of e-courts in India and an ODR base in India. In fact Perry4Law is receiving tons of appreciation letters and requests for extending its Techno-Legal and ICT related expertise for the establishment of e-courts in foreign countries.[3] We hope that our initiatives would prove effective for providing a Techno-legal direction to Indian ICT strategy. Some of the International and National initiatives, collaborations and coordinating efforts of Perry4Law, PTLB TM/SM* and ICT HELPDESK TM/SM are as follow:

(a) E-governance and justice in India
(b) Online Dispute Resolution in India
(c) Judicial reforms in India through use of ICT
(d) Enforcing rule of justice through e-governance
(e) Dataquest-Changing the order
(f) E-judiciary and e-lawyering in India, etc.

Let us hope that the initiatives of e-judiciary segment in general and Perry4Law in particular would prove a good step in the right direction and that also at a time when we need it most.

[1] http://perry4law.blogspot.com/2006/06/need-of-techno-legal-compliance-in.html
[2] Praveen Dalal, “ Techno-Legal Education in India”, http://cyberlawindia.blogspot.com/2006/12/techno-legal-education-in-india.html
[3] One of the e-mails to Perry4Law reads like this “Recently, Brazilian congress has approved a law which adopts the use of ICT in judicial acts. This new law is very advanced and wishes to replace physical process for a total virtual one. I have many doubts about it and I really would like to share your ideas and to understand how India is adopting this technology for judicial purposes”.

Source: Electronic Courts In India.

Online Dispute Resolution In India (2006)

The aim of this article is to analyse the prospective use of online dispute resolution mechanism (ODRM) in India. The necessity of the same has arisen due to the growing use of alternative dispute resolving mechanism (ADRM) in India to reduce the burdening of the already overburdened courts in India. The popularity and use of ADRM is increasing but it can achieve its best only if the same is integrated with the information technology.

I. Introduction 

The swift growth of e-commerce and web site contracts has increased the potential for conflicts over contracts which have been entered into online. This has necessitated a solution that is compatible with online matters and is netizens centric. This challenging task can be achieved by the use of ODRM in India. The use of ODRM to resolve such e-commerce and web site contracts disputes are crucial for building consumer confidence and permitting access to justice in an online business environment. These ODRM are not part and parcel of the traditional dispute resolution machinery popularly known as “judiciary” but is an alternative and efficacious institution known as ADRM. Thus, ADR techniques are extra-judicial in character. They can be used in almost all contentious matters, which are capable of being resolved, under law, by agreement between the parties. They have been employed with very encouraging results in several categories of disputes, especially civil, commercial, industrial and family disputes. These techniques have been shown to work across the full range of business disputes like banking, contract performance, construction contracts, intellectual property rights, insurance, joint ventures, partnership differences etc. ADR offers the best solution in respect of commercial disputes. However, ADR is not intended to supplant altogether the traditional means of resolving disputes by means of litigation. It only offers alternatives to litigation. There are a large number of areas like constitutional law and criminal law where ADR cannot substitute courts. In those situations one has to take recourse of the existing traditional modes of dispute resolution.

