Methods
The survey of district court complex infrastructure was undertaken in collaboration with Vimarsh Development Solutions (“Vimarsh”). Initial desk-based research estimates based on the ecourts website suggested that there were 647 district courts in India. However, field researchers on-site found additional courts, which took the total up to 665 district court complexes across 36 states and Union Territories became the final number of court complexes surveyed. It is not confirmed whether this is the conclusive list of district court complexes, as the websites of neither the state High Courts nor the central Department of Justice provide such a list.
In partnership with Urban Sciences, which specialises in web development and data analytics, a repository of the data collected in the survey was created. A website complementing the survey and this report contains details of the survey outcomes, and allows users to study the various data points at national, state and district levels.
- Survey and Data Collection
The first stage involved designing and finalising a questionnaire based on the benchmarks identified by the NCMS baseline report, focussing on three aspects of judicial infrastructure: physical, digital and human resources. As part of physical infrastructure, questions were asked as to how a litigant accesses courtroom spaces. For digital infrastructure, the objective was twofold: firstly, to assess whether the district court websites existed at all; and secondly, whether they had basic information that would help litigants. The survey of websites did not examine whether they were accessible to persons with disabilities. Websites of every district court complex that was physically surveyed was also separately studied for the presence of 8 pre-identified features based on the NCMS report, to assess whether the website was informative and user-friendly. ( Click here the website infrastructure questionnaire) As part of human resource infrastructure, the study looked at the number of working judges and the number of vacant posts based on data from NJDG and Court News, a quarterly publication of the Supreme Court.
Field researchers visiting district court complexes completed two surveys: firstly, of the physical infrastructure of the complex, and secondly, of litigants visiting the complex that day. The purpose of the litigant interviews was to take stock of the user experience while accessing court spaces. 10 litigants from each district court complex (totalling 6650 litigants) were selected randomly on-site for the feedback on the conditions of available facilities, and for suggestions on how the experience of visiting the court complex could be improved. Litigants were interviewed about all identifiable aspects of interactions with physical court infrastructure.
The parameters assessed in the litigant interviews ranged from how easy it was to get to, and navigate within, the court complex, to awareness of the availability of various facilities and services within the court complex. On certain aspects of the user experience, such as facilities in the waiting area, litigants were also asked to choose from pre-identified areas for improvement. Litigants also had the option to provide additional suggestions, classified as “others” in the questionnaire. However, this option was barely selected.
Field researchers were instructed to interview litigants while leaving since they were more likely to be calm and would have more time to respond. Attempts were also made to interview at least one litigant with disabilities, to understand whether the complexes were truly inclusive from a user’s perspective. However, this proved to be challenging, given the limited time surveyors spent in a particular court complex. Women and senior citizens are also identified as marginal users of courts, and are likely to face accessibility issues, and were interviewed wherever possible.
A smaller sample of illiterate respondents was interviewed in urban areas. A minimum of a 30:70 ratio in this regard was sought to be maintained among litigant interviewees, where 30% litigants interviewed were illiterate. This was particularly critical to the study since it is important to understand whether court complexes are accessible to illiterate persons in terms of availability of sign boards in local language, having a working help desk, and so on.
Field researchers were locally recruited by the collaborating partner, Vimarsh, in the various states and Union Territories. These field researchers were post-graduates in Social Work/Social Sciences with at least four years of work experience, and were conversant in the local languages of the areas they were surveying. Surveys were conducted between May 2018 and August 2018, and court vacations were taken into consideration before surveys were scheduled.
The state teams of field researchers were managed by a Project Coordinator and a Research Associate based out of the Vimarsh office in Gurugram, Haryana. Before field researchers were sent to the field, a training of trainers was conducted by Vidhi, where the Project Coordinator and Research Associate from Vimarsh were trained. Field researchers were further trained through web-conference, region-wise, in batches.
Once the first draft of the survey questionnaires were prepared, they were piloted in a district court complex each in Delhi and Gurugram. Following this pre-test, the questionnaires were finalised. Although the survey questionnaire and final data entry was in the English language, field researchers were trained to canvass them in the local language.
A field researcher was required to spend one day (from 9am-1pm or sometimes after lunch hours) for the survey of each district court complex. A daily progress of data collected was sent by the field researchers to the coordinating team in Gurugram. A weekly progress report was also sent to the team at Vidhi coordinating this project. In addition, the names and phone numbers of field researchers were shared with Vidhi for enabling field-level monitoring checks.
