ETools For The Construction Industry Paper

United Nations
Development
Programme
Judicial Strengthening (JUST) Project
e@sy JUSTICE 2021

A Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector
December 2014
Final Report
Executive Summary
With democratization, urbanization, and adoption of market reforms, the complexity of
social interactions has risen manifold, making the improvement of judicial conflict-
resolution capabilities and service delivery more important than ever before.
Understandably, there has been an unprecedented increase in private-sector demand
for clearer definition of rights and obligations, and a rising demand for justice, both civil
and criminal.
The Core Tenets of Judicial Reform

Research and long-standing thought reveal that an effective judicial system includes
predictable outcomes within the courts; easy access to justice for all regardless of
income and education; and a reasonable time to disposition of cases. Where the
above core tenets of the judicial system are missing lack of confidence in the
administration of justice would likely be strong, particularly among small economic
units and low-income families since it is these groupings that bear the brunt of an
ineffective justice system the most.
Like many other governments across the world, the Government of Bangladesh
(GoBD), with UNDP's assistance, has embarked on a comprehensive programme of
judicial reform to build trust among its stakeholders. The ambit of reform includes
changing, adapting and improving the judiciary, courts and their processes to bring
about improvement in the quality and efficiency of administration of justice. An integral
element of the reform measures is to improve access to justice for people, particularly
those at society's margins. Contextually speaking, among other factors, change
drivers for judicial reform in Bangladesh include:
 lengthy case delays and mounting case backlogs;
 unpredictable disposition times for cases;
 limited access to justice;
 lack of transparency and predictability in court decisions;
 shortage of financial, physical and other resources; and
 weak public confidence in the judicial system.
ICT as an instrument of change

While a comprehensive reform initiative aimed at improving judicial outcomes entails
multi-dimensional interventions, this exercise focuses on leveraging information and
communication technologies (ICTs) towards realising judicial reform objectives in
Bangladesh. Today, even as technology advancement offers new possibilities for the
integration and automation of court procedures, the increasing ubiquity of the Internet
and democratisation of ICT through mobile phones provide an opportunity to open the
judiciary to the public, thereby also increasing legitimacy and enhancing trust.
Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector i

The Supreme Court with UNDP's technical and financial support has undertaken the
Judicial Strengthening (JUST) project to strengthen its capacity to administer the court
system efficiently and reduce the case backlogs which would provide a sustainable
foundation to improve access to justice for the public, especially, vulnerable groups
such as the poor, women and children.
The JUST project focuses on four areas:

1. Improved case management in the Supreme Court;
2. Improved strategic planning and administrative capacity of the Supreme Court;
3. District courts deliver improved services for court users; and
4. Strengthened training capacity on case-management.
Under the aegis of JUST, this exercise aims at drawing up a strategic plan for the
adoption of ICT in the Justice sector towards meeting the aforesaid objectives.
The Current Exercise

GoBD is pursuing Digital Bangladesh Vision 2021 that aims to mainstream ICTs as a
pro-poor tool to eradicate poverty, establish good governance, ensure social equity,
healthcare and law enforcement for all. Notwithstanding the vision, its derived
implications for the law enforcement function of GoBD, and top-level political and
executive commitment, ICT adoption in the sector has, at best, been through isolated
efforts and not a part of a comprehensive sector-wide strategy.
As against embarking on piecemeal computerisation of different components of the

judicial system, this work encompasses the end-to-end ICT-enablement of the judicial
system in Bangladesh leading to rendering eJustice to its stakeholders with
information being delivered on an anytime, anywhere and anyhow basis. It includes
aspects of case management and judicial service delivery. In a close sequel it is
expected that ICT-enabled operations of the Ministry of Justice, Government of
Bangladesh (GoBD) will also attach itself. In the short to medium terms it is also hoped
that this eJustice strategy will form the foundation for the induction of ICT in the "Law
Enforcement" cluster that will include the Police and Prisons departments.
Challenges in the Current State

Issues being faced in the current state have been analysed in the four tracks of (a)
Process Issues; (b) People Issues; (c) Technology Issues; and (d) Strategy,
Communication and Collaboration Issues. Analyses of the current state have been
accomplished in light of the consultant's own experience of similar systems that have
been successfully implemented elsewhere and stakeholders' own perceptions of
where bottlenecks exist and what needs to be done. Concurrently, an extensive
benchmarking exercise has been undertaken of case studies and best practices in the
field of eJustice including from the most developed countries of the world (from an
Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector ii

eJustice perspective) such as Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, US, and the like.
Experiences have also been considered from contextually similar countries like India.
Principal Recommendations
Recommendations emerging from the current state assessment and benchmarking
exercise include the following:
1. FUNCTIONAL AND PROCESS STANDARDISATION: A proper functional and
process thesaurus/dictionary must be built for the Justice sector as a whole to
ensure that the coverage of the system is complete as is the alignment with sector
objectives; this will help when, at a later date, when an Enterprise Architecture is
prepared for the Law Enforcement Cluster. The coupling between this exercise
and others that depend on it should be loose.
2. PROCESS RE-ENGINEERING: Subsequent to process standardisation, a
thorough process re-engineering should be carried out including criminal judicial
processes as well as other administrative processes, as process mapping for civil
justice processes has been completed. Common processes must be discovered,
(a) between civil judicial and criminal judicial processes; and (b) between
administrative processes in this sector and those of any other sector within the
government.
3. INFORMATION AVAILABILITY: Information must be available particularly to the
judiciary through convenient means of access for them to be able to schedule
dates of hearing, categorise cases, allocate judges and perform other associated
functions. Legal research literature to empower judges with statutory codes,
judicial opinions, treatises, legal journals, and other useful inputs must be at hand
too, appropriately tagged and indexed for better search and retrievability.
4. DATA STANDARDISATION: All data elements invoked in the processes must be
standardised not just in their description but also in their representation. A
metadata repository for the Justice sector must be in place. Further, all documents
must be appropriately classified with template-based entry of information related
to documents into the database facilitating the transformation of the system from
a document-centric to a data-centric one.
5. LEGAL INTERVENTIONS: For the changes introduced through process re-
engineering and adoption of ICT to enjoy legal sanction, concomitant legal
refinements also be made for newly introduced changes to have their basis in law.
6. TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS: Technology solutions must take into account the
entire set of judicial and administrative processes with case management, serving
as the backbone of the eJustice suite, being built using caseflow management
techniques to facilitate case-tracking, ensure that cases move through efficiently
and provide information to allocate time and resources judiciously. Furthermore,
the same solution would be applicable for the Supreme Courts as for the lower
courts for the same functions. Solutions must be developed using non-proprietary
standards and served over the Internet either on computer or over mobile devices.
Taken in conjunction, standardisation of process, data and technology will ensure
Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector iii

interoperability among different solution components of the eJustice suite and
prepare the ground for exchange between eJustice and the external world.
7. MULTI-CHANNEL AND MULTI-DEVICE DELIVERY: Solutions offered must take
into account the need and circumstance of the targeted user appropriately
segmented to determine the best channel/device for them to access eJustice
components. It should be possible to seamlessly move from one channel to
another at any stage of the process chain or service. The solution should be
available for multiple devices and channels, particularly over mobile devices
whose penetration is far higher compared to the PC’s. Value-added features like
queries or simple information should be available through innovative mobile
applications to maximise convenience for the litigants and lawyers alike. Most
importantly, mobile-delivered solutions should be such as to be available over
basic mobile phones, not necessarily smartphones. USSD-based mobile apps
should be particularly encouraged. As a point of access e@syJUSTICE kiosks are
also recommended that should be appropriately branded for better awareness and
recall.
8. MONITORING AND EVALUATION: Monitoring and evaluation must be an integral
part of implementation, and is conceptualised in two ways as follows-
a. Monitoring and evaluation of the implementation process should be
periodically done through status reports and other instruments, covering
inputs, outputs, outcome and impact.
b. Monitoring should also be done of eJustice as a whole without necessarily
linking it with one or more initiatives under implementation. This monitoring of
eJustice will track the development of eJustice in the country through
objectively-defined indicators whose aggregate could be conceptualised as an
eJustice Maturity Index.
9. REDRESSAL OF GRIEVANCES: It should be possible to associate processes
and their components with metrics that need to be achieved. In particular for
service delivery, parameters and their targeted values must be defined and
disclosed to justice service seekers. A shortfall (or beyond a particular threshold
value of shortfall) in achievement of service delivery targets must attract penalties
for the erring/underperforming parties and compensation for the service
consumer.
10. CAPACITY BUILDING: Capacity building linked to the specific roles being
performed by the different stakeholders should be continually done so that not just
ICT in general but also the use of the eJustice system in particular is properly
internalised. Incentives and disincentives for both internal and external users
should be institutionalised to act as further fillip to stakeholders to use the system.
11. AWARENESS AND OUTREACH; A concerted and sustained awareness and
outreach campaign must be carried out in accordance with a plan drawn for the
purpose. Based on the stakeholders being targeted such a campaign must
necessarily take place over several media including social media and must invite
Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector iv

active participation and inputs from stakeholders on the eJustice system under
use or on any other aspect.
The Way Forward- eJustice Vision and Themes

To implement the identified recommendations, strategic elements in a larger strategic
framework have been conceptualised including (top-down) Vision  Strategic Themes
 Strategy  Strategic Interventions  Workplan. Whereas the Vision will be
realised through interventions in several themes each of which shall be associated
with a GOAL represented by “Impact”, every theme has been associated with one or
more strategies or ways to achieve the GOALS of the theme with the realisation of
every strategy being identified with an “Outcome”. Each of the identified strategies will
be realised through one or more strategic interventions that will be operational within
pre-defined timeframes and will be associated with tangible “Outputs”. Finally, the
Workplan will provide the mechanism through which all the interventions will be
implemented.
The year 2021 has been identified as the target year for eJustice Vision: “Easy Access
to Speedy Justice for ALL through ICT by 2021", also referred to as e@syJUSTICE
2021. The Vision includes the two principal elements of speedier case disposition
(efficiency imperative) and service delivery to stakeholders (delivery imperative), while
predictability in judicial processes is an implicit enabler (effectiveness imperative).
To realise the above Vision, five strategic themes have been proposed with goals
associated with each of them as in the table below.
Strategic Themes Brief Description Associated Goals

Standardisation This theme includes At least 90% by 2021 are
and Re- standardisation and re- resolved within pre-
engineering engineering of process, data, established timeframes as
technology and service measured by the output of
delivery elements as a pre- Case Management System
requisite.
Technology This theme will include Increase in clearance rate of
Development and activities that bring about 20% by 2021 over what is
Deployment development and deployment observed in the first year of
of appropriate technology operation of eJustice
systems that adequately
capture processes and At least a score of 90% by
information elements of the 2021 on Court File Integrity
functioning of the Judiciary. based on reports filed by audit
and/or inspection teams
Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector v

Strategic Themes Brief Description Associated Goals
Institutional This theme ensure that the At least a score of 90% by
Capacity Building human and institutional 2021 on employee
elements involved in the engagement as indicated by
implementation of the eJustice surveys undertaken
system are commensurate with
its requirements.
Governance and This theme ensures that A predictability score of 90%
Monitoring agreed standards/ guidelines by 2021 taking into account
are institutionalised and are categorisation of cases and
duly complied with by the prescription of different
relevant stakeholder agencies timeframes for different types
through governance of cases.
mechanisms.
Awareness and This theme includes spreading Court User Satisfaction as
Outreach awareness of the initiative represented by the index to
among a wide stakeholder be designed by one of the
base and encouraging recommended exercises and
adoption of the system through data collected through
appropriate measures. surveys
Finally, strategies have been defined to attain the goals and, for each of the strategies,
interventions have been recommended to be implemented under four different
“programmes”. The set of interventions recommended for implementation has been
influenced by:
 readiness of stakeholders for implementation of the intervention in question,
particularly those that are distinctly more complex than the others;
 criticality of the recommended intervention;
 sustaining existing momentum of eJustice achieved through stakeholder
interactions; and
 selecting the most optimum path within the constraints while keeping room for latter
day interventions to bridge any gaps that might emerge.
Strategic
Strategy Intervention
Themes
Standardisation Standardise all process, S4: Define and finalise standards
and Re- data, service delivery and guidelines for record-
engineering and technology elements keeping in Bangladesh judicial
with a view to bring about entities
accurate and complete S5: Define and finalise the Judicial
information exchange Service Charter aligned with
other eGovernment interventions
Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector vi

Strategic
Themes
and retrieval (Strategy and finalise service delivery
S) parameters for services to be
rendered by judicial entities
Standardisation Perform comprehensive B1: Adopt BPMN as a process
and Re- business process re- representation standard and
engineering engineering to harness undertake comprehensive BPR
internal efficiency and of all civil, criminal, other judicial
effectiveness (Strategy and administrative processes of
B) the Judiciary
Standardisation Build a robust legal and L1: Finalise legal amendments and
and Re- regulatory foundation for regulatory interventions for
engineering the introduced changes process changes introduced in
to take effect and help the strategy to take effect
the transition towards
paperless judiciary
(Strategy L)
Technology Deploy eJustice suite of T1: Prepare the complete functional,
Design and solutions in phases using technical and operational design
Deployment a pilot approach of the complete eJustice suite of
(Strategy T) solutions
T2: Develop and Deploy on a pilot
basis Phase I of eJustice suite of
solutions
T3: Roll out Phase I across
Bangladesh Judiciary
T4: Develop and Deploy on a pilot
basis Phase II of eJustice suite
of solutions
T5: Roll out Phase II across
Bangladesh Judiciary
Technology Make available judicial A2: Design and implement the
Design and information to all through eJustice portal as the one-stop
Deployment convenient and secure solution for all information and
channels of access service related to the Judiciary in
(Strategy A) Bangladesh
Institutional Design, setup and I1: Finalise and operationalise
Capacity operationalise an organisation structure and
Building institutional framework to prepare organisation design for
drive ICT adoption in an institutional framework to
Bangladesh judiciary drive the ICT adoption in
(Strategy I) Bangladesh judiciary
Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector vii

Strategic
Themes
Institutional Undertake continued C1: Define and implement a
Capacity role-based capacity comprehensive plan for role-
Building building of all based capacity building of all
stakeholders of the stakeholders of the Bangladesh
eCourt system to eJustice system
maximise its adoption
(Strategy C)
Governance Institutionalise and G2: Define compliance mechanisms
and Monitoring enforce governance for pre-agreed standards,
mechanisms to ensure guidelines and norms in each of
compliance of standards, the areas mentioned above
guidelines and norms G3: Define comprehensive grievance
required to be followed redressal norms and practices
for a comprehensive
implementation of the
eJustice system
(Strategy G)
Governance Undertake continual and M1: Design of a comprehensive tool
and Monitoring objective monitoring of for Feedback and Satisfaction
eJustice implementation Measurement on services
activities to facilitate delivered by Judicial agencies
target-based M2: Holistic concept and design of an
implementation eJustice Maturity Index to reflect
(Strategy M) the progressive evolution of
eJustice in Bangladesh
M3: Computation of eJustice Maturity
Index as conceptualised on an
annual basis and making related
data-informed recommendations
Awareness and Roll out comprehensive O1: Finalise and implement
Outreach awareness campaigns comprehensive plan for
for the eJustice system awareness and outreach
and its benefits on campaign to maximise the
various platforms adoption of ICT and citizen
(Strategy O) participation in the eJustice effort
Awareness and Encourage adoption of R1: Finalise rewards for institutional
Outreach the eJustice system entities and incentives for
through highly visible individual end users participating
rewards and incentives in the implementation of the
for all stakeholder types eJustice system
Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector viii

Strategic
Themes
of the system (Strategy
R)
eJustice Institutional Framework

To drive the ICT agenda in the justice sector an eJustice Institutional Framework
headed at the apex by the Chief Justice of Bangladesh (or his direct appointee) has
also been recommended following a multi-stakeholder collaborative tier-based
approach. While a dedicated National eJustice Office, adequately firewalled on
technical matters against any extraneous interference, will take care of the operational
and technical aspects, a multi-stakeholder National eJudiciary Taskforce has been
recommended to be constituted for strategic decision-making and coordination
functions, ultimately reporting to the Chief Justice of Bangladesh (or his direct
appointee). To allow for sufficient time in which this institutional framework can be
constituted without any immediate fallout on implementation deadlines a transition
arrangement has also been recommended that will take over the reins of eJustice in
the interim.
Workplan and Budgets

A loosely-coupled easy-paced workplan to implement the above interventions has
been suggested culminating in 2021 with achievement of the identified targets. A high-
level budgeting indicates that the exercise will cost BDT 315.579 crores, spread over
7 years. However, it is also acknowledged that for an exercise of this nature it is not
really possible to predict the budget with a great deal of accuracy primarily because
that will require a much deeper study of processes and detailed design of technology
systems recommended to be implemented. The budgetary allocation estimates,
therefore, will be appropriately revised following the exercise T1 which is a detailed
technical and operational design of the entire eJustice suite of solutions and is
expected to predict implementation budget particularly for technology-intensive
interventions with far greater accuracy than could be done now.
Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector ix

Abbreviations
AD Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution
AGIFT Australian Government Interactive Functions Thesaurus
BI Business Intelligence
BPMN Business Process Modelling Notation
BPR Business Process Re-engineering
CCE Certified Court Executive
CCM Certified Court Manager
CMCA Case Management and Court Administration
CMIS Case Management Information System
CMP Court Management Program
CMS Case Management System
CRM Customer Relationship Management
CRT COURT RECORDING AND TRANSCRIPTION SYSTEM
DC Dublin Core
DCMI Dublin Core Metadata Initiative
EFS Electronic Filing System
eGMF e-Government Metadata Standard Framework
ELS Electronic Litigation System
ERP Enterprise Resource Planning
GoBD Government of Bangladesh
HCD High Court Division of the Supreme Court
ICM Institute for Court Management
ICT Information and Communication Technology
IFCE International Framework for Court Excellence
JUST Judicial Strengthening Project
MCOL Money Claim Online
MJU Managing Judge Unit
RTI Right to Information
SMS Short Messaging Service
UML Unified Modelling Language
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
USSD Unstructured Supplementary Service Data
Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector x

Structure of the Report
This eJustice Strategy is contained in two principal parts.
Part One lays out the context, background and scope of the strategy. The bulk of Part One, though, is
constituted by an assessment of the current state in so far as judicial reform in general and ICT adoption,
in particular is concerned, followed by cataloguing the principal issues discovered during assessment
of the current state, interspersed with best practices from across the world where similar issues have
been faced. Finally, this part offers the recommendations proposed for ICT adoption towards meeting
the ends of justice in Bangladesh.
Part Two is based on the recommendations emerging from the earlier part and outlines a strategic
framework proposed for ICT adoption within the Judiciary. As part of this, the second part outlines the
eJustice Vision for Bangladesh, the constituent strategies and their associated goals and, finally, the
interventions that must take place on the ground for the strategies to be implemented and associated
targets to be met. An implementation framework for the proposed interventions is recommended
including an Action Plan that is derived from running a prioritisation schema on the interventions, and
the institutional structure required for immediate implementation. Budgetary allocation required for the
proposed activities and a monitoring and evaluation framework conclude this part and the eJustice
strategy document.
Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector xi

Contents
1. Background and Scope...................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Background .......................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Scope of the Strategy ....................................................................................................................... 5
2. Current State Assessment and Gap Analysis .................................................... 7