II. The Premier Mode Of ADR 

Arbitration is the supreme method for resolving and adjudicating commercial disputes[1]. It is a procedure in which the dispute is submitted to one or more arbitrators, for adjudication, who resolve the dispute. The decision is given in the form of an award. The main objects of arbitration are speed, economy, convenience and simplicity of procedures. It encourages healthy relationship between the parties. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 governs the “arbitration procedures” in India. Section 5 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by Part I (Sections 2 to 43), no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in the said part. This clearly indicates the legislative intent to minimise supervisory role of courts to ensure that the intervention of the court is minimal. Section 4 is a deeming provision, which lays down that where a party proceeds with the arbitration without stating his objection to non-compliance of any provision of Part I from which the parties may derogate or any requirement under arbitration agreement, it shall be deemed that he has waived his right to so object. Section 7 provides that the arbitration agreement shall be in writing and such an agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement. Sub-section (4) of Section 7 provides the conditions under which a document or exchange of letter or exchange of statement of claim and defence may amount to an arbitration agreement. Section 11 of the Act provides for appointment of arbitrators and sub-section (6) thereof empowers the Chief Justice of the High Court or any person or institution designated by him to make such an appointment on the happening of certain conditions enumerated in clauses (a), (b) or (c). Section 16 of the Act is important and it provides that the arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including ruling on any objections with respect to the existence or authority of the arbitration agreement[2]. Thus, the base provided by the Act is sufficient to accommodate the mandates of ODRM. It must be noted that a court of law cannot render justice unless the ultimate decision is based on the contemporary law as prevailing in the society. A decision based on an old law, which does not satisfy the requirements of the present situation, and environment should be avoided. In such a situation the efforts of the courts should be to give the law a “purposive, updating and an ongoing interpretation”. This position makes the interface of justice delivery system with the information technology inevitable and unavoidable. We cannot allow the dead hand of the past to stifle the growth of the living present. Law cannot stand still; it must change with the changing social concepts and values. If the bark that protects the tree fails to grow and expand along with the tree, it will either choke the tree or if it is a living tree, it will shed that bark and grow a new living bark for itself. Similarly, if the law fails to respond to the needs of changing society, then either it will stifle the growth of the society and choke its progress or if the society is vigorous enough, it will cast away the law, which stands in the way of its growth. Law must therefore constantly keep on adapting itself to the fast changing society and not lag behind[3]. Justice is supreme and justice ought to be beneficial for the society so that the society is placed in a better-off situation. Law courts exist for the society and ought to rise up to the occasion to do the needful in the matter, and as such ought to act in a manner so as to sub serve the basic requirement of the society. It is a requirement of the society and the law must respond to its need. The greatest virtue of the law is its flexibility and its adaptability; it must change from time to time so that it answers the cry of the people, the need of the hour and the order of the day. Thus, the justice delivery system cannot afford to take the information technology revolution lightly[4]. The judiciary in India has not only recognised this need but has also utilised the information technology to do complete justice. The Supreme Court has on various occasions encouraged the use of information technology for meeting the ends of justice and to do complete justice. There is nothing that shows that the courts in India will not encourage the concept of ODRM in India. The Supreme Court has encouraged the use of ADR techniques in India and very soon the same will be extended to ODRM as well.

III. E-Justice System In India 

The judicial response vis-à-vis information technology is positive and technology friendly.

In M/S SIL Import, USA v M/S Exim Aides Silk Exporters[5] the words “notice in writing”, in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, were construed to include a notice by fax. The Supreme Court observed: “A notice envisaged u/s 138 can be sent by fax. Nowhere is it said that such notice must be sent by registered post or that it should be dispatched through a messenger. Chapter XVII of the Act, containing sections 138 to 142 was inserted in the Act as per Banking Public Financial Institution and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988.Technologiacl advancements like Fax, Internet, E-mail, etc were on swift progress even before the Bill for the Amendment Act was discussed by the Parliament. When the legislature contemplated that notice in writing should be given to the drawer of the cheque, the legislature must be presumed to have been aware of the modern devices and equipments already in vogue and also in store for future. If the court were to interpret the words “giving notice in writing” in the section as restricted to the customary mode of sending notice through postal service or even by personal delivery, the interpretative process will fail to cope up with the change of time. So if the notice envisaged in clause (b) of the proviso to section 138 was transmitted by Fax, it would be compliance with the legal requirement”.

Thus the requirement of a written notice will be satisfied if the same is given in the form of a fax, e-mail etc, using the information technology. It must be noted that a notice by e-mail can be send instantaneously and its delivery is assured and acknowledged by a report showing the due delivery of the same to the recipient. This method is more safe, accurate, economical and lesser time consuming as compared to its traditional counterpart, popularly known as “Registered A.D”.

