Listening to the Litigants: Notes from a Field Study
“My employer told the police that I was involved in a motor accident. I had no option but to admit that I was. It would be stupid for me to think that the police will believe me over my employer. If I tell them that I was never involved in any accident, they will beat me like a rented mule.”
- A defendant in a motor vehicle accident compensation case, outside a courtroom, somewhere in New Delhi
Earlier this year I spent some time interacting with the parties waiting for their turn in multiple courts. From 9.30 am to 5.30 pm each day, I stood in the premises of a courtroom observing the many people coming in.
I was there to view and understand the experience of the courts from the ordinary litigant’s perspective. I had been inspired by the work of Abhay and Rani Bang in the field of healthcare in the Gadchiroli district of Maharashtra. When they wanted to understand why the tribal population in the village was not using the healthcare facilities, they spent time convening ‘people health assemblies’ and even conducting a ballot process for communities to prioritise their healthcare needs. The assemblies helped reveal insights into user-centric healthcare delivery. For example, the community hesitated to approach doctors and nurses in white as they associated the colour white with death.
In trying to understand court user behaviour and needs, I sought to speak to the litigants. My area of inquiry was: What can courts look like if we were to design them from scratch today, keeping the litigants at the centre? The primary nature of my study was dialogue based along with observation of the setting i.e. the court premises.
Through this piece, I am sharing (i) how I went about listening to the litigants, and (ii) what I heard and how it shaped my thinking on rethinking court administration.
Accessing Litigants
At first, I tried to reach out to the litigants through friends who were lawyers. It was harder than I thought. Most litigants didn't want to speak. I suspect that it is because unlike other user-groups (say those in the agriculture, or healthcare workers), litigants don't share a sense of collective identity. Unlike being a farmer or a health worker, it is a one-time experience they never hope to have again. They have little vested interest in investing to improve it. Very often they also do not want to relive the experience. So it is not surprising that it was easier for me to speak to more institutional litigants, who are often repeat litigants. Over a few zoom calls I interviewed them with designers Unmesh Kulkarni and Rikta Krishnaswamy, who really helped me see the process of building a rapport with litigants who we hadn’t interacted with before. However, we managed to speak to only about ten litigants in this manner.
One other idea that I seriously considered was that of a Focus Group Discussion with the litigants. I was hoping to bring together litigants in a space where they could share their stories using games designed by Fields of View. Trina Talukdar from FoV shared with me that they have had valuable insights when farmers, women or other groups come together to share their stories and listen to each other. They build on each other’s stories and a lot can be learnt in less time. Sadly, this did not work as we didn't manage to convince litigants to come to a common place and time.
It is only later, after I completed the litigant interviews by visiting the courts, that I happened to speak to Sultan ji from Gram Vaani. Gram Vaani works with many labour unions. In the future, we could work with Gramvaani and other similar organisations to conduct FGDs. Gramvaani also had short recordings of previous grievances related to courts shared by users on their platform, that were extremely helpful in understanding litigant experience.
Some other ideas that I received from the community on reaching the litigants that I haven’t tried yet include:
Circulating a message on social media with a Calendly link to schedule calls, tagging relevant lawyers, legal influencers, and posting in relevant legal groups for wider reach
Working with organisations that work with litigants, e.g. Lawyers Collective, consumer rights organisations, etc.
Reaching out to litigants via local bar associations
Writing a letter to the judge in the concerned court with a request to connect with relevant lawyers in their court
Ultimately, the only way I got to speak to litigants is spending time in the waiting area of courts.
Listening to the Litigant
While in the court, I started by asking open-ended questions and built a level of comfort before asking more questions on the specifics of their case. Some broad themes I used to anchor the conversations include:
Who is the litigant as a person?
Understanding the purpose of their visit to the court on that day
Understanding more about their case
Understanding the actions they have taken so far in the case
Vis-a-vis each stage of the case
Vis-a-vis each stakeholder the litigant has interacted with
What are the jobs to be done for the litigant or what are the necessary things that the litigant must do for the case to move forward?
Why did they take the specific actions and decisions?
Impact of the case on their personal and professional life
What did they like / not like about the process? What would they do differently?
Some broad things that I feel helped me listen better to the litigants in the court include:
Structure: Began by explaining my intent and ensuring confidentiality. Prioritized questions based on time availability. Spoke in their mother tongue, where possible.
Mindset: Embraced uncertainty, stayed open to new solutions, and avoided being task-oriented.
Listening: Paid attention to verbal and non-verbal cues, avoided interrupting, and refrained from judging or summarizing.
Process: Balanced comprehensiveness with speed, adjusted approach iteratively, and accounted for challenges like litigants not agreeing to speak up, etc.
Logistics: Adapted attire to avoid intimidating litigants, obtained permission from their lawyers, and chose comfortable speaking environments.
Engaging with Litigants: Observed actions and interactions, involved their family and friends, refrained from redundant questions, and managed expectations about any legal help I could lend.
Documentation: Took detailed notes, filled gaps immediately, sketched visual cues to remember the litigant and the conversation, and transcribed notes promptly using the voice to text tool in Google docs.