2.1 Judicial Reform Measures in Bangladesh......................................................................................... 7
2.2 Principal Issues and Concerns in Bangladesh Judiciary................................................................... 8
2.3 An overall Implementation Approach .............................................................................................. 23
2.4 ICT as a Solution to Address the Concerns in the Judiciary ........................................................... 24
2.5 Principal Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 30
3. Strategic Framework for ICT in Bangladesh Judiciary ..................................... 34

3.1 The Strategic Approach adopted for the Assignment ..................................................................... 34
3.2 The Recommended Strategic Framework ...................................................................................... 35
3.3 Bangladesh eJustice Vision ............................................................................................................ 36
3.4 Strategic Themes and Goals .......................................................................................................... 36
3.5 Strategies to be realised ................................................................................................................. 37
3.6 Strategic Interventions to be implemented...................................................................................... 38
3.7 Details of Strategic Projects to be implemented ............................................................................. 40
4. Implementation of the Strategic Plan ............................................................... 71

4.1 Rationale for Prioritisation of the Interventions ............................................................................... 71
4.2 Conceptualisation of Programmes .................................................................................................. 73
4.3 Proposed Action Plan for Implementation....................................................................................... 75
4.4 Institutional Measures for Implementation ...................................................................................... 78
4.5 Implementation Risks and Mitigation Measures ............................................................................. 83
4.6 Critical Success Factors for Implementation ................................................................................... 86
4.7 Monitoring and Evaluation of the eJustice Implementation ............................................................. 87
4.8 High Level Budgetary Requirements for the Implementation .......................................................... 95
5. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 96
6. Annexures........................................................................................................ 97
6.1 Annexure I: The Structure of the Judiciary in Bangladesh .............................................................. 98
6.2 Annexure II: Approach and Methodology followed for the Exercise .............................................. 100
6.3 Annexure III: Snapshot of the Australian Government Interactive Functions Thesaurus .............. 103
6.4 Annexure IV: Techniques of Case Management Systems............................................................ 104
6.5 Annexure V: Document-Centric Vs. Data-Centric Systems .......................................................... 105
6.6 Annexure VI: Mobile App Screenshots from the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania ................ 106
6.7 Annexure VII: Details of the eJustice Institutional Framework ...................................................... 107
6.8 Annexure VIII: Suggested List of Indicators to be used for eJustice Monitoring and Evaluation ... 111
6.9 Annexure IX: Intervention-wise Details of Budgetary Allocation ................................................... 116
6.10 Annexure X: Details of Budgetary Allocation on Technology Interventions .................................. 120
6.11 Annexure XI: List of Assumptions made for Budgetary Allocation ................................................ 129
References ............................................................................................................. 131

Author..................................................................................................................... 134
Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector xii

Contents
List of Tables
Table 1 ICT Activities in the Supreme Court of Bangladesh ........................................................................................................ 4
Table 2 Information on Judiciary Portals across countries......................................................................................................... 13
Table 3 Minimum core functionality of the eJustice System ...................................................................................................... 25
Table 4 Themes and their Description ...................................................................................................................................... 36
Table 5 List of Strategies and Strategic Interventions ............................................................................................................... 38
Table 6 Interventions, Outputs and Implementation Responsibilities for Strategy S .................................................................. 41
Table 7 Measurement Indicators for Interventions under Strategy S ......................................................................................... 44
Table 8 Interventions, Outputs and Implementation Responsibilities for Strategy B .................................................................. 46
Table 9 Measurement Indicators for Interventions under Strategy B ......................................................................................... 47
Table 10 Interventions, Outputs and Implementation Responsibilities for Strategy L ................................................................. 48
Table 11 Measurement Indicators for Interventions under Strategy L ........................................................................................ 48
Table 12 Interventions, Outputs and Implementation Responsibilities for Strategy T ................................................................. 49
Table 13 Measurement Indicators for Interventions under Strategy T ....................................................................................... 51
Table 14 Interventions, Outputs and Implementation Responsibilities for Strategy A ................................................................ 54
Table 15 Measurement Indicators for Interventions under Strategy A ....................................................................................... 55
Table 16 Functions to be discharged by the Institutional Framework for eJustice...................................................................... 55
Table 17 Interventions, Outputs and Implementation Responsibilities for Strategy I .................................................................. 58
Table 18 Measurement Indicators for Interventions under Strategy I ......................................................................................... 59
Table 19 Interventions, Outputs and Implementation Responsibilities for Strategy C ................................................................ 61
Table 20 Measurement Indicators for Interventions under Strategy C ....................................................................................... 62
Table 21 Interventions, Outputs and Implementation Responsibilities for Strategy G ................................................................ 64
Table 22 Measurement Indicators for Interventions under Strategy G ....................................................................................... 65
Table 23 Interventions, Outputs and Implementation Responsibilities for Strategy O ................................................................ 66
Table 24 Measurement Indicators for Interventions under Strategy O ....................................................................................... 67
Table 25 Interventions, Outputs and Implementation Responsibilities for Strategy R ................................................................ 68
Table 26 Measurement Indicators for Interventions under Strategy R ....................................................................................... 69
Table 27 List of all proposed strategic interventions .................................................................................................................. 71
Table 28 Prioritisation among the technology components ....................................................................................................... 73
Table 29 Proposed Action Plan for eJustice in Bangladesh ...................................................................................................... 75
Table 30 Implementation Risks and Mitigation Measures.......................................................................................................... 83
Table 31 M&E Framework- Outcome and Impact Indicators ..................................................................................................... 89
Table 32 eJustice Impact Indicators and Goals to be realised ................................................................................................... 92
Table 33 Interventions, Outputs and Implementation Responsibilities for Strategy M ................................................................ 93
Table 34 Measurement Indicators for Interventions under Strategy M ....................................................................................... 94
Table 35 Intervention-wise budget ............................................................................................................................................ 95
Table 36 Year-wise Budget....................................................................................................................................................... 95
Table 37 Suggested List of Indicators for eJustice Monitoring and Evaluation......................................................................... 111
Table 38 Intervention-wise details of budgetary allocation proposed ....................................................................................... 116
Table 39 Details of Budgetary Allocation on Technology Interventions (Phase I) .................................................................... 120
Table 40 Details of Budgetary Allocation on Technology Interventions (Phase II) ................................................................... 123
Table 41 Details of module-wise customisation effort estimates (persondays) ........................................................................ 125
List of Figures
Figure 1 Multi-dimensional Interventions of the Judicial Reform Process .................................................................................... 2
Figure 2 A Phased Approach for ICT Adoption and eJustice ....................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3 eJustice Technical Solution Framework ...................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 4 The Concept of the Electronic Data Room .................................................................................................................. 28
Figure 5 Proposed Strategic Approach to be followed ............................................................................................................... 34
Figure 6 Proposed Strategic Framework ................................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 7 Proposed Institutional Framework for eJustice ............................................................................................................ 60
Figure 8 The Proposed ICT in Judiciary Strategic Framework................................................................................................... 70
Figure 9 Prioritisation applied to technology components.......................................................................................................... 73
Figure 10 4-tiered eJustice Implementation Structure ............................................................................................................... 79
Figure 11 Institutional Structure for Implementation .................................................................................................................. 82
Figure 12 Structure of Judiciary in Bangladesh ......................................................................................................................... 99
Figure 13 Overall Approach Proposed for the Assignment ...................................................................................................... 100
Figure 14 Identification of Best Practices ................................................................................................................................ 101
Figure 15 Selection of Best Practices ..................................................................................................................................... 101
Figure 16 Prioritization Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 102
Figure 17Australian Governments' Interactive Functions Thesaurus ....................................................................................... 103
Figure 18 Mobile App from the Pennsylvania Judiciary ........................................................................................................... 106
List of Boxes
Box 1 Digital Bangladesh 2021 ................................................................................................................................................... 4
Box 2 Backlog in Bangladesh Judiciary .................................................................................................................................... 10
Box 3 Court Backlog and Delay Reduction Programme in Malaysia.......................................................................................... 22
Box 4 Transition from the Implementation Structure to the Institutional Structure ...................................................................... 78
Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector xiii

Part One
1. Background and Scope
Today, democratization, urbanization, and adoption of market reforms have increased the complexity
of social interactions, making improvement of judicial conflict-resolution capabilities and service delivery
more important than ever before. As most economic transactions move towards the market and away
from the public administrative sphere, an unprecedented increase has emerged in private-sector
demand for clearer definition of rights and obligations, and a rising demand for civil justice[1].
The basic elements of an effective judicial system includes predictable outcomes within courts;
accessibility to courts by people, regardless of income or educational level; reasonable time to
disposition; and adequate court-provided remedies[1][2]. Should there be a shortfall in such core tenets
of the judicial system lack of confidence in administration of justice would be high, particularly among
small economic units and low-income families that bear the brunt of an inefficient justice system the
most.
In many developing countries, the judiciary is not consistent in its approach and carries a large backlog
of cases, stifling private sector growth, dampening investment and causing erosion of individual and
property rights. Governments are therefore embarking on programs of judicial reform to build trust
among its stakeholders. Broadly, judicial reform refers to changing, adapting and improving judiciaries,
courts and their processes to bring about improvement in the quality and efficiency of administration of
justice. It aims at empowering the judiciary to deliver more equitable, expeditious and transparent
services to citizens, economic agents, the state and other stakeholders. The idea is to make the
judiciary more effective in enforcing the rule of law[3]. This would not only be conducive to trade,
financing and investment but would also promote social peace and trust. In fact, a properly working
judiciary is a condition for joining the World Trade Organization[4].
Enhancing court performance must be a key objective of judicial reform and is reflected by such
indicators as procedural time, clearance rates etc. Inefficiency causes delays, which raise litigant-
related costs thereby impeding user access to courts, particularly among economically weaker sections.
However, besides efficiency, judicial reform encompasses many other dimensions such as improving
the independence of the judiciary and enhancing procedural transparency. It must be borne in mind that
factors that affect efficiency do not always improve the overall quality of justice, and in some cases can
even undermine it[1].
While socio-political and market pressures present new demands on judiciaries, technological and
communicational advances and international support offer opportunities to judicial policy makers to
make justice more accessible, transparent and effective. This is true for countries rooted in European
civil law or English common law[3].
Change Drivers of Judicial Reform

Research suggests that across the world there are two fundamental complaints made in so far as
judicial effectiveness is concerned: (a) court processes take too long; and (b) courts are difficult to
access[4]. Seen from another perspective, the two complaints above could be likened to the typical
problems faced by public sector agencies that have prompted the adoption of eGovernment- low levels
of internal efficiency and effectiveness; and less-than-satisfactory service delivery to customers.
Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector 1

Specifically in the context, typical change drivers for judicial reform include:
 lengthy case delays;
 limited access to justice;
 a lack of transparency and predictability in court decisions;
 a shortage of financial, physical and other resources; and
 a weak public confidence in the judicial system.
Compounding this are other drivers such as population growth, globalization, crime, urbanization,
labour migration, poverty, gender bias, human rights, economic failures, indigenous rights, and socio-
technological advances, all of which lead to citizen demands for judicial reform[4].
Identifying performance problems in Indian Judiciary- Constitution Review Committee

The Government of India through its Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs constituted the National Commission
to Review the Working of the Constitution in 2000 to, inter alia, look into the aspect of judicial reforms. The Commission
observed that, in terms of performance, the problematic areas include (a) undue delays in disposal of cases; (b) lack of
sensitivity to mounting arrears of cases; (c) specific absence of strategic action plans for clearance of arrears in courts;
and (d) poor management of resources and ineffective standards of judicial administration[5].
Multi-dimensional Interventions for Judicial Reform

Interventions for judicial reform, therefore, have many dimensions and Figure 2 brings out some of the
different dimensions on which interventions must take place for judicial reform efforts to be
comprehensive and sustained[3].
 POLICY: with emphasis on vested interests, leadership, equity, fairness, future vision and setting
realistic targets, transparency, commitment and trust.
 ECONOMIC: with stress on costs of poor performance of courts, mismatch between demand and
supply of court services, complexity of transactions and impact of court costs on transaction costs.
 PUBLIC FINANCE: with focus on adequacy of resource use, transparency and timely execution,
and justification for competition for scarce public resources.
 LEGAL/QUASI-LEGAL PROCESSES: with focus on legal/ quasi-legal codes and procedures (civil
code, criminal code, penal code, labour code, etc), guidelines and standardised processes.
 INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY: with emphasis on functions, coverage, administrative/judicial
efficiency, incentive/ salary regime, training, promotion, discipline and working conditions.
 ICT PERSPECTIVE: with focus on knowledge sharing, information access, change promotion,
communications, libraries, databases and case management systems, administration and business
or enterprise functional systems.
USER ACCESS TO JUSTICE
INFORMATION AND
INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY COMMUNICATION
TECHNOLOGY
LEGAL/QUASI-LEGAL PROCEDURES AND PROCESSES
PUBLIC
ECONOMIC POLICY
FINANCE
Figure 1 Multi-dimensional Interventions of the Judicial Reform Process

 USERS’ ACCESS TO JUSTICE: with stress on fairness, efficiency, access and confidence in the
Judiciary.
ICT in the Judiciary

The rapid development of technology in recent times has opened up new opportunities that were
unthinkable earlier and several statutory reforms have been introduced to allow the use and the
exchange of electronic data and documents not only within national judicial systems, but also between
them and with supranational courts[6].
The availability of web services, possibility of referring to online legislation and case law, use of
electronic filing, electronic exchange of legal documents, are only some examples that are acting as
positive change drivers. While new possibilities are emerging for the integration and automation of court
procedures and practices, the increasing ubiquity of the Internet provides an opportunity to open the
judiciary to the public, providing both general and specific information on its activities, thereby also
increasing legitimacy and enhancing trust.
1.1 Project Background

Bangladesh is a unitary, democratic republic with a Constitution that guarantees judicial independence
and impartiality[7]. The state has three basic organs- legislative, executive and judiciary. The
administration of justice is the responsibility of the judiciary. Bangladesh is a common law country with
its Supreme Court having the power not only to interpret the Constitution and the laws made by the
Parliament, but also to declare them null and void when they are found inconsistent with any of the
provisions of the Constitution and to enforce fundamental rights of the citizens. However, although
founded on the English common law system, laws of Bangladesh take a statutory form, enacted by the
legislature and interpreted by the Supreme Court[8].
The legal system in Bangladesh is based on its Constitution of 1972, Bangladesh Penal Code 1860,
Civil Courts Act 1887 and Criminal Procedure Code 1898 as amended from time to time. The Judiciary
consists of a Supreme Court, subordinate courts and tribunals. The Supreme Court comprises the
Appellate Division (AD) and the High Court Division (HCD). Besides the above courts there are tribunals
and special courts like Juvenile Court, Labour Court, Family Court, Administrative Tribunal, etc.
The HCD is empowered to hear appeals and revisions from subordinate courts, and also to issue orders
and directives in the nature of writs to enforce fundamental rights and to grant other reliefs available
under the writ jurisdiction. The AD is vested with power to hear appeals from the decisions of the HCD
or from any other body under any statute. The HCD has powers too of supervision and control of
subordinate courts and tribunals and is competent to declare any law inconsistent with the fundamental
rights as null and void. Annexure I provides more details on the structure of judiciary in the country[9].
Much like the situation that obtains in other developing and transitional countries, the judicial system in
Bangladesh faces the same constraints and bottlenecks. Following the English common law and
working within the boundaries of the Constitution of Bangladesh and complying with procedures defined
in its codes of justice (civil and criminal), the largely independent judicial system lacks a nation-wide
standardisation of case management processes that need to be followed. Cases take inordinately long
to reach their logical end even as litigation costs keep mounting. Case backlog is very high.
Compounding this problem is the fact that information related to cases is not easily available thus adding
to the inconvenience of the already distressed citizen seeking recourse to justice. Inevitably, it is the
vulnerable and marginalised sections of the society that suffer the most. There is a crying need,

therefore, to bring about procedural reforms leading to a reduction in case backlog and improvement in
the administration of timely, affordable and equitable justice.
The Supreme Court with UNDP's technical and financial support has undertaken a project, known as
JUST (Judicial Strengthening) to strengthen its capacity to administer the court system efficiently and
reduce the case backlogs which would provide a sustainable foundation to improve access to justice
for the public, especially, vulnerable groups such as the poor, women and children. Specifically, the
project focuses on four outputs:
1. Improved case management in the Supreme Court;
2. Improved strategic planning and administrative capacity of the Supreme Court;
3. District courts deliver improved services for court users; and
4. Strengthened training capacity on case-management.
ICT to induce efficiency in Case Management and better Service Delivery

Caseflow management is an approach to keep
track of cases and ensure their smooth and Digital Bangladesh 2021
efficient passage through allocation of most GoBD is pursuing Digital Bangladesh vision 2021
appropriate time and resources based on the that aims to mainstream ICTs as a pro-poor tool to
requirements of the case in question. Having eradicate poverty, establish good governance,
ensure social equity, healthcare and law
begun early in the 1970s in the US[1], caseflow
enforcement for all, and prepare the people for
management techniques are now widely adopted
climate change. In essence the Vision focuses on
as a way to reduce case backlog, render timely four broad thrust areas of Digital Government, ICT
justice and increase predictability in the judicial in Business, Connecting Citizens and Human
system. However, it is only when a sound case Resource Development. Pro-poor orientation
management is fronted by an efficient delivery of implies that ICTs available with millions such as
mobile phones, radio, TV in addition to internet are
judicial outputs to citizens that the ends of justice
key to digitally empowering communities.
are fully realised. Information and communication
technologies (ICTs) are today considered to be an Specifically, GoBD plans to make vital data
indispensable tool for both case management and available to law enforcers through toll-free phone
efficient service delivery. While ICTs make it based legal advisory to put legal services at
possible to address the information-intensive citizens’ doorsteps (women, hard-core poor,
disabled, and other marginalized groups).
requirements of case management through its
Likewise publishing cause list and case updates
search and discovery capabilities, latest advances
on the web and making them phone and SMS-
in technology also ensure that information is enabled will increase transparency and reduce
provided to the citizens on a device of their choice citizens’ hassle[51].
and at a place of their choosing.
Box 1 Digital Bangladesh 2021
Despite there being no comprehensive all-encompassing ICT solution in Supreme Court of Bangladesh
several solutions that significantly enable user convenience have been developed. These owe their
presence and usage more on account of individual zeal in the ICT wing and to top level commitment of
the Judiciary than to any sector-wide effort. Principal among these are shown in Table 1[10][11]:
Table 1 ICT Activities in the Supreme Court of Bangladesh

Initiative Description
Daily Cause List Publishing System This is a software developed under JUST and oriented to
the judges and court staff. The cause list of the Supreme
Court and three pilot District Courts of JUST is regularly
updated now, helping litigants, lawyers and all concerned

Initiative Description
to know under which Court their case is and the dates. It
also helps the judges monitor the performance of their
fellow judges.
Mini Cause List This is an additional page in web site, which shows the
cause list of Supreme Court, usable for Mini Browsers.
Case Management Software for This online system is used for entering case related
Supreme Court of Bangladesh information to the server. There is an additional option,
the case related documents (like powers, orders,
judgments etc.) file can be uploaded by this software.
Personnel Database System In this system the Personnel, Service related, Asset
related information of all officers of BD Judiciary are
stored.
Salary Bill Printing System This software is used to make salary bills of Judges and
gazetted officers.
Web Site of Supreme Court The web site, first developed in 2008, has features like
Judge`s Database, Court Calendar.
Web Site of Subordinate Courts This is a combined Web Site for all the sub-ordinate
courts. It is developed by the ICT Personnel of Supreme
court of Bangladesh, under the guidance of the Chief
Justice.
Online Problem Claim Book This is an online system, in which the ICT related
problems are entered to a database and the actions
taken by the respective person to that problem are also
can be save, tracked and followed up.
SMS Service for Case Information A system by which the people can query the case result
and some other information by an SMS Request.
Digital Display 5 big displays are installed at the different points of the
Supreme Court, which display the court list, name of
Judges`, number of cases in each court and current
hearing index.
Smart Case Searching System This is specially made for smart phone users. It is
suitable for small browsers, takes less byte, and loads
quickly.
1.2 Scope of the Strategy