In Basavaraj R. Patil v State of Karnataka[6] the question was whether an accused need to be physically present in court to answer the questions put to him by the court whilst recording his statement under section 313. The majority held that the section had to be considered in the light of the revolutionary changes in technology of communication and transmission and the marked improvement in the facilities of legal aid in the country. It was held that it was not necessary that in all cases the accused must answer by personally remaining present in the court. Once again, the importance of information technology is apparent. If a person residing in a remote area of South India is required to appear in the court for giving evidence, then he should not be called from that place, instead the medium of “video conferencing” should be used. In that case the requirements of justice are practically harmonised with the ease and comfort of the witnesses, which can drastically improve the justice delivery system.

In State of Maharashtra v Dr.Praful.B.Desai[7] the Supreme Court observed: “The evidence can be both oral and documentary and electronic records can be produced as evidence. This means that evidence, even in criminal matters, can also be by way of electronic records. This would include video conferencing. Video conferencing is an advancement in science and technology which permits one to see, hear and talk with someone far away, with the same facility and ease as if he is present before you i.e. in your presence. Thus, it is clear that so long as the accused and/or his pleader are present when evidence is recorded by video conferencing that evidence is recorded in the “presence” of the accused and would thus fully meet the requirements of section 273, Criminal Procedure Code. Recording of such evidence would be as per “procedure established by law”. The advancement of science and technology is such that now it is possible to set up video conferencing equipments in the court itself. In that case evidence would be recorded by the magistrate or under his dictation in the open court. To this method there is however a drawback. As the witness is not in the court there may be difficulties if commits contempt of court or perjures himself. Therefore as a matter of prudence evidence by video conferencing in open court should be only if the witness is in a country which has an extradition treaty with India and under whose laws contempt of court and perjury are also punishable”.

This judgment of the Supreme Court is a landmark judgment as it has the potential to seek help of those witnesses who are crucial for rendering the complete justice but who cannot come due to “territorial distances” or even due to fear, expenses, old age, etc. The Courts in India have the power to maintain anonymity of the witnesses to protect them from threats and harm and the use of information technology is the safest bet for the same. The testimony of a witness can be recorded electronically the access to which can be legitimately and lawfully denied by the Courts to meet the ends of justice.

The above discussion shows that the judiciary in India is not only aware of the advantages of information technology but is actively and positively using it in the administration of justice, particularly the criminal justice. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the “E-justice system” has found its existence in India. It is not at all absurd to suggest that ODRM will also fine its place in the Indian legal system very soon.

IV. Online Dispute Resolution

The ADR mechanism can be effectively used to settle online disputes by modifying it as per the need. It is time effective and cost efficient. It can also overcome the geographical hurdles. However, there are certain issues revolving around ADR mechanism like need for personnel with knowledge of IT, ADR and law; technical concerns; legal sanctity of proceedings; industry support etc. But these hurdles are just a passing phase. The use of ADR mechanisms for resolving online disputes is increasing day by day. A number of web-sites provide for some type of online dispute resolution method like arbitration, negotiation, mediation etc. and also certain conflict management services. These services fall into the general categories of complaint handling, negotiation, mediation and arbitration. These services will be in great demand in the future since the 1996 Act has given paramount importance to “party autonomy” by accepting the intention of parties as a platform for dispute resolution. Thus, what law will be applicable will depend on the intention of parties. If the parties have adopted the mechanism of ODRM then it will definitely apply with necessary minor modifications. The language used in various sections of the Arbitration Act give options to the parties to opt for the procedure as per their agreement during the arbitral proceedings before the arbitrator. So if there is an agreement between the parties with regard to the procedure to be followed by the arbitrator, the arbitrator is required to follow the said procedure. However, this would not mean that in appeal parties can contend that the appellate procedure should be as per their agreement. The appellate procedure would be governed as per the statutory provisions and parties have no right to change the same[8]. It must be noted that party autonomy presupposes the existence of an arbitration agreement. There may be a situation where the parties had not entered into an arbitration agreement. To meet such situations Section 89 of CPC can be invoked. The reason for inserting Sec.89 has been to try and see that all the cases which are filed in the court need not necessarily be decided by the court itself. Keeping in mind the law delays and the limited number of judges, which are available, it has now become imperative to resort to ADR Mechanism as contemplated by Sec.89. There is a requirement that the parties to the suit must indicate the form of ADR, which they would like to resort to during the pendency of the trial of the suit. If the parties agree to arbitration, then the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 will apply and that will go outside the stream of the court[9].