- Data Entry and Analysis
A random verification of the primary data thus collected was conducted by the coordinating team handling the field researchers, as part of appropriate checks on data quality. After interviews were completed, the data was verified by personally contacting a random selection of approximately 5% litigants from every state over the phone. In addition to these quality control measures, field researchers shared a photograph of the court complex from outside, with a date and time stamp so that the coordinating team could verify the same. Data from field researchers was inputted using a programme created for this purpose by UrbanSciences, designed to avoid duplication and minimise other data entry errors. The programme was designed to be simple and practical such that the data entry could be easily undertaken.
Over a hundred data points were collected, and have been thematically grouped to capture a litigant’s experience through a court complex. These parameters are: Getting There, Navigation, Waiting Areas, Hygiene, Barrier- Free Access, Case Display, Amenities, Security and Websites. For a detailed understanding of how these 100+ data points were folded into themes, please refer to Annexure 2.
- Scoring System
Each district court complex was assessed on its performance across nine parameters: Getting There, Navigation, Waiting Areas, Hygiene, Barrier- Free Access, Case Display, Amenities, Security and Websites. These parameters were further grouped into a number of sub-themes. Each parameter was assigned equal overall weight. Within each parameter, sub-themes were also given an equal weight distribution. Thus if a parameter had two sub-themes, each of the sub-themes were assigned an equal score to compute the total score for that parameter. Equal weightage was given to avoid making value judgments on the relative importance of one sub-theme or parameter over the other. Thus, the same value was assigned for features enabling barrier-free access, as for features ensuring smooth navigation within premises. Aggregating the scores across each parameter for each complex, every district court complex was given a total score. This method helped identify the best and worst performing districts across each state, and consequently, the relative performance of each state.
As part of the scoring process, answers to litigant interviews were not included due to their subjective nature. Most of the interview questions could not be quantified or recorded as binary (‘Yes’ or ‘No’) responses, and in many cases, the answers were suggestions for improvement of particular features. Nevertheless, these interviews support the study’s analysis and findings, and have been used to illustrate the nine parameters to give a broader picture of user experience.
The scoring process also did not factor in data points about human resources, such as the sanctioned and sitting strength of judges, since this data was not available for the district level, which was the unit of study for the survey. The data has been analysed state-wise as well as and nationally. Separately published state reports present a snapshot of a state’s performance, taking into consideration the performance of all district court complexes in that state across these nine parameters. The present report shows the major trends for each of these parameters across states, providing a national picture of court infrastructure.
The first stage involved designing and finalising a questionnaire based on the benchmarks identified by the NCMS baseline report, focussing on three aspects of judicial infrastructure: physical, digital and human resources. As part of physical infrastructure, questions were asked as to how a litigant accesses courtroom spaces. For digital infrastructure, the objective was twofold: firstly, to assess whether the district court websites existed at all; and secondly, whether they had basic information that would help litigants. The survey of websites did not examine whether they were accessible to persons with disabilities. Websites of every district court complex that was physically surveyed was also separately studied for the presence of 8 pre-identified features based on the NCMS report, to assess whether the website was informative and user-friendly. ( Click here the website infrastructure questionnaire) As part of human resource infrastructure, the study looked at the number of working judges and the number of vacant posts based on data from NJDG and Court News, a quarterly publication of the Supreme Court.
Field researchers visiting district court complexes completed two surveys: firstly, of the physical infrastructure of the complex, and secondly, of litigants visiting the complex that day. The purpose of the litigant interviews was to take stock of the user experience while accessing court spaces. 10 litigants from each district court complex (totalling 6650 litigants) were selected randomly on-site for the feedback on the conditions of available facilities, and for suggestions on how the experience of visiting the court complex could be improved. Litigants were interviewed about all identifiable aspects of interactions with physical court infrastructure.
The parameters assessed in the litigant interviews ranged from how easy it was to get to, and navigate within, the court complex, to awareness of the availability of various facilities and services within the court complex. On certain aspects of the user experience, such as facilities in the waiting area, litigants were also asked to choose from pre-identified areas for improvement. Litigants also had the option to provide additional suggestions, classified as “others” in the questionnaire. However, this option was barely selected.