As against embarking on piecemeal computerisation of different components of the judicial system, this
work encompasses the end-to-end ICT-enablement of the judicial system in Bangladesh leading to
rendering eJustice to its stakeholders with information being delivered on an anytime, anywhere and
anyhow basis. It includes aspects of case management and judicial service delivery. In a close sequel
it is expected that ICT-enabled operations of the Ministry of Justice, Government of Bangladesh (GoBD)
will also attach itself. In the short to medium terms it is also hoped that this eJustice strategy will form
the foundation for the induction of ICT in the "Law Enforcement" cluster that will include the Police and
Prisons departments. Figure 3 illustrates the enhancement of the eJustice system, first to cover the
sector operations as a whole, and then, in the next stage, to encompass the entire law enforcement
cluster.

eCourts- Primarily technologies deployed
in the court premises with an eye on court
efficiency and convenience to the Judiciary
eJustice- Includes all technologies directed
at increasing court efficiency and
effectiveness as well as easy and
convenient access to Justice for the citizens
ICT for Justice Sector- In addition to
Complexity eJustice includes a possible integration of
Coverage the eJustice system with external systems
Criticality (for example, those with law firms) and with
ICT in Courts- eCourts systems in the Ministry in the Government
responsible for the Justice sector
ICT for Justice- eJustice ICT for Law Enforcement Cluster-
includes an end-to-end cluster-wide
ICT for the Justice Sector
integrated ICT system for law enforcement
including besides, judicial entities such
ICT for the Law Enforcement Cluster
agencies as Police and Prisons that
operate in close coordination with judicial
agencies
Figure 3 A Phased Approach for ICT Adoption and eJustice

2. Current State Assessment
and Gap Analysis
2.1 Judicial Reform Measures in Bangladesh
Judicial reform is part of a larger effort to make legal systems in developing and transition economies
more market friendly, encompassing therein everything from writing/revising commercial codes,
bankruptcy statutes, and company laws through overhauling regulatory agencies and teaching justice
ministry officials how to draft legislation that fosters private investment. Essentially a reform program
consists of measures to strengthen the judicial branch of government and such related entities as the
public prosecutor and public defender offices, bar associations, and law schools. Some common
approaches include the following[12]:
 MAKE THE JUDICIAL BRANCH INDEPENDENT by changing ways in which judges are selected,
evaluated, and disciplined to ensure that decisions are insulated from improper influences. Often
the budget for the judicial branch is transferred from the government to the judges themselves.
 EXPEDITING THE PROCESSING OF CASES by providing management training, computers, and
other resources to judges and court personnel expecting to reduce case backlogs and accelerate
disposition of new disputes. Process re-engineering such as revising the procedures for filing and
resolving lawsuits also helps.
 INCREASING ACCESS TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS by creation of mediation and
conciliation services and other alternatives to resolving disputes in the courts thereby reducing court
costs, or by the introduction of small claims courts or justices of the peace and the establishment of
legal aid societies. As an extension this also includes transferring responsibility for non-contentious
matters to administrative agencies so that the courts have more time for disputed cases.
 PROFESSIONALIZING THE BENCH AND BAR by in-service training for judges, lawyers, and other
legal professionals through programmes to establish codes of ethics and disciplinary procedures.
Increasing the number of law schools and modifying the curriculum to reflect changing demands are
also an element.
In Bangladesh administration of justice is the responsibility of the judiciary, which comprises the
Appellate Division and the High Court Division of the Supreme Court at the higher level, followed by a
hierarchy of civil and criminal courts at the District level. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court,
effectively the highest Court of the republic, comprises 7 judges including the Chief Justice. Judicial
independence and impartiality are guaranteed by the constitution of the country[7].
Recognising the slow, costly and time consuming processes of case management, GoBD has earlier
undertaken a Legal and Judicial Capacity Building Project having its objectives mainly;
 to improve the quality and pace of the civil justice delivery system;
 to reduce backlog;
 to make the system more accessible to users, particularly disadvantaged, women and children; and
 to institutionalize resolution of disputes out of courts.
The World Bank and other development partners provided funding and other support for the existing
Court Administration and Case Management System and for strengthening of the judiciary.

Under this initiative 5 pilot districts developed a Case Management and Court Administration (CMCA)
model. As cases were earlier filed in a scattered way in different courts of the District with each having
individual territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions thus causing serious problems in monitoring the status
of court-dockets, maintaining distribution of workload for all judges and implementing the Case
Management Plans, a Case Flow System was created with two new sections namely:
 the Central Filling Section and
 the Case Management Section.
As part of the cited project all plaints, applications, etc. began to be filed in a single location of the Court
house where they are examined and assigned a case number and relevant particulars were entered
into a Case Management System. The Pilot Districts assumed responsibility for operating the
computerized Case Management System under the close supervision of a Judge known as the Judicial
Administrative Officer who had the primary responsibility to implement the case management plans[7].
However, interactions reveal that this intervention aimed at automating case filing and management
operations did not succeed mainly because (a) the requirements of the court processes in the Supreme
Court (indeed, the whole of the Judiciary) did not match what was being provided by the software
implemented; (b) as no process mapping and subsequent re-engineering was done the software only
replicated inefficiencies on a technology platform; and (c) the design process did not involve the
Judiciary to any substantive extent who were then very uncomfortable to use it.
In the earlier system access to justice faced critical problems on account of (a) increased sophistication
of the legal system which led to increased cost of litigation and (b) continuing social inequality combined
with the increased litigation cost created a sort of restriction of access to justice for larger segment of
the population, often the poor and disadvantaged groups of the society. To address this the legal
community including judges and legal professionals under the National legal Aid Organisation took the
responsibility of offering pro bono services to indigent litigants and vulnerable people of society[7].
Other reform elements included the introduction of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism,
legal aid services and training programme for the Judges and Court’s support staffs. Amendments were
introduced in the Code of Civil Procedure to enable the judges to apply methods of Mediation and
Arbitration as supplements to the existing formal litigation system[7].
2.2 Principal Issues and Concerns in Bangladesh Judiciary

This section brings out the principal issues and concerns faced by stakeholders of the Bangladesh
Judiciary that can be addressed, partly or in full measure, through the adoption of ICT. As the
assessment has focussed on four “tracks” of interventions (namely, Process, People, Technology and
Awareness &Collaboration1), issues too are aligned along the same. As far as possible the description
of the issues faced has been interspersed with best practices from successful examples across the
world that highlight how the judiciary in other contexts have circumvented the issue towards realising
service delivery objectives.
Concerns in Bangladesh Judiciary- Process Issues

This group of concerns deals with issues faced by processes currently operational and as required by
relevant rules and guidelines prevalent with which agencies must comply. As such, therefore, they are
bereft of any technology intervention associated with such processes. By extension, this also covers
any legal or regulatory foundations that form a basis. The following concerns are highlighted.
1
For a detailed explanation of “tracks” of interventions see Annexure II that details the methodology adopted for the exercise.

1. PROCESS STANDARDISATION
Process standardisation entails that pre-agreed standard processes are followed for the same functions
and services (except where explicitly required otherwise) by all sector agencies regardless of their
location; moreover a standardised way of depicting processes must be aligned with globally agreed
representation styles and must be known transparently to all stakeholders. Such standardisation makes
possible interoperability and integration, a core requirement of organizational integration that deals with
defining business goals, aligning business processes and bringing collaboration capabilities to
disparate organizations that wish to exchange information[13][14]. Such interoperability is key to making
services easily identifiable, available, accessible and user-centric even if the services transcend
organizational boundaries (within or outside the sector).
One of the first outcomes of any process standardisation exercise is a process repository of
standardised processes. Taken in conjunction with technology, an online process dictionary or a
process thesaurus that is based on classifying functions and activities and associating them with
standard processes has been used by many governments.
The Classification System in Australia

The Australian Designing and Implementing Recordkeeping Systems (DIRKS) system is developed by the National
Archives of Australia as the foundation for the Australian function-based classification system which covers (a) analysis
of business activities in line with organization’s mission and goals, for functions and activities; and (b) analysis of business
processes at the operational level which analyses business transactions. It therefore follows the 3 levels of functions,
activities and transactions with the last mentioned linking up with "processes"[15]. Figure 19 in Annexure III provides a
snapshot of the Australian Government Interactive Functions Thesaurus (AGIFT)[16].
Process Representation
True integration also requires that agencies adopt common standards for documenting business
processes. Among the two most common standards used to model business processes (the Unified
Modelling Language (UML) and Business Process Modelling Notation (BPMN)), BPMN has become
the de facto standard language for modelling and analysing business processes[14]2.
Currently processes being followed in the sector are found wanting in both the aspects of (a) lack of
standardised processes that completely cover all functions of the judiciary; and (b) a standardised way
to represent processes in order to seek out commonalities between them.
2. PROCESS RE-ENGINEERING
The current processes also have embedded inefficiencies in them in the way they are meant to be
executed resulting thereby in delay in all processes including those for case management. It is only
recently that a judicial process mapping and re-engineering exercise has been carried out though
recommendations of the same are yet to be adopted.
The need for Process Re-engineering in Singapore Courts

For most sectors in Singapore, the successful implementation of IT systems has typically been preceded by an exercise
in re-engineering the affected work processes thus allowing work processes to be rationalised and re-designed, if
necessary, to harness the benefits of IT more fully. When the earlier Electronic Filing System (EFS) came up for review
the EFS Review Committee deemed it necessary that a similar exercise relating to the rules governing the litigation
process may be necessary in order to realise efficiencies in the litigation process. For example, in light of the introduction
of template-based filing, some documents would be wholly replaced by electronic templates; in the process, the number
2
BPMN is a diagrammatic and semi-structured notation that provides businesses with the capability of representing their
internal business procedures in a graphical language which facilitates the understanding of the performance collaborations and
business transactions between organizations.

and types of forms may need to be streamlined. Such standardisation and templatisation would render redundant not
only many forms that require manual processing but also rationalise several processes[17].
3. LEGAL AND QUASI-LEGAL SUPPORT
Any change resulting from process re-engineering or technology deployment (making redundant
thereby old processes or process components or manual ways of operation) will be adopted only when
such changes have their basis in the legal or regulatory structure. In the absence of legal or regulatory
support, the appeal of process change/ technology deployment is undermined. Specifically, legislative
or executive support is required at least in:
 treating electronic forms of communication, including submission of documents and messages in
the same form, at par with those in the traditional paper-based modes including being admissible as
evidence;
 giving the highest priority to the privacy and confidentiality of data through appropriate data
protection laws/regulations; and
 assuring the authenticity and integrity of court information held in electronic form.
In Bangladesh the ICT Act 2009, Right to Information (RTI) Act 2009 and the amended
Telecommunication Act 2010 have laid the foundations of an ICT-enabled development strategy,
including within its coverage aspects associated with electronic transactions, electronic evidence, and
cyber misuse and crime. The RTI Act 2009 enables freedom of information. In addition, the Office of
the Controller and Certifying Authority has been established for issuance of e-certificates[18]. However,
a strong data protection legislation that provides for the privacy and confidentiality of personal data
shared during the course of partaking of electronic services is missing, though a basis for this exists in
Article 43 of the Constitution that expressly declares that every citizen shall have the right to the privacy
of his correspondence and other means of communication[19].
4. CASE MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING
Caseflow management techniques are the defining element applied all over the world and across
different judicial systems as an approach to keep track of cases, ensure that cases move through in an
efficient manner, and provide information to allocate time and resources based on case
requirements[20]. Caseflow management is a set of principles and techniques that enhance greater
processing efficiency, reduce delays/ backlogs and encourage better services from courts3. Benefits
accruing from a good case management system include the following.
 By promoting early control of cases by courts, case management leads to greater predictability of
court events leading to increased public trust.
 By adherence to standardised steps of case processing it leads to more efficient reporting, higher
levels of transparency, and better exchange of data and potential mobility of staff between courts.
 By undertaking necessary re-engineering efforts caseflow management leads to higher levels of
efficiency resulting in time and cost savings of all stakeholders concerned.
Backlog in Bangladesh Judiciary

Delay in the disposal of cases is an important concern of the judiciary in Bangladesh. According to a report of
the Ministry of the Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, there are more than 968,000 pending cases in
Bangladesh of which roughly 5,000 are pending in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court and over
127,000 are in the High Court Division; in contrast 344,518 are in the subordinate civil judiciary; 95,689 are in
the Courts of Session, and 296,862 are in the Magistrate Courts[9].
Box 2 Backlog in Bangladesh Judiciary
3
At its heart of case management is the principle that the court, as against lawyers or litigants, controls the manner in which
each case is processed.

The relationship between arrears and backlog appears to be a mutually reinforcing one with arrears
directly feeding the backlog incrementally. This is because the time dedicated to cases in arrears is
time originally scheduled for disposal of cases in their "natural flow"; thus arrears in one case adds to
the mounting backlog. Justice Bharuka, for example, avers that the only solution could be to shorten
the time-period for disposal of cases of all courts with arrears[5].
In Bangladesh currently, there is no control mechanism for measuring the progress of a case owing to
which case management has been inefficient, which compounds the case backlog issue. Further, in the
event of postponement there are no tools for effective case-rescheduling. Court registry staff finds it
difficult to allocate caseloads to different jurists thus further delaying the overall process.
Monitoring of new cases as an Integral Component of a comprehensive effort to reduce backlog

in the Malaysian Judicial System
In addition to the targets for backlog reduction (see Box 1), Malaysian courts were given targets for processing new
cases. These are moving targets – changed (and often pushed up) on the basis of experience[21]:
 Processing of documents on day of filing
 Return date within 3 months for writ summons
 Hearing date for Winding up petitions within 2 months of filing
 For other cases, case management within 2 weeks of filing
 Hearing date for A Track cases before Judge within 2 months of filing
 Full trial (T Track cases) scheduled and completed within 9 months of filing.
 Termination of corruption cases within one year
 Termination of uncontested divorces within 2 weeks.
Further, going forward the following are some of the indicators, appropriately customised, that will be deployed for
assessment of progress of ICT adoption in the Judiciary[21]:
 Judicial productivity – caseloads per judge or case dispositions per judge, annually or for shorter periods. (increase
is a positive sign)
 Clearance rates – cases disposed (by whatever means) over new filings for each year (increase is a positive sign)
 Average disposition times for cases closed – cases can be grouped by categories for greater detail (increase is a
negative sign)
 Ageing lists – showing age of active caseload, often by grouping cases into categories (e.g. less than 30 days since
filing, 30-60 days and so on)
 Number of cases pending with a duration of more than two years.
 Size of backlog
 Annual carryover of cases
5. CLASSIFICATION AND TEMPLATISATION
As a manifestation of standardisation of information input at various stages of case management,

classification and template-based entry of information related to documents are adopted to enable
comparison and retrievability. Template-based entry of information related to documents ensures that
the system not only captures the document but also stores related critical information in the database,
thus helping retrievability while executing search and discovery operations (see case studies below).
This aspect also includes the production of standardized and automated forms (for example, decisions,
notifications, letters, etc.) that increase the efficiency and accuracy of court staff and judges, which in
turn can potentially increase the number of processes completed and hearings that can be held per
day, reduce errors and limit undesired manipulations of processes[20]. Similarly classification of records
help increasing the retrievability whenever occasion arises.
Template-based information entry into Singapore's eCourt system

Singapore, a leading country in the adoption of ICT in the judiciary, transitioned from the earlier Electronic Filing System
(EFS) to the Electronic Litigation System as a result of a roadmap in 2005. One of the principal changes introduced is
moving away from the filing of documents to the filing of information. Pleadings, affidavits and other documents generated
in the course of litigation are now filed as textual information, as far as possible through templates.

Text-based information are typed into an electronic template (or form) and the information transmitted electronically over
the Internet to the courts. The template will, as far as possible, resemble the paper-based form that lawyers are familiar
with. Stored electronically with the courts, this information forms the official record in such a manner that, when required,
a paper document can be produced by the ELS to resemble the traditional court form. To reinforce this radical change
the Rules of Court will have been appropriately reviewed to ensure that it is sufficiently technology-neutral[17].
Record-keeping in the Bulgarian Judicial System

All documents pertaining to initiated proceedings in the Bulgarian judicial system are placed in standard folders following
coloured coding for the different types[22]:
 folders of criminal cases are red;
 folders of civil cases are yellow;
 folders of administrative cases are white;
 folders of corporate and commercial cases are yellow;
 folders of execution cases are manila;
 folders of registry cases are grey;
 folders of insolvency cases are blue.
The name of the court, the subject and the parties of the case, the initial and final date, the judge-rapporteur and the
dates of scheduled open court sessions are put down on the front cover of the folders. The number of a case follows the
pattern: year, unified information code of the court according to a standard list, number specifying the type of the case:
01 – first instance civil cases, 02 – first-instance criminal cases, 03 – real estate cases, 04 – execution cases, 05 –
second-instance civil cases, 06 – second-instance criminal cases, 07 – administrative cases, 08 – corporate cases; five-
digit serial number of the case.
Documents received in relation to a certain case are attached to its folder chronologically by order of reception and are
numbered. If they are too many a second folder is attached to the first one bearing the same case number; the first folder
is then labelled as Volume 1 and the rest receive the respective volume numbers. Pre-trial proceedings’ files and the files
of non-judicial bodies are attached to the back cover of the cases. Folders of current cases are arranged vertically by
their serial number and colour for each calendar year. Cases with a deadline for specific proceedings are arranged
separately. Cases on which closed sessions are held are arranged at yet another place.
Concerns in Bangladesh Judiciary- Technology Issues

This group of concerns deals with issues faced by technology systems currently operational in
Bangladesh judiciary.
1. A COMPREHENSIVE ICT-ENABLED SYSTEM

An eJustice system is not about case management alone. While a case management system forms the
backbone of a comprehensive eJustice system there are many other subsidiary systems and sub-
systems that draw data from and, in return, enhance the functionalities of the case management system
itself, directly or indirectly. Figure 4 in the document brings out the different sub-systems of a
comprehensive eJustice system. The current system operational in the Supreme Court is one that
publishes court cause-lists for the wider public thus fulfilling a primary requirement of information on the
part of stakeholders; however, it is far from being considered a comprehensive eJustice system.
The Electronic Litigation System of Singapore

When the Electronic Filing System was reviewed for past performance and a possible upgradation the Review Committee
concluded that no single IT system would be able to provide the full range of features required in a comprehensive
system. As a successor the Electronic Litigation System (ELS) is a number of systems working together[17].
The ELS was to function as an effective and efficient litigation tool by providing features that litigation lawyers will utilise
in their daily work. In particular the following areas were identified where ELS could assist in the management of a
litigation lawyer’s case file[17]:
 Provide integrated due diligence checks with various government departments;
 Function as a repository of case information;
 Function as an electronic data room for case documents;
 Provide a conduit for communications between law firms and the Court;
 Provide a conduit for law firms inter se; and
 Be customisable to suit different practices.

