Reforming the Indian Bar: The limits of technological solutions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55763/ippr.2025.06.03.003Abstract
A majority of Indians do not have effective access to legal services, despite the constitutional promise of access to justice. There are two intertwined reasons for this: the unavailability of a sufficient number of good quality lawyers, and the high costs of accessing legal services. The Indian legal profession is highly unequal, with ‘prestige’ being the currency of upward professional mobility. The professional regulator, the Bar Council of India, simply lacks the capacity to regulate quality. As a consequence, clients lack the information to access lawyers, and to understand the outcomes they desire from them, and the fees they have to pay. Legal aid solutions are only able to cater to a fraction of these unmet legal needs. In this paper, we observe that in the absence of regulatory reform, the Indian state and private players are attempting to use technology to address this capacity problem. The Supreme Court’s e-Courts project promised to transform the system through information technology enablement of courts, while the private legal tech sector has designed several solutions, including lawyer matching platforms for delivery of legal services. However, the success of the e-courts project remains mixed at best, with the litigant remaining underserved, and private sector solutions have failed to reach scale due to regulatory uncertainty and their inability to build trust. The paper argues that technological solutions as currently designed are useful in fixing process-specific issues, but are inadequate to address the more fundamental problem of misaligned incentives and deep-rooted regulatory design flaws of the Indian legal profession, which require much broader scale reform.
Keywords:
Technology, Solutions, Reforms, Legal Systems, Lawyers, State Capacity, Access to JusticeDownloads
References
Aithala, Varsha, and Siddharth Peter De Souza. 2018. “Can Technology Finally Deliver on India’s Legal Aid Promise?” Stanford Social Innovation Review, July 27. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/can_technology_finally_deliver_on_indias_legal_aid_promise
Aithala, Varsha, Siddharth De Souza, and Srishti John. 2021. The Supreme Court of India’s vision for e-Courts: the need to retain justice as a public service. https://www.thehinducentre.com/the-arena/the-supreme-court-of-indias-vision-for-ecourts-the-need-to-retain-justice-as-a-public-service-html-version/article64931616.ece.
Aithala, Varsha, Anushka Sachan, Srijoni Sen, Himanshu Payal, and Chiranjib Bhattacharya. 2024. “Decision Time: Illuminating Performance in India’s District Courts.” Data and Policy 6 (August). https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2024.24.
Aithala, Varsha, Ratan Sudheer, and Nandana Sengupta. 2021. “Justice Delayed: A District-Wise Empirical Study on Indian Judiciary.” Journal of Indian Law and Society 12 (1): 106–28. https://jils.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Justice-delayed_empirical-study.pdf.
Aithala, Varsha, and Suresh, Karthik. 2023. “Are The Bar Council's New Rules On Foreign Lawyers A Game Changer?” NDTV Profit, March 28. https://www.ndtvprofit.com/opinion/are-the-bar-councils-new-rules-on-foreign-lawyers-a-game-changer
Anand, Tushar, and Devendra Damle. 2020. Problems with the e-Courts data. Working paper, no. 314 (July). https://www.nipfp.org.in/media/medialibrary/2020/07/WP_314__2020.pdf.
Andrews, Matt, Lant Pritchett, Salimah Samji, and Michael Woolcock. 2015. “Building capability by delivering results: Putting Problem-Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA) principles into practice.” https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:114469259.
Ballakrishnen, Swethaa. 2012. “’I Love My American Job’: Professional Prestige in the Indian Outsourcing Industry and Global Consequences of an Expanding Legal Profession.” International Journal of the Legal Profession 19 (2): 379–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695958.2013.771124.
Balmer, Nigel, Pascoe Pleasence, Hugh McDonald, and Rebecca Sandefur. 2023. The Public Understanding of Law Survey (PULS) Volume 1: Everyday Problems and Legal Need. Victoria Law Foundation. https://puls.victorialawfoundation.org.au/publications/everyday-problems-and-legal-need.
Bar and Bench. 2019. Debarment for failure to clear AIBE: BCD admits errors in list of 4,778 advocates, calls for advocates to contact for corrections. September 10. https://www.barandbench.com/news/debarment-failing-aibe-bcd-admits-error-in-list-of-4778-advocates.
Bar Council of India. 2023. Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2022. March 10. https://www.barcouncilofindia.org/info/fil-flf-regulations
Bar Council of India. 2025. Press Release. March 17. https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2025-03-17/woja2fuv/Press_Release_Dated_17_03_2025.pdf
Baruah, Padmini, Shruthi Naik, Surya Prakash B. S., and Kishore Mandyam. 2017. Paths to Justice: Surveying Judicial and Non-Judicial Dispute Resolution in India. https://dakshindia.org/Daksh_Justice_in_India/12_chapter_02.xhtml.