Field researchers were instructed to interview litigants while leaving since they were more likely to be calm and would have more time to respond. Attempts were also made to interview at least one litigant with disabilities, to understand whether the complexes were truly inclusive from a user’s perspective. However, this proved to be challenging, given the limited time surveyors spent in a particular court complex. Women and senior citizens are also identified as marginal users of courts, and are likely to face accessibility issues, and were interviewed wherever possible.
A smaller sample of illiterate respondents was interviewed in urban areas. A minimum of a 30:70 ratio in this regard was sought to be maintained among litigant interviewees, where 30% litigants interviewed were illiterate. This was particularly critical to the study since it is important to understand whether court complexes are accessible to illiterate persons in terms of availability of sign boards in local language, having a working help desk, and so on.
Field researchers were locally recruited by the collaborating partner, Vimarsh, in the various states and Union Territories. These field researchers were post-graduates in Social Work/Social Sciences with at least four years of work experience, and were conversant in the local languages of the areas they were surveying. Surveys were conducted between May 2018 and August 2018, and court vacations were taken into consideration before surveys were scheduled.
The state teams of field researchers were managed by a Project Coordinator and a Research Associate based out of the Vimarsh office in Gurugram, Haryana. Before field researchers were sent to the field, a training of trainers was conducted by Vidhi, where the Project Coordinator and Research Associate from Vimarsh were trained. Field researchers were further trained through web-conference, region-wise, in batches.
Once the first draft of the survey questionnaires were prepared, they were piloted in a district court complex each in Delhi and Gurugram. Following this pre-test, the questionnaires were finalised. Although the survey questionnaire and final data entry was in the English language, field researchers were trained to canvass them in the local language.
A field researcher was required to spend one day (from 9am-1pm or sometimes after lunch hours) for the survey of each district court complex. A daily progress of data collected was sent by the field researchers to the coordinating team in Gurugram. A weekly progress report was also sent to the team at Vidhi coordinating this project. In addition, the names and phone numbers of field researchers were shared with Vidhi for enabling field-level monitoring checks.
A random verification of the primary data thus collected was conducted by the coordinating team handling the field researchers, as part of appropriate checks on data quality. After interviews were completed, the data was verified by personally contacting a random selection of approximately 5% litigants from every state over the phone. In addition to these quality control measures, field researchers shared a photograph of the court complex from outside, with a date and time stamp so that the coordinating team could verify the same. Data from field researchers was inputted using a programme created for this purpose by UrbanSciences, designed to avoid duplication and minimise other data entry errors. The programme was designed to be simple and practical such that the data entry could be easily undertaken.
Over a hundred data points were collected, and have been thematically grouped to capture a litigant’s experience through a court complex. These parameters are: Getting There, Navigation, Waiting Areas, Hygiene, Barrier- Free Access, Case Display, Amenities, Security and Websites. For a detailed understanding of how these 100+ data points were folded into themes, please refer to Annexure 2.
Each district court complex was assessed on its performance across nine parameters: Getting There, Navigation, Waiting Areas, Hygiene, Barrier- Free Access, Case Display, Amenities, Security and Websites. These parameters were further grouped into a number of sub-themes. Each parameter was assigned equal overall weight. Within each parameter, sub-themes were also given an equal weight distribution. Thus if a parameter had two sub-themes, each of the sub-themes were assigned an equal score to compute the total score for that parameter. Equal weightage was given to avoid making value judgments on the relative importance of one sub-theme or parameter over the other. Thus, the same value was assigned for features enabling barrier-free access, as for features ensuring smooth navigation within premises. Aggregating the scores across each parameter for each complex, every district court complex was given a total score. This method helped identify the best and worst performing districts across each state, and consequently, the relative performance of each state.
As part of the scoring process, answers to litigant interviews were not included due to their subjective nature. Most of the interview questions could not be quantified or recorded as binary (‘Yes’ or ‘No’) responses, and in many cases, the answers were suggestions for improvement of particular features. Nevertheless, these interviews support the study’s analysis and findings, and have been used to illustrate the nine parameters to give a broader picture of user experience.
The scoring process also did not factor in data points about human resources, such as the sanctioned and sitting strength of judges, since this data was not available for the district level, which was the unit of study for the survey. The data has been analysed state-wise as well as and nationally. Separately published state reports present a snapshot of a state’s performance, taking into consideration the performance of all district court complexes in that state across these nine parameters. The present report shows the major trends for each of these parameters across states, providing a national picture of court infrastructure.