Table 2 Information on Judiciary Portals across countries
General Information Information on Legal Case Information

Court Activities Information
& Organisation
 Vision/Mission details  Data on Could be general, specific  Information
 Opening hours, official statistics of and case-specific. contained in docket
documents of courts’  General: general rules, reports, case files,
relevance to the public productivity procedures, practices, indexes, and other
 Search capabilities  Different examples of forms or court documents.
 Forms and divisions and pleadings for guidance,  Restricted access
applications to organisation of explanation of terms and (authentication,
download work documents, tariffs for anonymisation) to
 Links to other sites  Publication of copies of documents. court registries
 E-mail addresses of judgments.  Specific: individual court’s and/or sentence
offices, court rules, procedures, archives, court
administrative practices, forms etc. schedules for
personnel and judges  Case-specific: on-line cases, querying on
(rarer) access to decision- case databases,
databases (often charged) downloading of
sentences etc
2. INFORMATION PROVISION
The most widespread provision of electronic information is through the web over the Internet. The
organisation of web information provision by courts varies widely across countries from (a) being well-
organised web information centrally provided with the highest courts, ministries of justice, and judicial
councils playing a prominent role (for example, Austria), to (b) information provision being delegated
within common frameworks (for example, Belgium), to (c) a complete decentralised provision of
information driven by local initiative (for example, Italy)[6]. Table 2 showcases typical information
provision through the Internet on judiciary portals across countries[6].
Single point provision of information on the Judiciary in The Netherlands

In The Netherlands, the Council for the Judiciary provides a single point of access to information on courts, judicial
organisation, functions and processes with very limited freedom accorded to individual courts. The Dutch judiciary follows
the use of a template that creates a standard graphic and content disposition, which allows minimal discrepancies
between court websites in terms of content presentation. The possibility for users to find the information they are looking
for is greatly enhanced even as the single-point provision of information makes for the same to be highly reliable[6].
3. INFORMATION AVAILABILITY
Information availability refers to the ready availability of information to judiciary and administrative staff
through convenient means of access for them to be able to schedule dates of hearing, categorise cases
and allocate judges and undertake other documental preparation required to register a case. Similarly,
in addition to case and court management functions, advanced court information systems typically also
have legal research support components which empowers judges with statutory codes, judicial
opinions, treatises, legal journals, and other sources[20]. Supported with tagging, indexing, search and
discovery functions, these provide judges with assistance in making consistent, predictable and
speedier decisions.
In Bangladesh judiciary at present, as there are no information systems that comprehensively cover the
entire case management process information availability is a major problem and is a principal reason
for the heavy case backlog in the judiciary. Time taken for case registration is very long because court
staff needs to type all information manually which involves repetitious work as the same information

needs to be recorded in different documents. Likewise, shortage in information availability also leads to
delay in decision making by the judiciary. On another note there are no search and discovery facilities
available which makes for poor retrievability of data and documents. This is a significant shortcoming.
Backlog Reduction in the Malaysian Judiciary

Malaysia has two concurrent legal systems: the Civil legal system based on English Common Law and statutes, and the
Shariah legal system rooted in the Islamic Law, with the former being the more widely recognized and the mainstream
legal system. Traditionally in Malaysian judiciary, whether Civil or Shariah, cases have taken a long time to decide
resulting in backlogs that faced the society's ire.
Among various other reasons such as limited number of judges and court officials, high volume of cases, poor
infrastructure, and limited financial resources, the most significant reason was the unavailability of complete information
relating to the case as and when required. In fact, in some cases not only has information been incomplete but has been
tampered with as well. With e-Court, the government aims to reduce the time taken to settle a case and to manage each
case and related information more efficiently and systematically[23].
Availability of Information with the Judiciary

Among cases of making information available to judges to aid the latter's decision-making are the following[20]:
Croatia: A networked and searchable legal information system is in operation in pilot courts.
Spain: In Basque, a Documentary Information System provides databases on jurisprudence and legislation.
Ireland: An “Electronic Bench Book” application provides judges with online access to rules, statutes,
regulations, and other electronic legal information services such as Lexis-Nexis and Justis.com.
England/Wales: The eLIS (electronic Library and Information Services) provides a portal to legal information on the
Internet to the judiciary.
4. DOCUMENT CENTRIC
Although there is no information system that requires documents to be uploaded (for example, as in
electronic filing) it is often noticed that systems typically require documents to be attached for reference
without capturing the information carried in the documents, recording at best the name/type of the
document. Doing this undermines the retrievability of the document particularly in search functions if
the keywords used for search do not feature in the document name. Retrieval is, therefore, to that
extent, incomplete. Annexure V further illustrates the difference between the two approaches:
document-centric and data-centric.
A Data-Centric Approach for a Whole-of-Government level as the Way Forward

In 2012 in an interview the US CIO Steven Van Roekel opined that the federal government required to fundamentally
shift from primarily thinking about the final presentation and tightly coupling that presentation with the underlying data
(content, information, etc.) to employing a data-centric approach that ensures the availability of data through multiple
channels without developing costly and separate processes for presenting each channel. If open data was done right
both web and mobile could be addressed at the same time[24].
5. INFORMATION EXCHANGE
The current existing system cannot undertake information exchange with other systems within or
outside the judiciary. This not only undermines a possible validation check on data but could even result
in data inconsistency and conflict besides resulting in many other shortcomings. At the case filing stage
the data that need to be entered in the system also feature in many other information systems with
which the eCourt system should be able to exchange information seamlessly, failing which the
aforementioned problems will occur.
Information Exchange for Due Diligence in the Singapore Judiciary

The roadmap for upgradation of the Electronic Filing System of Singapore to an Electronic Litigation System (ELS)
acknowledges that the typical workflow of a litigation lawyer involves the conduct of due diligence checks at various
stages of the litigation process, for example, before filing an originating process, or before commencing execution
proceedings[17]. The roadmap proposes that the ELS must provide for a seamless way of conducting due diligence
checks with publicly accessible information systems operated by multiple governmental departments, namely:

 Identity number and address of parties with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) (for
corporations and individuals);
 Cause book, bankruptcy and winding-up searches with the Registries of the Supreme Court and Subordinate Courts;
 Vehicle registration information from the Land Transport Authority (LTA);
 Marriage applications and marriage records searches from the Registry of Marriages (ROM);
 Property tax or valuation information from the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS); and
 Land number searches from the Singapore Land Authority (SLA).
6. POST-MODERN TECHNOLOGIES
The current system is accessible only over the web; post-modern technologies like mobile devices, IVR-
enabled helpdesk facilities have not been used at all. This undermines the usability and adoption levels
of the system in a big way. No mobile applications are, for instance, in use in the sector.
Select mobile apps from judicial entities in US

In New Jersey, USA a free mobile application made available by the State Judiciary enables jurors to find up-to-date
information about their jury service. Jurors could use the application to find directions to courthouses, information about
parking, and see unscheduled announcements about their service[25].
In another instance the mobile Almanac of the Federal Judiciary provides balanced, responsible judicial profiles of every
federal judge and all the key bankruptcy judges and magistrate judges. The resource includes[26]:
 judge's academic and professional background, experience on the bench, noteworthy rulings, and media coverage;
 commentary by lawyers, based on first-hand experiences before their local federal judges;
 tips for litigating team in shaping case strategy; and
 insights into each judge's style, demeanour, knowledge, and management of courtroom proceedings.
The First Judicial District of Pennsylvania made available a mobile app for iPhone and Android devices that displays
hearing lists for Trial Division - Civil as well as docket entries for the listed cases. Users can see up-to-the-minute listings
and filings[27]. Screen shots are as shown in Annexure VI.
7. DATA STANDARDISATION AND REPRESENTATION

For a meaningful information exchange to happen the eJustice system should be able to analyse and
process data elements from varied sources. This requires that data definition and representation also
(like processes as above) need to follow standardised methods4. Metadata5 (or "data about data")
descriptions help discover and locate where desired information is stored and how it is represented. A
standardised way to represent metadata (a metadata standard or metadata registry/repository) helps
information providers describe their resources in a more effective and consistent way transcending
organisational and functional boundaries, thereby making it easier for users to find and access
information wherever it exists.
The existence of an eJustice metadata standard will help in three principal ways[28]:
 the standard will help users access resources (discover, locate, read and use);
 once discovered the standard will improve the interoperability of information and services at
different places, making it easier for users to compare and combine information from different
government sources in consistent and meaningful ways; and
 the standard will help improve the delivery of eGovernment (including eJustice) services.
No such initiative appears to have been taken up in Bangladesh either at sector or at a larger
government level. Most of the information is in unstructured, textual form, making it difficult to find
desired information or to compare or compile information from disparate/dissimilar sources.
4
Indeed, making government information more accessible is seen as a key aspect of making government more transparent. In
fact, access to information ("right to information") statutes often require that all information whose publication is mandated by law
must be made available via a government search engine (for example, in Netherlands)[28].
5
A more helpful definition is that it is structured information about a resource. Metadata enables a resource to be found by
indicating what the resource is about and how it can be accessed with a series of structured descriptions[49].

UK e-Government Metadata Standard (eGMS)
The UK e-Government Metadata Standard Framework (eGMF) was a long-term project for modernizing public services
led by Ministry of the Cabinet and aimed to determine the government’s policies for establishing and implementing a
common metadata standard across the public sector, and which would be used across all information systems. It is used
to support a number of functions, such as resource discovery, administration, preservation, e-commerce and content
ratings. Version 3.1 of the eGMS incorporates the basic Dublin Core and has additional elements including accessibility.
addressee, aggregation, audience, digital signature, disposal, location, mandate, preservation and status[29].
The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative

The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI), an outcome of a joint workshop held in Dublin, USA, by the Online Computer
Library Centre and the National Centre of Supercomputing Application in 1995, is one of the most widely-used metadata
standards recognized by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 15836: 2003)[30]. It has served as the
basis for a large number of national standardised metadata repositories[31] and is a simple and flexible metadata
standard which can be used in almost all domains of networked electronic resources. Dublin Core (DC) elements have
been designed to cover not only the type of resources in traditional repositories of information, but also on the web.
8. PAPERFULNESS
In the absence of digitisation/ digitalisation all information transfer takes place through physical
movement of files in Bangladesh judiciary. Movement and circulation of physical files cannot be
controlled systematically and it becomes difficult to trace the whereabouts of a particular file easily
leading at times to missing files. This situation also facilitates corruption.
Persistence of paper in Belgium

Automated registers, the precursors of modern-day case management systems, are intended to improve efficiency
through automation of activities of administrative staff. Developed to substitute paper based registers, these were in the
earlier stages introduced in offices where people had worked all their life with paper, pens and stamps and where ‘modern
technologies’ were often restricted to photocopy and faxes machines.
In many cases and for a long time after their introduction, automated registers did not substitute paper based ones as
official documents, thus requiring clerks and administrative personnel to deal with parallel procedures and duplication of
work. For example, till 1999 in Belgium, after several years of efforts the introduction of electronic internal documents
had not suppressed the paper-based system despite there being no legal obstacles to transition to paperlessness[6].
9. ACCESS ISSUES
The incumbent GoBD’s concept of Digital Bangladesh rests on the two pillars of connecting citizens
and facilitating pro-poor services at citizen’s doorsteps. The National ICT Policy too targets to improve
tele-density to bring most of the population under the ICT umbrella including with e-community
centres[18]. However, Bangladesh has consistently ranked low in the telecommunications index that
focuses on access attributes of ICT[18] in the latest international eGovernment Development Index
exercises. Notwithstanding the lack of any comprehensive surveys to collect information on the use of
ICT at the household and individual levels, more general purpose surveys indicate a penetration (as of
2010) of telephone, PC, Internet and mobile as approximately 2%, 3%, 1.4% and 64% respectively[32].
These figures reinforce the need to have universal access facilities like community Internet centres and
mobile phones to serve as terminal instruments of service delivery.
ATM style touchscreen kiosks planned for judicial service delivery by the Government of India
The eCourts project of India was conceptualised on the basis of a national policy and action plan for implementation of
ICT in the Indian Judiciary in 2005 and was submitted by an eCommittee of the Supreme Court. The idea is to automate
the processes to provide transparency of information access to its stakeholders. As part of judicial reforms, the project
plans to enhance judicial productivity both qualitatively and quantitatively and to make the justice delivery system
affordable, accessible, cost effective and transparent. To help litigants get easy access to court documents by cutting
down lengthy procedures and as part of Phase II of the ambitious eCourts project, the Department of Justice (Government
of India) proposes to install ATM-style touchscreen kiosks in court complexes from which case status and daily orders
can be procured. It also plans development of central filing and information centres for filing cases and ascertaining cases
status and orders[33].

10. ALERTS AND REMINDERS
Electronic cause lists are currently published on the web, though such lists are not drawn from any
calendaring or queuing system. Therefore, scheduling of hearing, trial, judgement or any other meetings
are not done most optimally among stakeholders. There is no system of alerts and reminders to timely
notify participants of forthcoming appointments thereby also offering stakeholders a possible alibi.
Alerts and Notifications in Malaysia and Portugal’s eJustice systems

An integral part of the e-filing application in Malaysia's courts are interactive alerts, notifications and e-mails between the
court, the solicitors and the litigants[34]. Similarly, when CITIUS was developed as part of the eJustice system in Portugal,
in the first year that CITIUS was operational (2009) more than 85% of the acts and proceedings were filed electronically,
totalling more than 5 million acts and almost 2 million electronic notifications[35].
Concerns in Bangladesh Judiciary- People Issues

This group of concerns deals with human capacity and governance-related issues that must be taken
into account while putting in place technology systems in Bangladesh judiciary.
1. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREED STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

It is not only important that appropriate standards and guidelines are formulated, but also that adequate
enforcement mechanisms are put in place that will ensure their continued compliance. Enforcement
could be brought about both by incentives that would lead to tangible benefits to those that opt to use
eJustice systems as also by disincentives or disadvantages that would accrue to those who shun
adherence to such standards. In the current state, in the absence of any formal standards and
guidelines, no enforcement structures for standards are found.
However, a 2013 study commissioned by the UNDP for backlog reduction recommends a suite of
disincentives (penal, monetary and otherwise) including (a) monetary sanctions or “costs” to compel
compliance with court orders and deadlines; (b) sanctions to advocates, litigants, witnesses or expert
witnesses for not appearing at a previously scheduled hearing or in response to a properly served
summons; and (c) sanctions to lawyers for coming to the court unprepared for the case in hand[36].
Incentives to Court employees (including Judges) for achieving performance goals

The Chilean judiciary has a strong reputation, relative to other Latin American systems, for honesty and independence.
However, there were reported cases of influence peddling, ex parte communication and preferential access for lawyers
to judges. Judicial salaries were respectable despite flexible work schedules for judges and were ten times the average
salary in Chile. In addition, terms of appointment were for life, which also contributed to the independence of judges.
In 1998, responding to the overall need for reforms the government passed a law that addressed both the issue of time
to disposition and judicial work culture by improving incentives for court employees, including judges. Under the new law,
the Supreme Court would set performance goals for courts across the country. Performance of each court would be
measured against these goals and a five percent bonus given to employees of the courts that rank in the top 40 percent[2].
2. GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL
For customer satisfaction to occur from service delivery it is important that their expectations are known
before hand and details of services that would be provided to them conveyed to them in as clear terms
as possible. This takes the shape of service delivery parameters (with their associated targets which
the service provider endeavours to meet). However, in the event that there is a significant shortfall in
service delivery from what was promised customer sensitivity requires that a redressal mechanism be
in place to manage and compensate the customer against any resultant loss or inconvenience. In the
current state no service delivery norms or targets have ever been defined; consequently, redressal
mechanisms do not appear to have been considered.
3. INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT

In the face of changes in requirements, advancements in technology and other environmental changes
an institutional apparatus represents a platform of continuity even as it addresses and adapts itself to
the evolving situation. Besides, an initiative of such wide-ranging significance and impact and
concerning as many stakeholders as eJustice will require a well-conceived institutional structure to drive
it. At the moment, beyond a technical team tasked with operating and running the eCourt system that
has been described above, there is no institutional framework in Bangladesh mandated with driving the
eJustice agenda for the country. Further, for any ICT efforts to succeed in the Judiciary, sensitive as it
is to hierarchy, involvement of their senior members is one way to ensure that efforts are taken seriously
by those lower down in the order; involvement of senior members of the Judiciary is, therefore, one way
to ensure sustained success in eJustice efforts.
Prime Minister’s Department directly responsible for the implementation of eCourt in Malaysia
E-Court is regarded as a Malaysian eGovernment project under the responsibility of Legal Affairs Division (BHEUU) of
Prime Minister’s Department, with the Federal Court Chief Registrar’s office as the implementing agency. BHEUU plays
the monitoring role over the implementation of E-Court project, as well as managing the financial and physical provision
for its development[23].
4. CAPACITY BUILDING
Judicial efficiency and independence needs a well-trained judiciary. While in many countries judges are
personally responsible for developing their knowledge and skills, continuing education is seen as a
judicial responsibility and a common element of legal and judicial reform programs. Judicial training
includes not only improvement of knowledge, but also a change in attitudes. To manage judicial training
whereas some countries recognise that the overall control and direction must be in the judiciary’s hands,
in other countries, training is provided by entities such as law schools or judicial training institutes
managed by the Ministry of Justice[37].
For the induction of ICT too, while it is important to have appropriate technology solutions, the presence
of the right knowledge, skills and attitude to empower users of the eJustice system is equally important.
Capacity building therefore must form a key and integral component of any eJustice effort. Such efforts
must, however, be role-based to get the most optimum benefits.
No continued capacity building effort appears to have been taken up in the Bangladesh Judiciary
towards the use of ICT systems. However, the UNDP JUST project provided a 12-day long ICT training
to 40 Judges and core officials of the Dhaka Judge Court, including 30 Judges, which culminated in the
award of certificates to judges. The training imparted knowledge on case file management, PowerPoint
presentation, incorporation of case data into cause list, Internet use along with basic computer and
hardware applications. The award ceremony was attended by Justice Md. Muzammel Hossain,
Honourable Chief Justice of Bangladesh himself, thus conveying commitment at the topmost levels of
the judiciary for any effort to harness ICT in the judicial system[11].
ICM Court Management Program (CMP) & ICM Fellow Certification Models in US
The Institute for Court Management (ICM) provides training and education programs to improve public service in
America’s state courts. The ICM has traditionally pursued 3 basic objectives: (a) to increase, store, and disseminate
knowledge on effective and efficient court management; (b) to develop the profession of court management; and (c) to
improve, through court management, popular satisfaction with the administration of justice[38].
Universally recognized for quality curricula and customer service, ICM offers professional development opportunities to
judges, court executives, administrators, managers, and court staff through course offerings that support change in the
courts. Attendees improve decision making through use of critical thinking skills and in using data, communicate an
understanding of issues facing the courts, and increase productivity through improved competence and confidence.
ICM offers 3 levels of certificates: (1) Certified Court Manager (CCM), (2) Certified Court Executive (CCE), and (3) ICM
Fellow. ICM programs empower court leaders through a variety of delivery options. The objective of Court Management
Program (CMP) is to educate court managers in the core competencies of court administration with two levels of CMP

certification: Certified Court Manager (CCM) and Certified Court Executive (CCE), with the latter a prerequisite for
admission to the Fellows program. Guiding principles of these courses are that they should be (a) accessible and
affordable; (b) relevant to daily practice, and (c) reflective of the full range of court management responsibilities.
The most basic course for a Certified Court Manager has, for example, the following courses as an integral component
and includes technology as a key lever of court administration.
 Purposes and Responsibilities of Courts;
 Fundamental Issues of Caseflow Management;
 Court Performance Standards: CourTools;
 Managing Court Financial Resources;
 Managing Human Resources; and
 Managing Technology Projects & Technology Resources.
Change Management critical in the eCourts Strategy of the Supreme Court of India
The Action Plan for Phase II of the eCourts strategy of the Supreme Court of India acknowledges that the introduction of
new technological modes of working require not only the training of users but also the attuning of their mindset. This
aspect of mindset change and attitudinal orientation is central to the Change Management interventions recommended
by the eCommittee to the Supreme Court of India in seamless continuation of the same in Phase I of the strategy. Phase
II of the Project will cover Judicial Officers, Court Staff, Lawyers, Public Prosecutors etc. to attain a holistic shift in mindset
addressing the resistance to computerization issues due to some mental block.
Among other things, Judicial Officers and Court Officials will need to be trained to appreciate and manage electronic
evidence. Training exercise may consist of a component to promote awareness about this aspect amongst the officials.
Moreover, as Courts have not all framed rules with regard to preservation of electronic evidence and its validity in Court
proceedings, the strategy recommends that the entire gamut of electronic evidence, its preservation and evidentiary value
be studied by team of professionals, who may, if necessary, recommend changes to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872[39].
Concerns in Bangladesh Judiciary- Awareness and Collaboration Issues