V. Conclusion

The need and necessity of ODRM is going to be felt very soon and we must be prepared for the same. A sound techno-legal base must be established in advance. There is a possibility that we may get BPO services in arbitration matters in the distant future. In any case it is also a mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Art.21 confers a Fundamental Right on every person not to be deprived of his life or liberty, except according to procedure established by law. Such procedure is not some semblance of a procedure but the procedure should be “reasonable, fair and just”, and therefrom flows the right to speedy trial[10]. It cannot be doubted that if the State is encouraging ODRM it is thereby assisting in the attainment of a speedier, economical and convenient justice system. Thus, the sooner ODRM is adopted the better it will be for the nation in general and the justice seeker in particular.

[1] The other methods like conciliation, mediation, etc are also available but arbitration is generally used to resolve the disputes.
[2] Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. v Chand Mal Baradia, Civil appeal no: 7653 of 2004.
[3] Justice Bhagwati in National Textile Worker’s Union v P.R.Ramakrishnan, (1983) 1 SCC 228, at p. 256.
[4] Praveen Dalal, “Justice through electronic governance”,
http://legalsolutionsindia.blogspot.com/2005/11/justice-through-electronic-governance.html
[5] AIR 1999 SC 1609.
[6] (2000) 8 SCC 740.
[7] 2003 (3) SCALE 554.
[8] N S Nayak v State of Goa, 2003 (6) SCC 56.
[9] Salem Advocate Bar Association v U.O.I, Writ Petition No.496 of 2002 decided on 25.10.2002.
[10] Hussainara Khatoon (1) v Home Secretary, State of Bihar [(1980)1SCC 81]

Source: Electronic Courts In India

Courts Automation Systems In India, E-Courts And Online Dispute Resolution (2013)

Indian courts have been using information and communication technology (ICT) for effective judicial functioning. New features like online cause lists, filing of cases on digital mediums like CDs, providing of judgments online, use of video conferencing, etc. are already being used by courts of India.

However, automation of courts systems in India is still far from satisfactory. We are still waiting for the establishment of first e-court of India. Till now India has been able to computerise some courts alone and e-courts functionalities are still missing.

For instance, courts automation and functionalities like e-filing, submission of notices and evidence, online cross examination, online cyber forensics support, etc are still missing.

At Perry4Law and Perry4Law’s Techno Legal Base (PTLB) we are managing the exclusive techno legal e-courts training and consultancy centre of India. This e-courts centre is also managing software repositories in the fields like courts automation, cyber forensics, cyber security, online dispute resolution, etc.

Further, the e-courts centre of India is also imparting techno legal trainings in the fields like cyber law, cyber forensics, cyber security, e-courts management, courts automation, judicial and legal integration system, legal management systems, e-discovery, etc.

Skills development and trainings for lawyers, public prosecutors, law enforcement agencies, judges and court master and staff is also undertaken by PTLB.

ICT can be used to bring judicial reforms in India. At Perry4Law and PTLB we believe that establishment of e-courts in India and using online dispute resolution in India for effective and alternative dispute resolution can not only bring the pending cases down but also help in providing speedy and economic justice to the litigants.

The sooner e-courts are established in India and ODR is used for alternative dispute resolution the better it would be for the legal and judicial system of India.

Source: Legal Enablement Blog Of PTLB.

Online Legal Case Management System (OLCMS) Of Perry4Law Organisation (P4LO) (2014)

India has adopted the technology driven projects like Digital India and Internet of Things (IoT) (PDF). The aim of these projects is to use technology for providing better government services to citizens and residents of India. Areas like Healthcare, Education, Judicial services etc would be covered by these projects.