What I heard and how it shaped my thinking on rethinking courts
Listening to litigants revealed to me the many ways in which the current experience of the courts fails its primary users. I am also sharing some questions that these stories left me with about the working of the court system. These questions also pose possibilities for a more litigant-centric justice system.
Story 1
Sima received a summons to appear in a cheque bounce case filed against her. She is from Agra while the case was filed in Delhi. She took a train to visit the court. The train got delayed, and so she reached late. As she was entering the courtroom, she saw the other side leaving the court, with what she later realised was a non-bailable warrant against her. A hearing date missed, she will now be heard 6 months later on the next date. She informed her lawyer, but he was running late too.
What are the various ways that the courts can devise to enable two-way communication with the litigant? What if litigants can request to reschedule the hearing to an earlier or later date, without visiting the court?
Story 2
Rajesh dada is an old man who lost his wife in a motor accident. She was riding pillion behind him. The driver of the car that hit them was a minor who was learning to drive. He pressed the accelerator instead of the brake, dragging Rajesh dada’s wife for some distance. Rajesh dada wanted the accused to be punished for his wrongdoing. The judge told him this is not a criminal court, and asked him to go to a criminal court for this relief. He retorted, “I have been through the entire court process and now at the end they’re asking me to change the court?”
Instead of putting the onus on the aggrieved citizen, how can the court design itself to facilitate, support, or direct the case to the relevant court? Can there be courts that hear cases without being tied to a physical jurisdiction? (e.g. a court that decides cases for all districts in the state of Maharashtra).
Story 3
A cheque that Radha issued bounced. She is now being sent to jail. She couldn’t share more details, but she said “मुझे लगता है मैं कभी कहीं घबराके कहीं मर नहीं जाऊं मैं कभी अंदर नहीं गई। मुझे सुधरने का मौका तो दो।, पूछो तो सही पड़ोसी से घर पर की मेरा कोई criminal रिकॉर्ड है क्या?” This roughly translates to “Sometimes I feel what if I die of panic, I have never been to a prison before. At least give me a chance to make amends. Ask my family and neighbors if I have any past criminal record?”
Is jail necessary for first time offenders? What is a trust-enabled system for bail as default?
Story 4
Fatima gave blank cheques to her landlord, against future rent payments. She was summoned to the court once the cheque was deposited in the bank account earlier than the rent due date. Upon reaching the court she realised that the landlord had written an amount higher than the rent due on the cheque. On the first date of hearing when the judge asked her whether she had issued the cheque, she accepted it, along with the amount written on the cheque. She said “मैं पहली बार कोर्ट आई थी. जज ने जब मुझसे पूंछा मैंने घबरा कर हां कह दिया". This roughly translates to “I visited the court for the first time. When the judge asked me, I got scared and I accepted.”
What are ways - from behavioural to procedural- by which litigants can trust and respect the court without feeling intimidated?
From Questions to Possibilities
Just these few stories throw up many possibilities. From simple, thoughtful technology that can solve for two-way communication between court and the litigant for things like rescheduling to reimagining court seating, say a U-shaped seating that lessens the power hierarchy thereby building more trust and safety. Another example - the courts assume that litigants know of legal aid, and there is no process for the court to inquire whether the litigant is able to afford legal fees. I met many litigants who had no idea, and had sold land and other assets for legal fees. What if information of legal aid came proactively to the litigants, instead of litigants finding it?
These stories completely shifted how I saw the court and its processes - not as the legal procedure of complaint, summons, trial, and so on, but as the steps that the litigant takes to enforce her rights, including finding a lawyer, taking the bus to reach the court, finding the court number, efforts to understand the mores of the court, etc.
For anyone working with and for change in this field, the site of change must be the experience of the litigant which extends beyond just the court processes. It requires a reimagining of the ways in which our current systems exist to truly be in service of the one in need of justice. As part of my field study, I worked to create a short booklet that communicates this message and invites us all to think, you can access the pdf of the booklet below.
To get a copy of the raw transcripts or otherwise connect with me, write to me at ayushi@agami.in.
PS: Many thanks are due. Former civil servant Ashok Pal Singh, for asking if not this what? Aparna Chandra, Akshay Roongta, Supriya Sankaran, and Artika Raj for having faith, when I was unsure of my process. Trina Talukdar from Fields of View for the thinking on using games as a method of listening. Bhargavi Zaveri, Bhavin Patel, and others for guiding and directing me to relevant literature. Others who shared with me ideas on connecting with litigants and connected us to more people to speak to, including Deepika Kinhal, Sultanji, Rangin Tripathy, Lubhyathi Rangarajan, Ajay Nandalike, Akshay Chowdhary, Shreya Vajpei, Monalisa Saha, Deeksha Gujral, Amol Kulkarni, Shruthi Naik, Sandhya PR and others.
References:
Some notes I took about the process of listening to the litigants.
Daksh India, Access to Justice Survey.
Hazel Genn, Paths to Justice: what people do and think about going to law.
Srimati Basu, Judges of Normality.
Jahnavi Mishra (Project 39A), The Punished.
Previous efforts towards user-centric courts in Ireland.
Fields of View (game designs for listening).
(You can find an abridged version of this piece on Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy (JALDI)’s blog Notes from the Field, here)