This group of concerns deals with awareness and outreach issues in implementing the eJustice system.
1. NO OUTREACH INITIATIVE SO FAR

Awareness building and outreach activities for eJustice encompasses a range of activities including
disseminating knowledge of ICT initiatives by the Judiciary, encouraging litigants and lawyers to adopt
ICT as a medium of interaction with seeking providers, promoting the Judiciary's eJustice efforts and
such other activities felt required to promote sustained adoption of eJustice among stakeholders.
Participation and Awareness at the core of the European e-Justice Strategy, 2014-18
The Strategy on European e-Justice (2014-2018) defines general principles and objectives of European e-Justice and
sets out general guidelines for the establishment of a new multiannual European Action Plan on e-Justice that will aim at
improving the overall functioning of e-Justice systems in Member States and at the European level. The Strategy gives
special attention to achieving the broadest possible participation base to ensure meeting users' expectations, long-term
viability and cost-efficiency of projects identified as part of the strategy. Specifically, this includes that,
 The European e-Justice Portal would be key in the delivery of e-Justice at European level.
 Projects developed must involve all Member States who should be encouraged to participate on a voluntary basis.
 The Member States' judiciary and legal practitioners (lawyers, notaries and judicial officers) should be involved in
future discussions in the area of e-Justice to ensure that solutions developed correspond to the actual needs of target
groups. Such an arrangement would allow a direct contact to discuss issues of common interest and to raise
awareness of the latest developments in the area of e-Justice.
 An annual meeting with representatives of judiciary and legal practitioners will be organised to allow a regular
exchange of views with these target groups of professionals. Close cooperation with European Judicial Networks
should continue[40].
Awareness Programmes and Initiatives central to eCourts Strategy of Supreme Court of India
The Action Plan for Phase II of the eCourts strategy developed by the Supreme Court of India identifies awareness
programmes and initiatives to be taken up for litigants and citizens at large to spread the information about the new
modes of services and methods made available in electronic mode by the eCourts Project. The emphasis of the initiatives
will be to make all concerned aware about benefits in store for all in the computerization of Courts and also the overall
well-being of society due computerization of Courts[39].

Court Backlog and Delay Reduction Programme in Malaysia
Malaysia, a middle income, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-linguistic country with a parliamentary democracy
and following the Westminster model of governance with a written federal constitution follows common law
procedures. Three other sources of law are written law, customary law, and Islamic or Syariah law. The English
common law was formally adopted in 1956 and further developed in accord with local circumstances[21].
The federal courts, operating nationally, are organized as a single unitary system with the Federal Court and the
Court of Appeal seated in the Federal Government Administrative Centre, Putrajaya. Two High Courts –for
Western Malaysia and for Sabah and Sarawak – form the next tier and are referred to as superior courts, and its
judges are appointed by mechanisms different from those for the subordinate courts.
The Judiciary suffered nearly two decades of declining performance and decreasing public confidence, when
cases took unpredictable lengths of time to resolve, depending on the judge who operated in relative isolation,
leading to considerable variation even in how cases were processed, and an often disorganized management of
internal administration. Common complaints included politicization of appointments and decisions, corruption,
inefficiency, delays, disorganization, inadequate and usually unreliable performance statistics or even counts of
pending cases, arbitrary and unpredictable decisions, disorganized filing “systems”, and a generally poor public
image.
Following on earlier efforts that were largely piecemeal and local, emerging more from individual zeal than any
organisational strategy, the Judiciary, in 2008 led by the Chief Justice of Malaysia, decided to transform things
radically by using techniques that could be applied system-wide such as inventory of pending cases,
reorganization of the filing system, and targets for closing or processing the oldest files and the like. The idea
was that by the time automation came on line, the number of pending cases to be dealt with was much reduced
and the courts finally had an accurate manual registry of all their caseloads.
The Sequence of Initiatives

The initial goal of the reform was to reduce backlog and accelerate processing of new cases, and the steps,
roughly in the sequence they occurred, were as follows: It was decided to focus on the High Courts in the court
centres receiving most cases. the steps, roughly in the sequence they occurred, were as follows:
1. MAKING AN INVENTORY: The preparation of an inventory of cases held in courtroom files throughout the
country was an essential first step in any delay and backlog reduction program. Typically as in this case this
is resisted because it is considered boring, time consuming, and erroneously believed to fetch best results
when it follows introduction of automated systems.
2. CLASSIFYING AND PURGING THE OLD CASES: The next step was to purge “closed cases” and separate
inactive (“hibernating”) cases from the remaining. The inactive cases were treated for rapid closure or further
processing with targets for the elimination of older cases (initially termination of all cases over a year old by
end of 2011). The manual archive system was restructured and revived to make archived files more easily
retrievable and avoid any loss. Cards and checkout lists were used to improve the courtroom filing system.
3. INTRODUCTION OF CASE MANAGEMENT AND TRACKING SYSTEMS: Pre-trial processing and tracking
to advance backlog reduction process was adopted along with a reorganization of High Court judges and
staff in the target districts with “Managing Judges” (reporting directly to Chief Justice) to oversee the
exercise. Case tracking meant dividing cases into categories for separate treatment based on anticipated
amount of work or type of treatment they will require. For example, civil matters would have 2 types of cases
– those requiring oral evidence (full trials), and those involving only revision of documents (trial by affidavit).
In the reform programme staff from the judicial service assigned cases to judges on behalf of the Managing
Judge, scheduled hearings and trials, and generally tracked performance. The staff attached to the

Managing Judge Unit (MJU) from the Judicial and Legal Service prepared cases for judges in the two tracks
ensuring that the parties had submitted the necessary documentation, lists of witnesses, and arranged for
summonses for the latter. They could also close cases administratively (for lack of action or expiration of the
time limits), encourage settlement, and make basic decisions on pre-trial matters.
4. COURT RECORDING AND TRANSCRIPTION SYSTEM: For most of the courts in West Malaysia Court
Recording and Transcription System (CRT) was used with contracts covering the creation of a Case
Management Information System (CMIS) and a Court Recording and Transcription System (CRT). The CRT
was done first and will result in the delivery of audiovisual systems for recording hearings to courtrooms. The
rationale behind this activity was the delay caused by judges having to take notes on proceedings which
would become the official record of their content.
However, in criminal cases the law still requires the courts to provide written transcripts to the attorneys
(meaning that the audio-video recordings must later be transcribed by court staff). The recording system is
nearly fully automatic and is operated by ordinary courtroom staff and does not need a special technician.
The judges are of the opinion that the CRT allowed them to conduct hearings and trials much more rapidly.
For large distances in Sabah Sarawak, some hearings and witnesses’ testimony are done by video
conferencing too. In West Malaysia, there are on-going experiments with teleconferencing to handle some
pretrial matters. This avoids having parties and their attorneys go to the courts for relatively simple hearings.
Most of this is not covered under the IT contracts but rather is a separate initiative of the courts.
An electronic queuing system intended to facilitate holding of hearings by registering arrival of attorneys, on
the day the event is scheduled and letting them know where they stand in the queue. Once registered at the
court, they can also leave and call in using SMS or texting from their mobile phones to verify the time they
must return for the hearing. The Malaysian version is especially sophisticated because of the combination of
electronic scheduling with the attorney’s registry of their presence.
5. AUTOMATED CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CMS), INCLUDING E-FILING: An automated case

management information system with its various modules was created. The e-Filing module registers the
initial civil filing, enters the pertinent information into an electronic database, assigns a case number, and
adds scanned copies of the accompanying documents. It also calculates fees and once these are paid,
issues a writ of summons for delivery by the attorney (or if s/he wishes by the court for an additional fee).
There is also a comparable model for criminal cases. These are since being replaced with “internet filing”
which provides forms to the filer from which data can be extracted automatically. It is the intent of the Court
that finally most of these steps will be automated and for those who chose to e-file, all documentation will be
entered directly into an electronic file with no need for paper copies.
For those bringing their filings directly to the court, the process will still be more agile, but data will have to be
entered and documents scanned by the court staff. E-filers will also be able to pay their fees by internet
using a credit card. Whether e-filed or physically delivered to the courts, the case file will be electronic and
paper copies of documents will no longer be retained.
6. CREATION OF HIGH COURT DIVISIONS TO HANDLE MORE SPECIALIZED MATTERS: Specialised

divisions were created, for example, for Admiralty, Intellectual Property and Islamic Banking with targets for
speedier processing of cases. This approach makes the best use of developing and then exploiting the
developed expertise to the fullest. However, judges once assigned to the divisions could later move to other
divisions upon requirement.
7. CREATION OF NEW COURTS (SPECIALIZED HIGH COURT DIVISIONS) IN TARGET DISTRICTS: For
recent cases two new courts were created- New Commercial Courts (NCC) and then New Civil Courts
(NCvC) which were to receive only cases filed after their creation. The system of tracks was no longer felt

required but judges were provided with targets for productivity and delay reduction. As the backlog was
reduced, judges from the two other tracks were transferred to these new courts (physically located in the
same buildings – this was a change of nomenclatures and also of working rules, not of location) along with
the deputy and senior assistant registrars no longer needed in such quantities in the Managing Judge Unit. In
the new courts the overall goal is to resolve all cases in 9 months or less.
Criminal Justice Cases

Efforts to apply these goals to the criminal caseload have been less successful though backlog has been
reduced and there are instructions for limiting adjournments and setting time limits for preparatory activities. The
Judiciary feels it cannot be as strict with these measures in criminal matters because (a) owing to the values
involved, the defendant must be given an opportunity to organize his/her defense; (b) both parties commonly
encounter problems in getting their witnesses to court, and the latter’s absence is a common justification for
adjournments; and (c) criminal cases are not decided on affidavits but rather require full trials. However, with
plea bargaining the length of trials could be substantially reduced and many of the factors contributing to their
duration eliminated.
Additional Personnel Policies

As more resources were needed and High Courts already had the maximum number stipulated for them the
problem was resolved by the use of short-term Judicial Commissioners usually in authorized but unfilled High
Court positions. Their performance was also monitored and over time, the best performers were given
permanent tenure, thus allowing for the promotion of some existing High Court judges to the Court of Appeal
(where the numbers are still under the constitutional limit). As numbers of subordinate judges are not similarly
limited, some additions were made here based on an analysis of caseloads. Thus the reform has relied more on
increasing efficiency than increasing personnel to meet its goals.
Supportive Measures
In addition to the above the following supportive measures were also adopted[21]:
a) Through court directives lawyers were given strict timeframes for provision of documents essential to
decisions on both affidavit and full trial cases.
b) The staff attached to the MJUs have taken a more systematic approach to (i) assigning cases to judges; (ii)
scheduling hearings and other events; and (iii) setting and tracking performance targets.
c) The Judiciary has also evened out irritating delays caused by the differing requirements by judges and their
staff as regards ordinary filings. Standardized forms have been introduced.
d) Judges were encouraged to write shorter opinions which would help them meet targets allocated.
e) Through modification of rules the courts have streamlined pre-trial case management activities to ensure that
pre-trial preparation moves rapidly and that lawyers do not arrive on the day of a pre-trial audience, hearing
or trial with another request for more time.
f) Further changes contemplated to be implemented include:
 Adoption of plea bargaining for criminal cases;
 Simplification of introduction of evidence for criminal cases – in essence the admissibility of written
documents for the evidence-in-chief (initial witness testimony) as already allowed in civil cases
 further simplification of the High/Subordinate Court Rules to increase efficiency and make for a new
“friendlier” court procedure;
 Increase in jurisdiction of session and magistrate courts to reduce case volume in the High Courts;
 Encouraging mediation as a form of pre-trial settlement;
 Earlier starting hours for the courts; and
 Escorting of defendants to hearings by prison staff.
Box 3 Court Backlog and Delay Reduction Programme in Malaysia

2.3 An overall Implementation Approach
Three paths have been followed by eJustice efforts by prominent countries in Europe[6]:
 selection of simple procedures;
 procedure simplification; and
 full on-line proceedings.
Whereas, the first two approaches have aimed at reducing the complexity of the system BEFORE trying
to implement technology, in the third approach, effort is centred on translating ALL the complexity of
the paper based procedures in to the electronic ones. Predictably, successful examples come from the
first two approaches while, except for the Austrian case, efforts have been less so in the third[6].
A. SELECTION OF SIMPLE PROCEDURES

This first approach for dealing with the complexity of designing and implementing the electronic
exchange of formal electronic documents focuses on simple tracks. The aim is to simplify the task
focusing on tracks characterized by easy procedures and a large number of cases.
Money Claim Online (MCOL) in England and Wales

In the MCOL claims and responses to the court can be made electronically using the Internet as these claims are in
general simple and homogeneous cases. Furthermore, a number of conditions that reduce the complexity have to be met
in order to start or proceed with an electronic claim. The respondent is notified by post of the claim that has been made
against him and may decide to respond to the claim using this on-line service or, alternatively, the response pack. At any
point during the procedure, if the case fails to meet the simplification requirements, it moves from the electronic track to
the traditional, paper-based one. The development of MCOL was also simplified and made possible by the presence of
an already established technological infrastructure, and the County Court Bulk Centre (CCBC), which became the
administrative-technological backbone of MCOL[6].
B. PROCEDURE SIMPLIFICATION
Whereas in the first approach, effort was made to select relatively simple components of the system for
online transactions, this approach is directed towards simplifying the complexity of the rules and
procedures that concern the document exchange before embarking on computerisation.
Procedure Simplification by the Finnish Judiciary before embarking on online systems

In Finland, recognising that the main obstacles to the official exchange of electronic documents came from the formal
requirements for the submitted documents, the law on civil procedure was written to allow the use of electronic messages
for the application for a summons and, at the same time, limit the need of using written original documents to the minimum.
According to the Act on Electronic Service in Judicial Matters, ‘an application for a summons, a response and another
comparable document may be delivered to a court of law, or to a person designated by it to receive documents, also by
telefax, E-mail or electronic data interchange into the IT system of the recipient (electronic message)’. Furthermore, the
Finnish Ministry of Justice may grant permission to deliver information required of an application for a summons by way
of the message exchange system (Santra) into the case management system (Tuomas) used by the District Courts[6].
This system is used by professionals and organisations that file large numbers of applications for
summonses, such as collection agencies, because the party must acquire or develop, at its own cost,
software for the compilation of application records that meet the set format criteria. The file format
descriptions are available at the Ministry of Justice. As a consequence, this kind of electronic filing is
normally used for simple (and undisputed) summary debt collection cases.
C. ON-LINE PROCEEDINGS
Given the technical, organisational and normative complexity of the systems needed for full on-line
proceedings, it is essential that systems are planned in cooperation with users and other public or
private agencies. The Austrian implementation effort, for example, seems to have been directed in this

direction, with the inclusion of the lawyers, notaries and other official authorities in the system as part
of the organisation for justice service provision. Austria uses a dedicated system for communication of
official documents between the court and professional users for formal communications and resort to
the e-mail for more informal communication and information exchanges. Although almost all lawyers in
Austria communicate with courts via e–mail, the electronic communication between court and the public
including lawyers, notaries and other official authorities is not done by e–mail but by the Electronic Legal
Communication[6].
Less than successful efforts in the Italian Civil Trial On-line system
The Italian Civil Trial On-line system aims at reproducing traditional paper-based civil procedures, as defined by law, in
an electronic medium. The system allows the on-line consultation of case status, court clerks’ registers, as well as relevant
jurisprudence. Digital signature, PKI, certified mail and a number of other requirements are thought to be essential for
security and reliability of data interchange. The use of such technology should allow an exact electronic replica of the
traditional paper based requirements.
However, problems surface regularly with judges not using the system for writing sentences, as well as private enterprises
that should develop the software through which the lawyers should access the On-line Civil Trial not being able to do so
with the data provided by the Ministry of Justice. The effort to perfect reproduction of the traditional formal procedures
has not worked out. The change is also affecting the nature of the relationship between the court and the network of
actors with which it interacts. For example, lawyers directly interact with the court registers, input data, and search for
information. The complexity of creating an exact electronic replica of paper based system has become a challenge[6].
2.4 ICT as a Solution to Address the Concerns in the Judiciary

Litigants Judicial Staff- Administrative
Individual Corporate
Lawyers Judges and Other
User Others User Staff- Registry
Judicial Staff and Other staff
Bar
Users
IVR Mobile App JUST Kiosk PC Practice Mgmt. Solution Mobile App PC
Access Layer Internet Internet/ Intranet
Mobile and Web-based Justice Sector Portal Solution

Presentation Layer
Court-based Configuration Court-Based Content Management
Security Layer Identity Management PKI Authentication SSL/Encryption Solution
Integration Layer SMS Gateway Payment Gateway Service Bus- Oth Apps
EFS HMS Format Reports
Applications Layer EDR CMS CQS FMS Adhoc Reports
SKC CRT ANS AMS Queries
ANL CGS Dashboard
Data Layer Litigant Data Case Data Lawyer Data Doc Repository Other Data
Infrastructure Layer Storage Infrastructure Network Infrastructure Service Delivery Infrastructure
Policy Layer Security Interoperability Standards/ Guidelines Regulations
EDR: Electronic Data Room; SKC: Stakeholder Communications Platform; EFS: Electronic Filing Solution; CMS: Case Management Solution; CRT: Court Recording
and Transcription Solutions; ANL: Case Management Analytics; CQS: Calendaring and Queueing Solution; ANS: Alerts and Notifications Solution; HMS: Human
Resource Management Solution; FMS: Financial Management Solution; AMS: Asset Management Solution; CGS: Complaints and Grievances Solution
Figure 4 eJustice Technical Solution Framework

Essentially the core stakeholders of any eJustice system includes, at least, the following:
 Judges and/or other judicial staff;
 Lawyers/ Counsels/ Attorneys/ Law Firms;
 Judicial administrative or Registry staff; and
 General Public including the litigants/complainant etc.
Table 3 brings out some core functionalities that must at a minimum be addressed through the eJustice
system as seen from the perspective of the stakeholders mentioned above[41]:
Table 3 Minimum core functionality of the eJustice System
Core Users/ General

Lawyers Judges Registry Brief Functionality
Features Public
Lodge/File a     User should be able to file a case and

document attach necessary documents for the
case.
Search File     As a universal functionality search
and other functions should enable users to
search conduct searches in the database
subject to user rights and privileges.
Generate     eJustice should be able to generate
Documents/ reports currently being maintained as
Reports one or more registers in judicial
agencies.
Attend     Either remotely or in person the user
Hearing should be able to attend hearings and
access relevant information while
doing so.
List File for     Typically this includes the functionality
Events to generate listing of events, for
example generation of a Cause List by
the court staff.
Manage     During the hearing process user
Evidence should be able to access evidence
files stored in the system using
appropriate technologies.
Access     The user, based on associated
Transcript privileges, should be able to access
transcript, file notings and the like,
usually not available in public domain.
Access     System should allow the user to
Judgement access judgements of cases once the
same have been made. The access
should be subject to privilege rules
imposed on the user.
Figure 4 brings out a multi-layered application view of the eJustice system. In line with discussions
presented earlier in the document, and in consultations with stakeholders, the following brings out the
minimum functionality the eJustice system in Bangladesh should be able to meet.