Clifton, Judith, Marcos Fernandez-Gutierrez, and Michael Howlett. 2022. “Assessing Public Services from the Citizen Perspective: What Can We Learn from Surveys?” Journal of Economic Policy Reform 25 (1): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/17487870.2020.1795444.
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative. 2018. Hope Behind Bars: Status Report on Legal Aid for Persons in Custody. https://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/download/CHRI%20Legal%20Aid%20Report%20Hope%20Behind%20Bars%20Volume%201.pdf.
CSDS, Lok Niti and Azim Premji University. 2019. Politics and Society Between Elections. https://www.lokniti.org/media/upload_files/politics-and-society-between-elections-2019-report.pdf.
Dezalay, Y., and B. Garth. 2011. Lawyers and the Rule of Law in an Era of Globalization. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203831359.
Galanter, Marc. 1968. “The Displacement of Traditional Law in Modern India.” Journal of Social Issues 24 (4): 65–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1968.tb02316.x.
Galanter, Marc. 1974. “Why the "Haves" Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change.” Law and Society Review 9 (1): 95–160. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3053023.
Galanter, Marc. 2009a. “India’s Tort Deficit: Sketch for a Historical Portrait.” In Fault Lines: Tort Law as Cultural Practice. Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804771207-006.
Galanter, Marc. 2009b. “The myth of litigious India.” Jindal Global Law Review 1: 65–77. https://repository.law.wisc.edu/s/uwlaw/media/39770.
Galanter, Mark. 1989. Law and Society in Modern India. Oxford University Press.
Galanter, Mark, and Nick Robinson. 2013. “India’s Grand Advocates: A Legal Elite Flourishing in the Era of Globalization.” International Journal of the Legal Profession 20 (November).
Glen, Kristin Booth. 2002. “When and Where We Enter: Rethinking Admission to the Legal Profession.” Columbia Law Review 102 (6): 1696–740.
House of Commons, UK Parliament. 2024. Court statistics for England and Wales. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8372/CBP-8372.pdf.
Hudec, Albert, and Michael Trebilcock. 1982. “Lawyer Advertising and the Supply of Information in the Market for Legal Services.” University of Western Ontario Law Review 20.
Kelkar, Vijay, and Ajay Shah. 2022. In Service of the Republic: the art and science of economic policy. 2nd ed. Penguin Allen Lane.
Krishnan, Jayanth K., Shirish Kavadi, Azima Girach, et al. 2014. Grappling at the Grassroots: Access to Justice in India’s Lower Tier. May 29. https://harvardhrj.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2014/07/V27_Krishnan_et_al.pdf.
Krishnaswamy, Sudhir, and Varsha Aithala. 2022. “The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018–2019: a primer for a National Crime Victim Survey.” In Crime Victimisation in India. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12251-4_5.
Krishnaswamy, Sudhir, and Siddharth Swaminathan. 2019. “Public Trust in the Indian Judiciary: The Power to Transform.” In A Qualified Hope: The Indian Supreme Court and Progressive Social Change, edited by Gerald N. Rosenberg, Sudhir Krishnaswamy, and Shishir Bail. Cambridge University Press.
Law Commission of India. 2017. Report No. 266: The Advocates Act, 1961 (Regulation of Legal Profession). https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/Report266.pdf.
Lok Sabha. 2014. Unstarred Question No. 1993. http://loksabhaph.nic.in/Questions/QResult15.aspx?qref=11298&lsno=16.
Mamidi, Pavan. 2013. Negotiating out of holdouts in land aggregation in India: small town lawyers, contingent contracts, social norms, and auctions. nos. 2013-1 (October). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2344239.
Manivannan, Pavithra, Karthik Suresh, Susan Thomas, and Bhargavi Zaveri-Shah. 2023. “How substantial are non-substantive hearings in Indian courts: some estimates from Bombay.” The Leap Blog, December 6. https://blog.theleapjournal.org/2023/12/how-substantial-are-non-substantive.html.
Manivannan, Pavithra, Susan Thomas, and Bhargavi Zaveri-Shah. 2024. “Survey-based measurement of Indian courts.” The Leap Blog, January 13. https://blog.theleapjournal.org/2024/01/survey-based-measurement-of-indian.html.
Ministry of Finance, Government of India. 2018. Economic Survey 2017-18. https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/budget2018-2019/economicsurvey2017-2018/index.html.
Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India. 2023a. “Cabinet approves eCourts Phase III for 4 years.” September 13. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1956920.
Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India. 2023b. “Third Phase of e-Courts.” December 7. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1983570#:~:text=Taking%20the%20gains%20of%20Phase,digital%2C%20online%20and%20paperless%20courts.