As far as Judicial services are concerned, India is already working in the direction of establishment of e-courts in India. However, till the month of December 2014 we are still waiting for the establishment of first e-court of India. Similarly, use of online dispute resolution (ODR) in India is also missing as on date.

Perry4Law Organisation and its techno legal segments like Perry4Law’s Techno Legal Base (PTLB), Perry4Law Techno Legal ICT Training Centre (PTLITC) and Perry4Law Law Firm have been managing many techno legal initiatives. These include establishment and maintenance of full fledged e-courts and ODR systems and their corresponding online skills development and training requirements.

We have taken our initiative at the next level of development and implementation. For instance, we have been experimenting with the open source tools and software in the fields of e-courts and ODR. We have launched a discussion forum titled Online Dispute Resolution Mechanism (ODRM) of Perry4Law Organisation (P4LO) that would act as an information and participation portal for ODR purposes in India and abroad. Similarly, an Online Case Management System (OCMS) of Perry4Law Organisation (P4LO) has also been explored to see possibilities in the ODR field.

Regarding e-courts as well we have launched an initiative titled Online Legal Case Management System (OLCMS) of Perry4Law Organisation (P4LO). It is intended to be a world scale project that would cater the needs and requirements of both national and international stakeholders. OLCMS of P4LO for E-Courts in India and worldwide is also unique in the sense that it is first techno legal initiative of its type in India and worldwide.

OLCMS of P4LO for E-Courts is not the end product but is the starting point of a much larger techno legal initiative in the field of global e-courts services by Perry4Law Organisation. We intend to use our e-courts projects to ensure access to justice for marginalised people in India and other jurisdictions. Dedicated websites have been launched by us to use E-Courts 4 Justice (EC4J) at global scale. Interested stakeholders can know more about us at various social media platforms like EC4J.

We would come up with more details about the EC4J and OLCMS projects of Perry4Law Organisation in our subsequent post. Please bookmark this blog for updates in this regard if you are interested in these projects of P4LO.

Source: OLCMS.

ICT Trends in India 2006 By Praveen Dalal (2006)

In furtherance of our “Corporate Social Responsibility” the Law Firm Perry4Law would provide a regular and annual analysis of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) trends in India. The Law Firm Perry4Law is the First and Exclusive Techno-Legal Firm in India and is managing Perry4Law’s Techno-Legal Base TM/SM * (PTLB TM/SM*) and ICT HELPDESK TM/SM*. PTLB TM/SM* and ICT HELPDESK TM/SM* are coordinating and collaborating International and National initiatives that primarily rely upon ICT for their successful operation and existence. PTLB TM/SM* will provide service pertaining to Cyber Law, Cyber Forensics Cyber Security, Techno-Legal E-learning Services, Due Diligence Compliance Audit, E-commerce, E-governance, ADR and ODR, IPRs, International Trade etc. This is the first trend analysis of Perry4Law.

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is changing the face of contemporary World. The ICT has not only connected the World at one single platform but it is also helping in the integration of various traditional societiesinto modern societies. The mandates of globalisation also require an interaction between Indian economy and World’s economy. Globalisation is closely related to ICT and the ICT strategy of a nation is very crucial to put it on a global map. The ICT strategy in India must be techno-legal in nature rather than purely legal or purely technological. Unfortunately, Indian ICT Strategy is not upto the mark and the same is further degraded with the introduction of the proposed amendments to the IT Act, 2000 (if the original recommendations have been accepted as it is). The concepts of cyber forensics in India, cyber security in India, computer security in India, etc have not yet got the attention of the Indian Parliament.

Though India is emerging as a leader in the field of ICT related services yet there seems to be some missing links. They pertain to the following:

(a) The requirement of paying attention to e-security in India that covers cyber forensics, computer and cyber security, etc.

(b) The cyber law in India also imposes certain restrictions and their violations may take the form of offences and contraventions. Cyber crimes in India are taken care of by the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act, 2000) that also mandates adherence to certain compliance requirements. These aspects must be kept in mind by Companies, Individual and even by the Government.