General Functionalities
The eJustice solution should be holistic and open to rule-based access to all stakeholders including
those above and provide, at a minimum, the following generic functionalities:
 Whenever required it should provide for integrated due diligence checks within the judiciary and
where possible with other agencies of the GoBD too6;
 It should function as the sole and complete repository of case information;
 The solution must be rich with alerts and notifications through multiple channels and on varied
devices for different litigation events;
 It should be developed using open technology standards as far as possible or at least using widely
followed industry standards;
 It should double up as a comprehensive communication, messaging and document repository
solution;
 All communications should be made to parties, whether judges, lawyers/litigants, or staff, from within
the eJustice system itself obviating the need for separately accessing any other communication
software (like an emailing solution);
 Complete data integrity must be observed following the dictum "enter once, use often"; as far as
possible entry should be at source following pre-agreed standards; and
 A single sign-on should enable access to all of eJustice, determined by rules of access.
Specific Functionalities
A. Electronic Filing System
The Electronic Filing System (or EFS), the first step of case initiation, resulting in the creation of an
electronic case file, will be the electronic platform for filing and service of documents within the litigation
process over the Internet7. It will work as a tool to minimise not just the physical movement of people
and paper court documents from litigants/lawyers to the Courts, but also to leverage the benefits of
electronic storage within Courts: i.e. faster document filing and retrieval, eradication of the
misplacement of case files, concurrent access to view the same case filed by different parties, etc[42].
The EFS will allow electronic documents to be automatically routed to the appropriate registry staff for
processing, further routing (if required) for approvals, and a reply being sent out by the Registry staff
back to the originating litigant/lawyer. Fees payable for filing documents to Court are calculated and
charged automatically by the EFS through the payment gateway module. The EFS will provide to the
litigants/lawyers an electronic case file showing hearing dates and documents filed by them, served on
them or received from the Courts. It also provides an electronic platform for the service of documents
on other litigants/lawyers. The EFS must include a speedy due diligence of documents electronically
and the ability to request for and receive electronic extracts of documents via the Internet.
The EFS will consists of at least the following functionalities:

 The EFS should be accessible on the web to litigants/lawyers who can view the documents which
have been filed by them, served on them or replied from the Courts. Alerts could also be pushed
through the EFS interface. It should allow the user to fill up the appropriate online template offered
through the EFS and attach the document to be filed or served in a portable standardised format 8.
6
For example, with registration authorities of businesses, lawyers, civil identity, marriage, land, property, vehicle etc to provide
diligence checks on identity.
7
For the convenience of law firms for whom the volume of documents to be uploaded at any instance may be large the system
should preferably provide a mechanism by which lawyers should be able to prepare their documents offline and then upload the
same in batches (“batch filing”).
8
The concept of filing envisages the filing of information as against the filing of documents. Pleadings, affidavits and other
documents generated in the course of litigation would be filed as textual information through pre-agreed templates. This will
facilitate search and discovery functions[17].

Secure authenticated mechanisms should be built into the system to ensure authenticity and non-
repudiation.
 Diligence should be performed in terms at least of automated validation checks when documents
are filed and/or the implementation of certain specific rules enforced to reinforce validation of
documents filed.
 A user authenticated mechanisms that allows secure access only to registered users of the system
based on their requirements of access.
B. Case Management System
The Case Management System (CMS) will support caseflow management through automation and will
offer functionalities to effectively track the status of cases and their position in the court process, support
the development of caseload and workload statistics and management reports, and monitor case
processes. The CMS will also provide judges with the information needed to control timely processing
and produce a complete and reliable case record. Minimum functionalities associated with this will
include, though not be limited to[20]:
 Controlling data and defining standardised electronic, paper, and other media input to case records
by providing control over the format and content of forms that have to be entered into valid and
complete court records, ensuring uniformity of the data elements entered into the CMS and
ultimately the completeness of the record.
 Assigning numerical identifiers to the case by entering the case into the index by number, date of
filing, or names of parties; and by creating a folder located in the record system.
 Managing case processing and record updating thereby allowing for the case’s status and progress
to be traced and delays to be detected. This will provide judges and court staff with an overview of
activity in each case, help in maintaining control over cases, and provide for transparency and
external accountability.
 The system will also ensure that the case history is entered at the conclusion of a case, and that it
is archived as a closed case subject to archiving rules agreed upon.
C. Court Recording and Transcription and other courtroom technologies (CRT)
The following should be minimum requirements that deployed courtroom technologies must offer[17]:
 The technology system in the courts should equip lawyers with tools for refinement of cases in court.
All relevant material that lawyers have worked on, including documents in the EDR, should be made
available in court.
 Audio recording should be exploited to ease the burden of judicial staff's manually recording
proceedings. Official record of proceedings may be done by way of an audio recording, with a
transcript, including real-time transcripts, made available upon payment of a fee to interested parties.
 Video-conferencing should be possible for remote hearing purposes.
 Judges should have the facility to make references to electronic evidence, to make notes, and to
associate the two when necessary. This tool should be available as they review the evidence at the
end of each day/trial. The judge’s or judicial officer’s tool should be capable of pulling together
transcripts of evidence, electronic evidence, the judge’s or judicial officer’s personal notes, and case
materials like pleadings and submissions.
 The system should also be able to capture annotations made by witnesses on both physical and
electronic documents and store the same electronically as part of the court electronic record.
D. Case Management Analytics
Case Management Analytics (ANL), also referred to as the decision support system for the judges will,
among other things, provide statistics or other court management information on the size and nature of

caseloads and their handling. It should be able to take advantage of any categorisation done on the
basis of case type, court type, location, and other criteria deemed important and should be able to
derive trends based on data for judges and policymakers alike to make informed decisions. Such
statistics could either be an automatic by-product of the eJustice system or the result of a separate
process to gather statistical information. Typically, and certainly not exhaustively, the system should be
able to generate reports on caseload data regarding the nature and number of dispositions, including
the case clearance rate, size of the pending workload, identification of cases that are languishing in the
system, and the extent of delays from filing to disposition[20].
E. Calendaring and Queueing System
The Calendaring and Queueing System (CQS) will include tools to facilitate calendaring and scheduling
for case events, such as hearings and other tasks, sending out notices to relevant parties or attorneys
ensuring efficient use of time by judges, attorneys, and all parties involved. By extension the CQS will
also announce court events, and also indicate judicial assignments and allocate courtrooms through a
queueing system. System-driven randomised judicial assignments will help to assure fairness and build
public trust in the court system.
Once the case has been registered and the first notice has been served, the calendaring function must
automatically generate a schedule of dates for the completion of key steps in the litigation process
according to the courts’ timelines for case disposal[17] (based on categorisation of cases and
standardised timeframes allocated by the court for the respective categories). For example, deadlines
for pleadings, expected pre-trial conference dates, etc., must be automatically generated from the
system. The system should also allow flexibility for dates to be decided within the standards set with
appropriate approvals, for example by allowing lawyers to choose from within a set of recommended
dates by the standardised system adopted by the courts. From the dates thus set the system should be
able to generate different views of the calendar (for example, for a lawyer, court, case etc).
F. Electronic Data Room
Electronic Data Room (EDR) is

Litigant Lawyer Court/Judge
a concept that signifies role-
determined and case-based
access rights to documents in
the repository for primarily three
Electronic Shared
kinds of stakeholders: litigants, Discussion room documents and
between litigant files between the
lawyers and judges. For and lawyer lawyer and the
court for a case
example, a virtual room can be
set up to facilitate
communication and
correspondence between
litigant and the lawyer. All Courts Case File
documents and relevant Lawyers’ Case File
material will be stored here
Figure 5 The Concept of the Electronic Data Room
including pleadings, evidences
etc that may be used in the litigation process. Access to each individual room will be restricted to the
litigants and their respective lawyers. The system should allow annotations to be made to documents
that have been provided access with annotations, by default, being visible to only those who made them
in the first place.

Similarly, a virtual room could also be set up between the lawyer and the court. Upon filing of a case a
"Court Case File" and a "Lawyer Case File" would be prepared by the system with some (and not all)
documents in these files overlapping between them (see Figure 5).
G. Stakeholder Communication System

Stakeholder Communication System (SKC) refers to secure channels and platforms of communication
between different stakeholder groups based on their roles and tied to the case in question. Every
instance of such communication opened has to link back to the case to which it pertains. The system
should allow for such communication to take place concurrently with other parts of the system being
accessed, for example the Electronic Data Room. Ideally, and in the limit, SKC should allow
communication to take place over text, audio and video depending upon mutual convenience and
requirement of the discussion in hand.
H. Alerts and Notifications System
The eJustice system should be rich with alerts and notification provided to its users at least a specified
time in advance for various events, milestones and activities required to be performed through
messages delivered over various platforms and devices, for example, text messages on mobile phones,
electronic mails, system alerts etc. Typically these should remind the recipient of such alerts till such
time that these are acknowledged and disposed of. While by default these would be issued on a blanket
basis for all such events in sync with calendaring sub-system, it should allow the user to configure alerts
that they get (omitting the ones that they select while retaining the remaining).
I. Complaints and Grievances System
The Complaints and Grievances function of eJustice is one that is focused predominantly on service
delivery aspects to end users. This functionality must not only suo moto identify where an
underperformance or a breach of service delivery has taken place from what was promised but it should
also extend an opportunity to the end user to bring such deviations to the notice of a competent authority
identified for the purpose. The sub-system must then be able to categorise the particular breach into
one of the pre-defined categories (of breach of service delivery norms/standards) and be able to
suggest remedies to the competent authority. This sub-system should also be able to record the
redressal extended to the complaint and close the case.
J. Other Shared Information Systems
Under the umbrella of shared systems are included those functionalities that the eJustice system will
have in common with other arms of the government, as well as shared gateways/interfaces provided to
other third party applications within and outside of the GoBD.
In the former category are included sub-systems for Human Resource Management (employee rolls,
salaries, performance appraisals etc), Assets Management (details of the inventory held by the courts
and their associated facilities), financial management (expenditure accounting, budgeting, tracking,
collecting and accounting for filing fees, revenue accounting, and accounts receivable). As these are
standard functionalities having relevance to all agencies of the government, these are not being
elaborated here.
In the second category are included (a) payment gateways (for interfaces to third party systems that
enable electronic payments including through credit/debit cards, electronic clearance services, mobile
money, eWallet systems etc): (b) gateways to mobile service providers for bulk or targeted delivery of

short messaging services (SMS); and (c) interfaces to systems and sub-systems operational in other
GoBD agencies for extracting data from those systems.
2.5 Principal Recommendations

Recommendations advanced from current state assessment and benchmarking are as follows:
1. FUNCTIONAL AND PROCESS STANDARDISATION: A proper functional and process

thesaurus/dictionary must be built for the Justice sector as a whole. This will be helpful in ensuring
that the coverage of the system is complete as is the alignment with sector objectives, and, also,
at a later date, when an Enterprise Architecture is prepared for the Law Enforcement Cluster
(including the police and prison functions, for example), when these function and process
descriptions will come in handy to detect commonalities. However, should this exercise take
significantly longer than is mandated the subsequent interventions must proceed regardless. The
coupling between this exercise and others that depend on it should be loose.
2. PROCESS RE-ENGINEERING: Subsequent to process standardisation (which should include not

only standardising the process themselves but also their representation), a thorough process re-
engineering should be carried out. As process re-engineering has already taken place for civil
judicial processes, criminal judicial processes should be attempted now as well as other
administrative processes. The earlier process standardisation represented in (1) above should be
used here as there is substantial room for common processes being found, (a) between civil judicial
and criminal judicial processes; and (b) between administrative processes in this sector and those
of any other sector within the government.
3. PROCESS REPRESENTATION: For process representation BPMN should be used with, if

required, modifications tailored to the context. BPMN should thereafter be multiplied in other areas
also, first within the Law Enforcement Cluster defined as above and then beyond it.
4. INFORMATION AVAILABILITY: Information must be easily available to both judicial and

administrative staff through convenient means of access for them to be able to schedule dates of
hearing, categorise cases and allocate judges and perform other associated functions.
Additionally, legal research literature to empower judges with statutory codes, judicial opinions,
treatises, legal journals, and other sources must be within easy access too. Further, this electronic
document store must be appropriately tagged and indexed for better search and retrievability thus
providing the Judiciary the required assistance in making consistent, predictable and speedier
decisions.
5. DATA STANDARDISATION: Following functional and process standardisation all data elements
invoked in the processes must be standardised not just in their description but in their
representation too. A metadata repository for the Justice sector must be in place. As a related
recommendation, all documents captured in the system must be appropriately classified and
template-based entry of information related to the documents must be made into the database for
the eJustice system to truly transform from a document-centric to a data-centric one.
6. LEGAL INTERVENTIONS: For changes introduced through process re-engineering and adoption
of ICT to enjoy legal sanction and thus be effective leading to people adopting it, it is important that
concomitant legal refinements also be made for the newly introduced changes to have their basis
in law. Since the basic set of e-Laws (such as eTransactions, eEvidence, Data Protection etc) are

already in place it is expected that such changes would therefore need to be made only at the level
of rules, circulars, directives etc passing which would be much easier than it would be otherwise.
7. TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS: As against the current set up when only the cause list is being
rendered electronically and a few value-added queries on the database are possible on the web,
the envisioned scenario must include an end-to-end computerisation of the activities of the
Judiciary; therefore, technology solutions conceptualised must take into account the complete set
of judicial and administrative processes with case management as the backbone of the complete
eJustice suite. The case management solution must be built using caseflow management
techniques to facilitate case-tacking, ensure that cases move through efficiently and provide
information to allocate time and resources based on case requirements. Furthermore, following
process standardisation the same solution would be applicable for the Supreme Courts as for the
lower courts for the same functions. An illustrative view of the solution has already been provided
in Figure 4. Solutions must be developed using non-proprietary standards and served over the
Internet either on the computer or over mobile devices. Taken in conjunction, standardisation of
process, data and technology will ensure interoperability among different solution components of
the eJustice suite and prepare the ground for a latter-day exchange between eJustice and the
external world.
8. MULTI-CHANNEL AND MULTI-DEVICE DELIVERY: Solutions offered must take into account the
need and circumstance of the targeted user. Users would need to be segmented appropriately to
determine the best channel/device for them to access eJustice components. It should be possible
to seamlessly move from one channel to another at any stage of the process chain or service.
Therefore, the solution should be available for multiple devices and channels, particularly over
mobile devices whose penetration is far higher compared to the PC’s. Value-added features like
queries or simple information should be available through innovative mobile applications to
maximise convenience for litigants and lawyers alike. Most importantly, mobile-delivered solutions
should be such as to be available over basic mobile phones, not necessarily smartphones. USSD-
based mobile apps should be particularly encouraged. As a point of access e@syJUSTICE kiosks
are also recommended that should be appropriately branded for better awareness and recall.
9. REDRESSAL OF GRIEVANCES: As processes are standardised and re-engineered it should be

possible to associate processes and their components with metrics to be achieved. For service
delivery, parameters and their targeted values must be defined and disclosed to justice service
seekers. A shortfall (or beyond a threshold value of shortfall) in achievement of service delivery
targets must attract penalties for the erring/underperforming parties with compensation for the
consumer. Rules must be carefully and transparently defined without bias and made public.
10. CAPACITY BUILDING: An earlier effort at introducing computerisation in the Judiciary did not meet
desired levels of success and the usage soon languished. Capacity building linked to the specific
roles being performed by the different stakeholders should be continually pursued so that not just
ICT in general but also the use of the eJustice system in particular is internalised. Incentives and
disincentives for both the internal and external users should be institutionalised to act as further
fillip to stakeholders to use the system.
11. AWARENESS AND OUTREACH; A concerted and sustained awareness and outreach campaign
must be carried out in accordance with a plan drawn for the purpose (as against being done in a
piecemeal manner). The campaign must drive home the usefulness of ICTs including mobile
phones and of the eJustice system, as well as the latest developments in the same. Based on the

stakeholders being targeted such a campaign must necessarily take place over several media
including social media and must invite active participation and inputs from stakeholders on the
eJustice system under use or on any other aspect.
12. GOVERNANCE MECHANISMS: It is not just important to develop standards but also to govern
their implementation so that the same are followed as intended. Guidelines are envisaged at the
level of process, data and technical interoperability, service delivery, security, record-keeping etc.
Voluntary disclosures or reports declaring compliance (or otherwise) is recommended as is suo
moto checks on compliance by field visits by the authorised and empowered staff. Incentives or
disincentives must also be offered for those complying or in breach.
13. INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT: An institutional structure must be installed to drive the ICT agenda
in the Judiciary, complete with roles to different constituent units and individuals. The entity should
be formally recognised with necessary powers etc. This structure must be as multi-sectoral and
multi-stakeholder as appropriate at the right levels in the right roles. If this institutional structure
finds it difficult to be set up timely an implementation structure with the same requirements must
be setup for implementation to take place. In this case the transition to the institutional structure
should be as smooth as possible. The implementation mechanism must outline role allocations
and responsibility clearly and unambiguously so that implementers know that, in the event of
shortfall, they would be held responsible. In both dispensations (the implementation and the
institutional structure) members of the Judiciary must be at the most critical decision-making levels.
The involvement of the Chief Justice of Bangladesh, whether in a direct or indirect capacity, must
be sought.