Moog, Robert. 1993. “Indian Litigiousness and the Litigation Explosion: Challenging the Legend.” Asian Survey 33 (12): 1136–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/2645174.
Morozov, Evgeny. 2013. To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism. Penguin.
Morrison, Charles. 1972. “Kinship in Professional Relations: A Study of North Indian District Lawyers.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 14 (1): 100–125. http://www.jstor.org/stable/178063.
Naik, Shruti. 2016. The Cost of Litigation — What Alternatives Do We Have? Daksh India. https://www.dakshindia.org/cost-litigation-alternatives/.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the World Justice Project. 2019. Building a Business Case for Access to Justice. https://www.oecd.org/gov/building-a-business-case-for-access-to-justice.pdf.
Pleasence, Pascoe, and Nigel Balmer. 2019. “Justice and the Capability to Function in Society.” Daedalus 148.
Robinson, Nick. 2016. “Judicial Architecture and Capacity.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution.
Rostain, Tanina. 2019. “Techno-Optimism and Access to the Legal System.” Daedalus 148 (1): 93–97. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_00540.
Sahoo, M. S. 2012. “Political Economy of Neo-Governments.” Chartered Secretary 42 (12): 1530–44. https://www.icsi.edu/media/cs/december%202012/December.pdf.
Sane, Renuka, and Ajay Shah. 2022. “Crime victimisation surveys in Indian criminal justice system reform.” In Crime Victimisation in India, 1st ed. Springer. https://papers.xkdr.org/papers/SaneShah2022_cvs.pdf.
Sankaraguruswamy, Srinivasan, and Umakanth Varottil. 2023. “Which Companies Pay More (or Less) in Legal Fees? An Empirical Study of India.” International Review of Law and Economics 75 (September).
Shah, Ajay, Arjun Rajagopal, and Shubho Roy. 2013. “From Clubs to States: The Future of Self-Regulating Organisations.” December 19. https://blog.theleapjournal.org/2013/12/from-clubs-to-states-future-of-self.html#gsc.tab=0.
Shukla, Shailaja. 2022. Beyond the Bench: promise of Indian legal tech startups. CII-E, IIM Ahmedabad. https://insights.iimaventures.com/posts/beyond-the-bench-promise-of-indian-legal-tech-startups.
Sir Dorabjee Tata Trust. 2025. India Justice Report. https://indiajusticereport.org/files/IJR%204_Full%20Report_English_Low.pdf.
Solicitors’ Regulatory Authority. n.d. Population of solicitors in England and Wales. Accessed July 16, 2025. https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/how-we-work/reports/statistics/regulated-community-statistics/data/population_solicitors/.
Spandana, Sai. 2023. “SC’s Live Transcription project: a failed experiment?” Supreme Court Cases, May 18. https://www.scobserver.in/journal/scs-live-transcription-project-a-failed-experiment/.
Supreme Court of India. 1962. Re: Mr. A, an Advocate vs Unknown. AIR 1962 SC 1337.
Supreme Court of India. 2020. Charanjeet Chandarpal vs. Bar Council of India. WP (Civil) no. 627 of 2020.
Supreme Court of India. 2021a. Ajayinder Sangwan v. Bar Council of Delhi and Ors. Transfer Case No. 126 of 2015. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2015/41229/41229_2015_32_1_28388_Order_12-Jul-2021.pdf.
Supreme Court of India. 2021b. K. Anjinappa v. K.C. Krishna Reddy and Ors. CA no. 7478 of 2019.
Talesh, Shauhin. 2013. “How the "Haves" Come Out Ahead in the Twenty-First Century.” DePaul Law Review 62.
The New York Times. 2013. A Conversation With: Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra. January 24. https://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/a-conversation-with-bar-council-of-india-chairman-manan-kumar-mishra/.
Trebilcock, Michael J. 2001. “Regulating Legal Competence.” Canadian Business Law Journal 34: 444.
Vidhi Center for Legal Policy. 2020. Submissions on the Regulation of the Legal Profession in India. https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/SubmissionstotheLawCommissiononregulationofthelegalprofessioninIndia.pdf.
Wilkins, David. 1992. “Who Should Regulate Lawyers?” Harvard Law Review, 799–887.
Wilkins, David B., Vikramaditya S. Khanna, and David M. Trubek. 2017. Cambridge University Press. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3110797.
Williams, Alexander. 2020. “Imagining the post-colonial lawyer: legal elites and the Indian nation-state, 1947–1967.” Asian Journal of Comparative Law 15 (1): 156–86. https://doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2020.7.
World Justice Project, The. 2019. Global Insights on Access to Justice 2019. https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/research-and-data/global-insights-access-justice-2019.