(c) The establishment of digital evidencing base is an absolute requirement in India. The same is missing for the time being.

(d) There is also a dire need of judicial reforms in India keeping in mind the requirements of ICT.

(e) The establishment of electronic courts in India would be a good step towards implementing the judicial reforms in India in an effective manner.

(f) The electronic era has its own challenges that must be tackled effectively.

(g) The introduction of wireless technology in India would require its own security requirements. Thus, the wireless security in India must be considered on a priority basis.

(h) There are legal risks of electronic commerce as well that also cannot be ignored.

(i) The internet banking in India must also be developed so that a sound e-commerce platform can be established in India.

(j) At the same time the ICT strategy in India must be “reformulated” so that it is conducive for the overall development of Indian economy.

(k) E-learning in India must be used for techno-legal educational purposes in India.

(l) We also need Techno-Legal education in India to cater the need of legal KPO and legal BPO.

(m) The proposed amendments of the cyber law of India, i.e. IT Act, 2000 must be made public and transparent. The IT Act, 2000 must be amended properly and the proposed amendments to the IT Act, 2000, as originally suggested by the Expert Committee, must be rejected at all costs. If some changes have been made in the original recommendations of the Expert Committee, they must be discussed with various segments associated with the cyber law of India.

(n) We must appreciate that e-governance without security is useless.

Nothing short of a techno-legal compliance can provide a viable solution for these missing links. We need initiatives on the lines of PTLB TM/SM . It is apparent that the missing links pertain to securing the ICT infrastructure and cyberspace. It may take the form of on-site security measure or private defence in Cyberspace. This becomes essential to tackle the menace of cyber crimes and cyber terrorism. The preventive measures for ATM Frauds also have their origin in e-security.

Even the legal BPO in India requires a sound base.

The existing deficiencies of the ICT Strategy of India must be removed. The missing links must be put in the chain of ICT so that we can utilise its benefit to maximum extent. Every base requires time, money, energy and resources so that it may mature and suit the requirements. If we consider the “futuristic aspect” of the present cyber law in India that it is clear that this is the high time that we must establish a base. We may face many difficulties but than we will face them in any case. We need to capatilise “collective expertise” and an “ideal public-private partnership” base in India. Even the proposed laws like Broadcasting Bill-06 have certain deficiencies and they must be removed while enacting the ultimate law in this regard.

Source: UNPAN And UN.

Background Information: This article was picked up by UNPAN in 2006 from http://perry4law.blogspot.com/. Another Blog Of Perry4Law Organisation (P4LO) is http://legalsolutionsindia.blogspot.com/2006/12/cyber-law-in-india.html that has also been cited in this articles that was operational in 2004 but now is restricted and is not available for public view. Other restricted Blogs include among others:

(1) http://perry4law.blogspot.com/,

(2) http://legalsolutionsindia.blogspot.com/,

(3) http://cyberforensicsinindia.blogspot.com/,

(4) http://cyberlawindia.blogspot.com/,

(5) http://indian-judiciary.blogspot.com/, etc.

In 2006, E-Courts Project was shifted to Perry4Law.Com website and these Blogs were restricted for public view. In 2008, PTLB.In and Perry4Law.Org websites were launched to strengthen ODR and E-Courts Projects. In 2012, ElectronicCourts.In was launched for specific requirements of E-Courts of India and E-Courts 4 Justice (EC4J) Project was launched in 2014 as part of these E-Courts Projects of P4LO that were in operation since 2004.

Google App Vault And Legal Compliances And Regulatory Issues In India

Cyber forensics and e-discovery are two fields that are still not paid much attention by the government, legal fraternity and judiciary of India. Cyber forensics is different from e-discovery in its scope and application. We have no legal framework for either cyber forensics or e-discovery in India and the same needs to be formulated as soon as possible. The cyber forensics trends in India also show lack of interest towards this crucial field by various stakeholders in India.