Part Two
3. Strategic Framework for
ICT in Bangladesh
Judiciary
This chapter provides the overall strategic approach adopted for the exercise, the recommended
strategic framework including the Vision for eJustice in Bangladesh and suggested strategies and
proposed interventions.
3.1 The Strategic Approach adopted for the Assignment

This exercise consists in activities in essentially four tracks/sreams of assessment as discussed above.
THEME 1
BANGLADESH E-JUSTICE VISION
THEME 2
THEME 3
THEME 4
THEME N
Figure 6 Proposed Strategic Approach to be followed
 Process Issues (T1);

 People Issues (T2);
 Technology Issues (T3); and
 Strategy, Communication and Collaboration (T4).
For each of the tracks above the approach explained below has been followed (Figure 6).
Benchmarking of Interventions
Following a comprehensive current state assessment of the state of eJustice in Bangladesh, a Best
Practices Review of activities and benchmarking was undertaken which could potentially lead either to
“enhancement” of existing interventions or an “expansion” of the same. Whereas

 ENHANCEMENT leads to performing the same activities differently with the benefit of learning from
best practices,
 EXTENSION leads to taking up activities in the particular tracks that have not been attempted before.
Identification of Strategic Themes

Taking a note of the recommended activities emerging from Benchmarking above and the stakeholders’
own views for eJustice in Bangladesh, the eJustice Vision and the principal themes in which activities
would lie will then be articulated. A strategic theme represents an area of inter-related interventions.
Coming out with a Strategic Framework including a Comprehensive Action Plan

Having identified the interventions that are required to be taken up the next step was that of defining a
strategic framework which would act as the principal implementation vehicle for the interventions,
including an Integrated Action Plan that would consider the following components:
 A detailed Action Plan/Blueprint for all interventions;
 Recommendations for Justice Process Re-engineering, Human Capacity Building, Technology
enablement, Knowledge Management and Communications to be implemented;
 Resource requirements (manpower, budgets etc) to implement the same;
 Institutional Structure Requirements;
 Requirements for standards and guidelines including those for Integration/Interoperability;
 Monitoring and Evaluation indicators to continually keep track of progress of implementation; and
 Any other requirement as a matter of detail.
3.2 The Recommended Strategic Framework

The Strategic Framework is the principal implementation vehicle for realising the eJustice Vision and
indicates how the implementation shall be carried out. There are three key areas in which the strategic
framework will operate:
1. The Strategic Elements or the different strategic entities that need to be considered that would
together constitute the whole eJustice strategy;
2. The Strategic Attributes, or the way in which we define/describe the strategic elements defined; and
3. The Measurement Parameter, or the indicators to confirm if a certain strategic element denoted by
attributes has been accomplished or not.
With the above as a background, the following constitutes the strategic framework:
 The strategic elements that to be used will be (top-down) Vision  Strategic Themes  Strategy
 Strategic Interventions  Workplan.
 The Vision will be realised through interventions in several themes each of which shall be associated
with a GOAL to measure the “Impact”. Taken together the Goals characterise the eJustice Vision.
 Every theme will be realised through one or more strategies or ways to achieve the GOALS of the
theme with the realisation of every strategy being identified with an “Outcome”.
 Every such strategy will be realised through one or more strategic interventions each of which will
be operational within pre-defined timeframes and will be associated with tangible “Outputs”.
 Finally, the Workplan will provide the template through which all the projects will be implemented
and will include Timeplan, Manpower Resource Requirements, Institutional Support, Budgets,
Infrastructure, Partnerships etc
Figure 7 represents the above description graphically.

Intervention A1 Composite
STRATEGY “A” Intervention A2 Workplan
Strategic
Theme 1
Element
including
VISION
Intervention A3
STRATEGY “B” • Timeplan
• Resource
STRATEGY “C” Reqmts
• Institutional
Theme 2 Support
• Budgets
• Infrastructure
Theme “N” STRATEGY “K” • Partnerships etc

Intervention K3
Effectiveness- “What is to be done” Efficiency- “How it is to be done”

Strategic
Attribute
Envisioned
Scenario
Envisioned Strategic Objectives to be Input

Sub-Scenarios Project Outputs Requirements
realised by Programmes
with GOALS
Measurement
Parameter
Target for
Vision
Impact Output Input

Outcome Indicators
Indicators Indicators Indicators
Figure 7 Proposed Strategic Framework
3.3 Bangladesh eJustice Vision

The above considerations underpin the Vision statement (e@syJUSTICE 2021) for Bangladesh. The
year 2021 has been identified as one when the Vision would be completely realized. The following is
the Vision for ICT in the Bangladesh Judiciary for the year 2021.
“Easy Access to Speedy Justice for ALL through ICT by 2021’.
3.4 Strategic Themes and Goals

To realise the above Vision and in line with the description above, five strategic themes have been
proposed as large areas of intervention:
1. Standardisation and Re-engineering;
2. Technology Development and Deployment;
3. Institutional Capacity Building;
4. Governance and Monitoring; and
5. Awareness and Outreach.
Table 4 describes the strategic themes mentioned above.

Table 4 Themes and their Description
Strategic
Description
Theme
Standardisation A principal contributor to efficiency (and thereby to reduced case backlog) will be
and Re- adherence to the maxim “Enter Data Once, Use Often”. This will substantially
engineering reduce duplication of work through easy information exchange between different
systems of the Judiciary and between the eJustice system and those in other
government or even private agencies. As the description in the earlier sections of

Strategic
Description
Theme
the document indicates this implies standardisation and re-engineering of
process, data and technology elements as a pre-requisite.
Technology Post the standardisation and re-engineering this theme will include activities that
Development bring about development and deployment of appropriate technology systems that
and adequately capture the different processes and information elements of the
Deployment functioning of the Judiciary.
Institutional Activities in this theme ensure that the human and institutional elements involved
Capacity in the implementation of the eJustice system are commensurate with its
Building requirements. This, therefore, includes the installation and operationalization of
an adequately empowered institutional framework and undertaking appropriate
capacity building of stakeholders to ensure sustained use of the system.
Governance Once the standards, norms and guidelines have been finalised activities in this
and Monitoring theme ensure that the same are institutionalised and are duly complied with by
the relevant stakeholder agencies through governance mechanisms. As an
extension this also includes monitoring the overall process of implementation of
the system for the Judiciary in as objective a manner as is possible.
Awareness and This theme includes spreading awareness of the initiative among the wider
Outreach stakeholder base and encouraging the adoption of the system among them
through appropriate measures.
3.5 Strategies to be realised

Interventions in the different strategic themes identified as above are implemented by the realisation of
strategies described below. The synthesis of these strategies together constitute the complete ICT
strategy for the Judiciary in Bangladesh.
Strategic Theme: Standardisation and Re-engineering

Activities to be conducted under this theme are through implementation of the following four strategies:
 Standardise all process, data, service delivery and technology elements with a view to bring about
accurate and complete information exchange and retrieval (notationally represented by letter “S”)
 Perform comprehensive business process re-engineering to harness internal efficiency and
effectiveness (notationally represented by the letter “B”)
 Build a robust legal and regulatory foundation for the introduced changes to take effect and help the
transition towards paperless judiciary (notationally represented by the letter “L”)
Strategic Theme: Technology Development and Deployment

Activities to be conducted under this theme are through implementation of the following two strategies:
 Deploy eJustice suite of solutions in phases using a pilot approach (notationally represented by the
letter “T”)
 Make available judicial information to all through convenient and secure channels of access
(notationally represented by the letter “A”)
Strategic Theme: Institutional Capacity Building


 Design, setup and operationalise an institutional framework to drive the ICT adoption in Bangladesh
judiciary (notationally represented by the letter “I”)
 Undertake continued role-based capacity building of all stakeholders of the eJustice system to
maximise its adoption (notationally represented by the letter “C”)
Strategic Theme: Governance and Monitoring

 Institutionalise and enforce governance mechanisms to ensure compliance of standards, guidelines
and norms required to be followed for a comprehensive implementation of the eJustice system
(notationally represented by the letter “G”)
 Undertake continual and objective monitoring of eJustice implementation activities to facilitate target-
based implementation (notationally represented by the letter “M”)
Strategic Theme: Awareness and Outreach

 Roll out comprehensive awareness campaigns for the eJustice system and its benefits on various
platforms (notationally represented by the letter “O”)
 Encourage adoption of the eJustice system through highly visible rewards and incentives for all
stakeholder types of the system (notationally represented by the letter “R”)
Further, while the composite interplay of the 11 strategies mentioned above will completely cover the
eJustice implementation landscape, it should be borne in mind that the strategy “M” involves monitoring
of activities related to the other strategies and is inherently transcendental in nature as this oversees
the implementation of all the other remaining strategies. It will therefore be prudent to consider strategy
“M” as external to the set of strategies that need to be implemented. Details of implementation of this
strategy are spelt out in a separate section of the next chapter on “Monitoring and Evaluation of eJustice
Implementation”
In light of the above, the synthesis of strategies to be implemented is made up by ten strategies as
illustrated in Figure 9.
3.6 Strategic Interventions to be implemented

The implementation of each of the strategies identified above is recommended to be done through
interventions, each of which (a) has a definitive time of commencement and conclusion; (b) is
associated with pre-defined project outputs envisaged to emerge at the end; and (c) consists in the
performance of identified set of activities by people identified for the purpose.
Table 5 brings out the details.

Table 5 List of Strategies and Strategic Interventions
Strategy Strategic Interventions
Standardise all process, data, service S1: Capture and standardise the complete functional, sub-
delivery and technology elements functional and process thesaurus/ composition for
with a view to bring about accurate Bangladesh judiciary
and complete information exchange S2: Standardise definition/ representation of judicial data
and retrieval (Strategy S) elements towards designing the complete metadata
repository for Bangladesh Judiciary

S3: Define and finalise the complete technical
interoperability framework including standards and
guidelines for Bangladesh Judiciary
S4: Define and finalise standards and guidelines for
record-keeping in Bangladesh judicial entities
S5: Define and finalise the Judicial Service Charter
aligned with other eGovernment interventions and
finalise service delivery parameters for services to be
Perform comprehensive business B1: Adopt BPMN as a process representation standard
process re-engineering to harness and undertake comprehensive BPR of all civil,
internal efficiency and effectiveness criminal, other judicial and administrative processes of
(Strategy B) the Judiciary
Build a robust legal and regulatory L1: Finalise legal amendments and regulatory
foundation for the introduced interventions for process changes introduced in the
changes to take effect and help the strategy to take effect
transition towards paperless judiciary
(Strategy L)
Deploy eJustice suite of solutions in T1: Prepare the complete functional, technical and
phases using a pilot approach operational design of the complete eJustice suite of
(Strategy T) solutions
T2: Develop and Deploy on a pilot basis Phase I of
eJustice suite of solutions
T3: Roll out Phase I across Bangladesh Judiciary
T4: Develop and Deploy on a pilot basis Phase II of
T5: Roll out Phase II across Bangladesh Judiciary
Make available judicial information to A1: Develop the complete multi-channel service delivery
all through convenient and secure framework for the judiciary in Bangladesh
channels of access (Strategy A) A2: Design and implement the eJustice portal as the one-
stop solution for all information and service related to
the Judiciary in Bangladesh
Design, setup and operationalise an I1: Finalise and operationalise organisation structure and
institutional framework to drive ICT prepare organisation design for an institutional
adoption in Bangladesh judiciary framework to drive the ICT adoption in Bangladesh
(Strategy I) judiciary
Undertake continued role-based C1: Define and implement a comprehensive plan for role-
capacity building of all stakeholders based capacity building of all stakeholders of the
of the eCourt system to maximise its Bangladesh eJustice system
adoption (Strategy C)
Institutionalise and enforce G1: Define management processes to be followed for the
governance mechanisms to ensure proposal, adoption and retirement of standards in the
compliance of standards, guidelines areas of information interoperability, technical
and norms required to be followed for interoperability, service delivery, record-keeping and
a comprehensive implementation of archival and any other though necessary
the eCourt system (Strategy G)

G2: Define compliance mechanisms for pre-agreed
standards, guidelines and norms in each of the areas
mentioned above
G3: Define comprehensive grievance redressal norms and
practices
Encourage adoption of the eJustice R1: Finalise rewards for institutional entities and incentives
system through highly visible rewards for individual end users participating in the
and incentives for all stakeholder implementation of the eJustice system
types of the system (Strategy R)
Roll out comprehensive awareness O1: Finalise and implement comprehensive plan for
campaigns for the eJustice system awareness and outreach campaign to maximise the
and its benefits on various platforms adoption of ICT and citizen participation in the eJustice
(Strategy O) effort
3.7 Details of Strategic Projects to be implemented

In this section is provided details of strategic interventions suggested under the respective strategies.
For better comparability among the different interventions suggested above and for the sake of
uniformity of representation, the interventions are covered according to the strategies for which they
serve as implementation vehicles.
In line with the strategic framework, every strategy is associated with a set of objectives and is linked
to one or more outcomes whereas an interventions involves the production of outputs and are executed
within specific timeframes detailed in the Action Plan provided in this document. Further, for every
intervention entities entrusted with its implementation are also provided.
Strategy S: Standardise all process, data, service delivery and technology

elements with a view to bring about accurate and complete
information exchange and retrieval
1. Background and Context
With rising citizen expectations, the importance of judicial access and service delivery mounts too.
A key determinant of sustained success in a well-developed eJustice framework is the ability of
multiple agencies within and beyond the Justice sector to seamlessly share and integrate
information. Although, traditionally, technical interoperability has been considered to sufficiently
take care of these aspects, recent trends indicate that such an approach would be inadequate in
meeting the requirements of integrated service delivery from a whole-of-Judiciary perspective.
Greater effectiveness and efficiency in service delivery, it is felt, can be brought about by adopting
at least the following practices:
 Aligning and standardizing functions of the Judiciary with its objectives and, downstream, by
aligning and standardizing organisation designs and structures with the different roles that need
to be performed for processes related to the said functions; and
 Aligning and standardizing processes and information assets across judicial entities with the
overall idea to re-use them (and thereby, the applications that run them) and thus avoid
unnecessary cost increase;

 Harmonizing technology assets across government entities to facilitate exchange of information
within and across agencies; and
 Standardising service delivery parameters (for example, time taken to deliver a particular
service to the citizen) to increase transparency with citizens and rationalising their expectations
from eServices being delivered.
Key Benefits to Stakeholders

The following benefits will accrue to stakeholders:
 greater clarity with judicial staff who would know the overall functions they perform and
processes within the functions that they are particularly responsible for;
 better sharing and re-use of processes, data and technology elements across agencies within
and outside the Judiciary;
 higher levels of clarity and convenience with citizens on services delivered enabled by definition
and dissemination of service delivery norms and targets, and recourse actions available in case
of under-performance; and
 increased savings in cost and time for all participating stakeholders in eJustice processes.
2. Strategic Objectives
In line with the above context the following are the objectives to be realised for this strategy:
 to arrive at a set of templates, frameworks and guidelines that will lend consistency and
standardisation to all eJustice efforts of Bangladesh;
 to collaboratively finalise a set of standards and guidelines to define, describe and represent
logical entities in the three areas of processes, information assets and technology resources
with a view to maximizing their reuse and interoperation from a whole-of-Judiciary perspective
and later to a whole-of-Government view;
 to ensure that such standards and guidelines are aligned with what obtains internationally as
recommended by global standards bodies and/or is the common practice of leading
eGovernment nations of the world;
 to finalise and disseminate a set of service delivery parameters and their associated targets to
serve as common guidelines to service providers and consumers alike in an effort to bridge the
gap between citizen expectations and delivery; and
 to pursue progressive implementation of such standards and guidelines in the three areas in as
loosely coupled manner as is practicable.
3. Strategic Interventions, Outputs and Responsibilities
Table 6 brings out a list of strategic interventions to be implemented, their outputs and
implementation responsibilities.
Table 6 Interventions, Outputs and Implementation Responsibilities for Strategy S
Name of the Intervention Implementation

Brief Description
Intervention Output(s) Responsibilities
S1: Capture and This intervention will involve Functions and Team to be
standardise preparation of a directory for Process appointed by
the complete functions, sub-functions, Dictionary for eJustice
functional, processes and services Bangladesh Foundational
sub-functional appropriately classified. Judiciary Support
and process Examples provided earlier in Workgroup9
9
Please refer to the section on institutional framework for more details on the Workgroup.

Brief Description
thesaurus/ the assignment (Australia) can
composition be used as a guideline. This
for intervention will lead to the
Bangladesh identification of common,
judiciary similar and unique processes
within judicial agencies and will
accordingly be catalogued in
the process dictionary.
Once work under this

intervention is accomplished
and common functions and
services stand defined findings
must be shared with other
agencies that interact with the
Judiciary regularly (for
example, Police, Prisons).
S2: Standardise This exercise will include: (a) National Team to be
definition/ preparation of a Judiciary-wide eJustice appointed by
representation metadata standard; and (b) Metadata eJustice
of judicial data finalization of a Judiciary-wide Repository (or a Foundational
elements metadata repository (or the data dictionary Support Workgroup
towards Judiciary data dictionary). For for the Judiciary
designing the the first component standards in Bangladesh)
complete proposed by Dublin Core are
metadata recommended to be adopted
repository for as a starting point while
Bangladesh drawing from similar examples.
Judiciary Recommendations emerging
from the second component
will need to be enforced in all
Judiciary processes in
Bangladesh.
Once work under this

intervention is accomplished
and metadata standards and
elements are finalised findings
must be shared with other
agencies that interact with the
Judiciary regularly (for
example, Police, Prisons).
Gradually this would lead to
the definition of a metadata
standards for law enforcement
agencies in the country.

Brief Description
S3: Define and This exercise will include: (a) Technical Team to be
finalise the agreement on type of Interoperability appointed by
complete standards to be adopted; and Standards and eJustice
technical (b) finalization of technology Guidelines for Foundational
interoperability standards based on what has the Bangladesh Support Workgroup
framework been agreed upon in (a). For Judiciary
including the first component agreement
standards and needs to be arrived at on the
guidelines for type of standards (whether
Bangladesh open, international, industry or
Judiciary any other). The second
component will deal with
preparation of standards and
guidelines in the six domains
of Security, Discovery,
Interconnection, Interpretation,
Data Exchange, and
Presentation.
As in the two previous

components once technical
standards are finalised and
adopted effort should be made
to expand this and evolve into
technical standards that will be
applicable to other law
enforcement agencies (Police,
Prisons) so that common
standards could be adopted for
the "law enforcement" cluster.
S4: Define and This exercise will define Judicial Record- Team to be
finalise standards to be used for keeping appointed by
standards and record-keeping in judicial Handbook for eJustice
guidelines for entities amenable to easy Bangladesh Foundational
record- indexing, tagging, search and Support Workgroup
keeping in discovery facilities in order to
Bangladesh trace the paper records
judicial entities conveniently as and when
required.
S5: Define and The two components include National Judicial Team to be
finalise the (a) Citizen Charter from the Service Charter appointed by
Judicial Bangladesh Judiciary eJustice
Service declaring the government National Judicial Foundational
Charter resolve for citizen convenience Service Delivery Support Workgroup
aligned with and efficiency in service Code for
other delivery, borne out of internal Bangladesh
eGovernment efficiencies within Judiciary

Brief Description
interventions agencies and the adoption of Judicial Service
and finalise ICT; and a commitment to Delivery
service redress grievances that stem Satisfaction
delivery from deviations from promised Measurement
parameters for levels of service to citizens; (b) Tool
services to be definition of service delivery
rendered by parameters and associated
judicial entities targets; and (b) a citizen
satisfaction measurement tool
for services extended.
The Common Measurement

Tool used by agencies in
Canada will serve as a useful
template to start with. The tool
should be administered
through multiple channels.
Periodical updates in the tool
in line with citizen feedback will
also be desirable.
4. Measurement Indicators
Table 7 brings out a list of output indicators with which to measure the progress of implementation
of the individual interventions.
Table 7 Measurement Indicators for Interventions under Strategy S
Name of the Intervention Measurement Indicators (Output)
S1: Capture and standardise the  Constitution of the Team for this intervention;
complete functional, sub-  Extent of multi-stakeholder representation in team;
functional and process  Swiftness with which requirements are
thesaurus/composition for recommended and the same adopted;
Bangladesh judiciary and  Extent of coverage of functions, processes of the
standardise process total possible; and
representation  Promptness with which recommended amendments
are enacted and/or passed.
S2: Standardise definition/  Constitution of the Team for this intervention;
representation of judicial data  Extent of multi-stakeholder representation in team;
elements towards designing  Swiftness with requirements are recommended and
the complete metadata the same adopted;
repository for Bangladesh  Extent of coverage of data elements of the total
Judiciary possible; and
 Promptness with which recommended amendments
S3: Define and finalise the  Constitution of the Team for this intervention;
complete technical  Extent of multi-stakeholder representation in team;

Name of the Intervention Measurement Indicators (Output)
interoperability framework  Swiftness with which requirements are

including standards and recommended and the same adopted;
guidelines for Bangladesh  Extent of presence of any undefined elements; and
Judiciary  Promptness with which recommended amendments
S4: Define and finalise standards  Constitution of the Team for this intervention;
and guidelines for record-  Extent of multi-stakeholder representation in team;
keeping in Bangladesh judicial  Swiftness with which requirements are
entities recommended and the same adopted; and
 Promptness with which recommended amendments
are approved and enforced.
S5: Define and finalise the Judicial  Constitution of the Team for this intervention;
Service Charter aligned with  Extent of multi-stakeholder representation in team;
other eGovernment  Swiftness with which requirements are
interventions and finalise recommended and the same adopted;
service delivery parameters  Extent of presence of any undefined service delivery
for services to be rendered by element; and
judicial entities  Promptness with which recommended amendments
are approved and enforced.
Strategy B: Perform comprehensive business process re-engineering to

harness internal efficiency and effectiveness
It is widely believed that real gains resulting from the introduction of ICT into the operations of
judicial agencies (namely internal efficiencies, better customer service to litigants and lawyers,
higher accountability and transparency in judicial processes etc.) cannot happen if this effort is
seen only as a problem of automation and implementation of modern technology. Research
indicates that the reason for a widespread failure of eGovernment in developing/transitional
countries in general has been the failure to undertake and internalize process refinement and other
attendant changes. Recent research also suggests that before putting in place technology systems
back office processes should be changed with Business Process Re-engineering (BPR)10.
Transformation projects in public services provision revolve around ICT infusion and BPR is a
methodology to redesign taking advantages of ICT capabilities.
 to ensure that functions for the different units of the Judiciary are defined unambiguously so as
not to lead to any conflict or confusion among them;
 to ensure that the definition of roles and responsibilities of different business units are made
known as completely as is possible to citizens to increase accountability and transparency;
10
Hammer and Champy, considered the originators of the term, define Business Process Re-engineering as the fundamental
rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical contemporary modern
measures of performance, such as cost, quality, service, and speed[50].

 to ensure that appropriate re-engineering efforts are undertaken in the different judicial units so
that processes are most optimal under the given set of constraints;
 to exploit appropriate technology for the re-defined processes so as to facilitate faster process
completion and enhanced user-convenience; and
 to evolve a set of key performance indicators that not just measure the efficiencies of the
different processes and their components but also provide for their accountability.