There are some crucial fields like media forensics, corporate frauds investigation, valid sting operations, cyber crime investigation capabilities, etc where India needs to pay special attention. Similarly, use of online dispute resolution (ODR) in India and e-courts in India would also give rise to additional techno legal challenges for India in the near future. The growing popularity of cyber liability insurance in India is recognition of the cyber risks that various stakeholders would face in the future.

As per media reports, Google is planning to grant access to its Google App Vault without imposing extra charges to its Apps for Education users by the end of the year. Google App Vault allows the user to retain, archive, search, and export their official mails for e-discovery and compliance purposes. However, if Google plans to extend this facility to its Indian users, this would raise serious techno legal issues as well.

For instance, the proposed e-mail policy of India may block the private e-mail services like G-mail, Yahoo, etc for official communications in the near future. This is a good step as these e-mail service providers seldom comply with Indian laws and always take a shelter behind the conflict of laws in cyberspace. We at Perry4Law believe that there must be a techno legal framework to address all these issues in India.

The starting point is to force the foreign technology companies and e-commerce websites to establish servers in India. Indian government is already contemplating forcing the Internet telephony and VOIP service providers, social media websites, etc to establish servers in India. Similarly, taxation issues pertaining to online gaming websites, technology companies like Google, e-commerce websites, etc are also required to be sorted out. Legal implications of Public Records Act, 1993 cannot be ignored while dealing in an online environment by these companies.

So far Google’s App Vault is complying with the laws of United States and Indian laws are still not been considered by it. In these circumstances, it would be a big challenge for Indian government to force Google to comply with Indian laws. This would also raise serious law enforcement and national security issues for India as data, information and other documents would be stored outside India’s territory and jurisdiction.

While this step of Google is a blessing for online skills development in India yet regulatory compliance cannot be ignored by Google and Indian government the way it has been done so far. Perry4Law hopes that Indian government would consider these aspects very seriously in the larger interests of India.

Source: TLCOEEDI.

E Courts 4 Justice (EC4J) Project By PTLB

Access to justice is essential for success of rule of law and timely and cost effective legal and judicial services. Keeping this in mind we at Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) started the e-courts and online dispute resolution projects in the year 2004. It took us almost a decade to understand the fine details of both e-courts and ODR. Nevertheless, PTLB kept on working in these two crucial directions and other techno legal fields like cyber law, cyber security, cyber forensics, etc.

In 2014 we dedicated our resources and efforts to one of the sub projects under the e-courts category named ECourts4Justice (EC4J). Since then we are continuously developing the same so that it can benefit national and international stakeholders. After much ups and downs, this ECourts4Justice (EC4J) project has finally reached a functional stage.

ECourts4Justice (EC4J) is a result of a decade old expertise and hard working. We applied the concept of e-courts to an Interoperable Criminal Justice System (ICJS) and combined our techno legal expertise in fields like cyber law, cyber crimes investigation, cyber forensics, cyber security, etc. The net result is ECourts4Justice (EC4J) project that we are taking to the next level with this blog and other blogs and websites of PTLB.

We at PTLB believe that access to justice and justice for all is possible by productive use of information and communication technology (ICT). That is why we launched two ODR platforms for national and international stakeholders.

The first one is a Professional ODR Network where individuals, companies, governments, multi national companies, etc can  use our paid ODR services through the online portal. All the parties to the dispute need to do is to incorporate the ODR clause in their agreements while signing the same. Even if there is no such ODR clause in an agreement, there is a provision to use the same directly on the ODR portal if both the parties agree to the same.

The second online portal is part and parcel of our ODR Training Project where we have provided an online platform to national and international stakeholders to resolve their disputes free of cost. This pro bono services is provided under our Corporate Social Responsibility to ensure access to justice, justice for all and resilience for all.  All an individual or company has to do is to fill a ticket and we would do the rest.

To assist stakeholders in effective use of our ODR and E-Courts portals, we have been managing few dedicated Twitter handles. These are @ECourts4Justice, @RWLIndia, @ODRIndia, @TLCEODRI, etc.

We hope all stakeholders would be benefited by the ECourts4Justice (EC4J) and other projects of PTLB.