Table 8 Interventions, Outputs and Implementation Responsibilities for Strategy B
Intervention Implementation
Intervention Name Brief Description
Output(s) Responsibilities
B1: Adopt BPMN As BPMN (www.bpmn.org) is eJustice Team to be
as a process by far the global standard Standard appointed by
representationadopted to describe Process eJustice
standard and processes, this exercise aims Representation Foundational
undertake at adopting BPM as a process Standard Support Workgroup
comprehensive representation standard, if including a
BPR of all civil,
required with amendments description of
criminal, other
that will make it suitable for the same.
judicial and eJustice requirements. Based
administrativeon the standard this exercise Digitally-enabled
processes of aims at a comprehensive Business
the Judiciary Business Process Re- Process
engineering of all judicial and Handbook for
administrative processes the Judiciary in
except those that are shared Bangladesh.
and are same as that followed
in other government entities
(for example, process related
to personnel management).
This process re-engineering
exercise has to derive its
process from the process
dictionary/ repository exercise
taken up as part of Strategy S
so as to attain the enterprise
view at every stage11.
11
However, the Action Plan suggested makes the linkage to interventions under Strategy S loosely coupled. That is to say,
that, if for some reason, the interventions under Strategy S appear to be facing insurmountable hurdles in their completion,
interventions under Strategy B will proceed regardless. Discretion to make this judgment lies with the CEO of the National
eJustice Office proposed as part of the institutional framework under Strategy “I”.

Table 9 Measurement Indicators for Interventions under Strategy B
Intervention Name Measurement Indicators (Output)
B1: Adopt BPMN as a process  Swiftness in drafting of the Terms of Reference

representation standard and  Constitution of the Team for this intervention
undertake comprehensive  Extent of stakeholder representation achieved
BPR of all civil, criminal, other  Promptness with which BPMN (or a modified BPMN)
judicial and administrative is accepted as the representation standard for all
processes of the Judiciary processes in the Judiciary
 Extent of unanimity achieved in this
 Extent to which stakeholders have been able to
comprehend the representation
 Extent of coverage envisaged for BPR
 Promptness with which the recommended BPR is
accepted to be followed
 Extent of coverage of the BPR as a ratio of the total
number of processes
 Number of channels and devices considered
 Timeliness of acceptance of deliverables and
dissemination among stakeholder entities
Strategy L: Build a robust legal and regulatory foundation for the introduced
changes to take effect and help the transition towards paperless
judiciary
For laying a strong foundation, few other interventions can fulfil requirements as would a supporting
legal and regulatory framework. In fact, all efforts at standardisation and re-engineering of process
and data elements followed by technology enablement will come to nought if these were treated
as mere conveniences and did not have a basis in a supportive legal framework. In such an event,
inevitably, the electronic means of conducting judiciary's business will need to process concurrently
with its manual counterpart thus defeating a very key objective of ICT adoption. This strategy,
therefore, aims at allaying such possibilities.
 to propose an enabling legal framework for eJustice that is consistent with Bangladesh's
constitutional provisions, the legislative and regulatory environment, is tuned to eJustice's
requirements, and is in keeping with international best practices of this area; and
 to bring into effect such orders, directives, rules and regulations that will serve as instruments
of enforcement on officials across judicial agencies of Bangladesh for practices required to be
followed in order that desired outcomes from ICT adoption are realised.

Table 10 Interventions, Outputs and Implementation Responsibilities for Strategy L
L1: Finalise legal This sole intervention under  Draft Team to be
amendments this strategy will recommend amendments appointed by
and regulatory draft legal and regulatory to existing eJustice
interventions changes in existing laws, laws, rules, Foundational
for process directives, rules etc for the directives, Support Workgroup
changes same to be formally adopted circulars etc
introduced in and enacted/passed so that  New
the strategy to the changes introduced directives,
take effect through the adoption of ICT rules,
will have legal recognition and circulars as
can be enforced. The following required after
steps are envisaged as part of study
this intervention:
 Preparation and adoption
of a Terms of Reference
for this exercise
 Constitution of the
Workgroup entrusted with
this effort (see right)
 Proposed draft
amendments
 Enactment and/or passage
of proposed draft
amendment
 Information dissemination
of the same
Table 11 Measurement Indicators for Interventions under Strategy L
L1: Finalise legal amendments  Swiftness in drafting of the Terms of Reference

and regulatory interventions  Constitution of the Team for this intervention
for process changes  Extent of continued and sustained stakeholder
introduced in the strategy to representation achieved, particularly from the legal
take effect community
 Promptness with which the recommended
legal/quasi-legal changes are accepted to be
followed
dissemination among a wider group of stakeholder
entities

Strategy T: Deploy eJustice suite of solutions in phases using a pilot
approach
Making available appropriate technology solution and using technology infrastructure elements
that exist to make this possible lie at the very core of eJustice efforts since, one way or the other,
all elements of eJustice agreed upon under other strategies will eventually be made available to
stakeholders using ICT resources, be they ICT applications or infrastructure components.
Therefore, whereas the other strategies focus on arriving at common standards, guidelines,
principles and protocols, or prepare human capacities and install the appropriate policy and
institutional infrastructure on which eJustice would take place, this strategy concentrates on
providing the technical wherewithal necessary for making eJustice possible.
 to use ICT to bring about user-centric service delivery from whole-of-Judiciary perspective
regardless of the type, location and mandate of the court in question;
 to exploit ICT to bring about higher levels of internal efficiency and effectiveness in the internal
operations of the Judiciary and its constituent entities;
 to make available technology platforms for communication among different stakeholder groups
thus circumventing the need to be physical present at the place of interaction;
 to make available raw and processed data in appropriate formats to decision-makers that will
help them make informed choices on the course of the Judiciary; and
 to investigate and exploit the potential of Open Data in the Justice sector in a bid to infuse
transparency even as it provides data seekers to profitably use such data for their own socio-
commercial requirements.
Table 12 Interventions, Outputs and Implementation Responsibilities for Strategy T

Brief Description
T1: Prepare the This exercise will include Technical, Team to be
complete preparation of the complete Functional and appointed by the
functional, functional, technical and Operational eJustice Delivery
technical and operational design of all Design Tools Workgroup
operational identified modules of the Document for
design of the eJustice solution, including the eJustice
complete all required third-party Solution
eJustice suite of components, COTS products
solutions (if any) and value-added
services like mobile apps.
The document will also
indicate the specific
parameters to be achieved
for Phase I pilot to be

Brief Description
declared complete and the
processes that lead to it.
T2: Develop and This exercise will develop, Completion of Team to be
Deploy on a then deploy only components the Pilot appointed by the
pilot basis identified under Phase I of Implementation eJustice Delivery
Phase I of implementation of eJustice of Phase I of the Tools Workgroup
eJustice suite of Strategy. For components Technology
solutions thus developed, it will also Solution of
develop and/or deploy the eJustice
corresponding third-party
components, COTS products
(if any) and value-added
services like mobile apps.
T3: Roll out Phase I Once the pilot for Phase I Commissioning Team to be
across has been successfully of Phase I of the appointed by the
Bangladesh accomplished as indicated by eJustice eJustice Delivery
Judiciary parameters recommended, Solution Tools Workgroup
this exercise will attempt to
roll-out Phase I of the
solution at other locations/
geographies of the country.
T4: Develop and This exercise will develop, Completion of Team to be
Deploy on a then deploy only components the Pilot appointed by the
pilot basis identified under Phase II of Implementation eJustice Delivery
Phase II of the implementation of the of Phase II of Tools Workgroup
eJustice suite of eJustice Strategy. For the the Technology
solutions components thus developed, Solution of
it will also develop and/or eJustice
deploy the corresponding
third-party components,
COTS products (if any) and
value-added services like
mobile apps.
T5: Roll out Phase Once the pilot for Phase II Commissioning Team to be
II across has been successfully of Phase II of appointed by the
Bangladesh accomplished as indicated by the eJustice eJustice Delivery
Judiciary parameters recommended, Solution Tools Workgroup
this exercise then will attempt
to roll-out the Phase II of the
solution at other locations/
geographies of the country.
T6: Prepare a With Open Data fast eJustice Open Team to be
roadmap for becoming a barometer of Data Strategy appointed by the
Open Data in transparency this exercise and Roadmap eJustice Delivery
Bangladesh will recommend an Open including Tools Workgroup
Judiciary Sector Data Strategy and Roadmap recommendation
for the eJustice Sector of a particular

Brief Description
including recommendations location for the
of specific datasets for open same.
data and criteria to
distinguish open data from
that which is closed for
access.
Table 13 Measurement Indicators for Interventions under Strategy T
T1: Prepare the complete  Swiftness in drafting of the Terms of Reference for
functional, technical and the exercise and appointing an appropriate team to
operational design of the accomplish the task
complete case-centric  Constitution of the Team for this intervention
eJustice solutions  Extent of continued and sustained stakeholder
representation achieved
 Extent to which BPR recommendations are
incorporated in the solution
 Extent of coverage of Judiciary’s operations in the
technical design
comprehend the design
entities
T2: Develop and Deploy on a pilot  Swiftness in selecting the pilot location and making
basis Phase I of case-centric facilities available for the exercise
eJustice solutions  Constitution of the Team for this intervention
 Extent of continued and sustained stakeholder
 Extent of data on which testing is performed
 Extent of adherence to test cases and other
requirements provided for in the technical design
 Number of channels and devices over which
services operationalised
 Extent of stakeholder interest in pilot
operationalization
 Timeliness with which pilot is declared successful for
the subsequent roll-out
T3: Roll out Phase I across  Swiftness in making facilities available at the other
Bangladesh Judiciary locations for the roll-out
 Constitution of the Team for this intervention


 Extent of public interest generated in the campaign
and in the subsequent use of the “live” system
 Extent to which different routes of access to the
solutions are being used
 Extent to which different solution components are
being used by the respective stakeholders
 Swiftness with which trouble-shooting is performed
 Number of cases reported for substantial breach in
service delivery
 Extent of satisfaction generated by the grievance
redressal system
T4: Develop and Deploy on a pilot  Swiftness in selecting the pilot location (if different)
basis Phase II of case-centric and making facilities available for the exercise
eCourt solutions  Constitution of the Team for this intervention
 Extent of data on which testing is performed
 Extent of adherence to the test cases and other
requirements provided for in the technical design
 Number of channels and devices over which
services operationalised
 Extent of stakeholder interest in the pilot
operationalization
 Timeliness with which pilot is declared successful for
the subsequent roll-out
T5: Roll out Phase II across  Swiftness in making facilities available at the other
Bangladesh Judiciary locations for the roll-out
 Constitution of the Team for this intervention
 Extent of public interest generated in the campaign
and in the subsequent use of the “live” system
 Extent to which different routes of access to the
solutions are being used
 Extent to which different solution components are
being used by the respective stakeholders
 Swiftness with which trouble-shooting is performed
 Number of cases reported for substantial breach in
service delivery
 Extent of satisfaction generated by the grievance
redressal system
T6: Prepare a roadmap for Open  Swiftness in drafting of the Terms of Reference for
Data in Bangladesh Judiciary the exercise
Sector  Constitution of the Team for this intervention


 Promptness with data elements and data sets are
conceptualised to be made available
 Promptness with which acceptance obtained and
rules drafted for making available data sets as Open
Data (or rules for denying access as Open Data)
comprehend the representation
entities
Strategy A: Make available judicial information to all through convenient and

secure channels of citizen access
Research indicates that more often than not the end-to-end provision of public services often
involves seeking services from multiple government agencies and/or multiple entities within the
same agency. A basic tenet of citizen convenience is that he/she must not be required to know
exactly which agency is providing which component of the service. One-stop shops fulfil this
requirement by proving all information and services over a single-window to the citizen.
Trends also indicate that mobile penetration rates are going up at rates significantly faster than
that of PC or Internet penetration. As mobiles become more capable of performing functions
beyond their traditional uses, connectivity rates fall even as coverage expands and greater number
of people access Internet over these devices, multi-channel and multi-device delivery of services
based on the need and circumstance of the targeted end-user should be practised. This strategy
aims at realising interventions that include the provision of one-stop shops and will lay out a
framework of multi-channel and multi-device service provision.
 to increase convenience of the service seeker through provision of one-stop-shops as a single
window for Judiciary, to access all judicial information and services appropriately categorised
and presented; and
 to provide integrated public services to consumers according to the needs and circumstances
of the target consumer segments through user-friendly applications on appropriate channels
and devices.

Table 14 Interventions, Outputs and Implementation Responsibilities for Strategy A
A1: Develop the This exercise will finalise Guidelines for Team to be
complete multi- guidelines to agencies provision of Multi- appointed by
channel service while they set out Channel and eJustice Service
delivery associating services and Multi-Device Delivery
framework for the service components with eJustice services Workgroup
judiciary in channels/devices over
Bangladesh which they are to be
provided. The Multi-
Channel framework will
result in recommending
appropriate channels/
devices for service delivery
taking into account both
citizen needs and
circumstances. The
framework, while taking into
account stakeholder
segmentation, should
enable service seekers to
switch seamlessly from one
channel/device to another
for the same service.
A2: Design and This intervention relates to Design Document Team to be
implement the the design of an eJustice for eJustice One- appointed by
eJustice portal portal as a one-stop-shop Stop-Shop Portal eJustice Service
as the one-stop for all information and Delivery
solution for all services related to the Operationalization Workgroup
information and Justice sector. Besides of the eJustice
service related to providing single-window One-Stop-Shop
the Judiciary in delivery of all services from Portal
Bangladesh the same portal, the latter
must also allow easy
“findability”, search and
discovery of services on the
portal by targeted users.
Drawing from different
examples this intervention
will make and implement
recommendations on how
the eJustice portal could be
enhanced for service
delivery.

Table 15 Measurement Indicators for Interventions under Strategy A
A1: Develop the complete multi-  Swiftness in drafting Terms of Reference

channel service delivery  Constitution of the Team for this intervention
framework for the judiciary in  Extent of stakeholder representation achieved
Bangladesh  Promptness with which the recommended framework
is accepted
 Extent of coverage (number of services as a ratio) on
these channels and devices
A2: Design and implement the  Swiftness in drafting Terms of Reference
eJustice portal as the one-  Constitution of the Team for this intervention
stop solution for all information  Extent of stakeholder representation achieved
and service related to the  Promptness with which recommendations finalised
Judiciary in Bangladesh  Timeliness of acceptance of deliverables and
dissemination among a stakeholder entities
Strategy I: Design, setup and operationalise an institutional framework to

drive the ICT adoption in Bangladesh judiciary
For ICT to be used as a tool for service delivery and engender internal efficiency within the
Judiciary a range of initiatives has been identified including, broadly, development of a legal
foundation, standardisation regimes, their enforcement, technology infrastructure, capacity
building and measures directed at outreach. For all of this to happen effectively including their
mutual interdependencies and other complexities that emerge, the Judiciary will need to have a
dedicated organizational structure in place to drive the adoption of ICT in the sector and, in
particular, to oversee the implementation of this strategy. This is also in line with international
trends in this sphere. Discussions during the current state assessment also indicated that a central
institutional structure entrusted with infusing ICT within the Judiciary is being sorely missed. This
strategy aims at plugging this gap.
Functions to be discharged
Taking a cue from functions to be discharged by organisations with a similar mandate as the one
under consideration here, Table 16 brings out a list of principal functions that must be performed
by the central institutional structure entrusted with driving the eJustice agenda for Bangladesh.
Table 16 Functions to be discharged by the Institutional Framework for eJustice
Function Description
Development of an The structure must take responsibility for the development of an

eJustice Policy, eJustice policy, Vision and strategy (ies) to realise the Vision. In case,
Vision and Strategy there is a policy/strategy already in force, the institution must take

Function Description
responsibility for duly updating it periodically to keep it in tune with

emerging developments globally, technical or otherwise.
Stakeholder Responsibility of the institutional entity must include consulting widely
Consultations with all sections of society and stakeholder groups to obtain ideas and
encourage participation in the process, and to obtain commitment.
Installing a legal The institutional entity must make efforts towards installing a legal
foundation framework for eJustice to be effective and successful and follow up on
the necessary decrees, laws, and regulations needed for the
achievement of strategies related to eJustice in Bangladesh.
Standards, The institutional entity must ensure that (a) ICT practices are aligned
Frameworks and with international standards and developments in ICT; and (b) there is
Guidelines regulation and enforcement of all standards, frameworks and
guidelines that are agreed upon as part of the implementation process
to enable full compatibility locally and internationally.
Monitoring and Responsibilities must also include designing of a mechanism for
Evaluation monitoring and evaluating implemented policies and procedures; this
will also include statistical analyses to make recommendations on what
needs to be taken up.
Research and The institutional entity must continually explore and evolve new ways
Innovation of discharging Judiciary's functions in a more efficient and cost-
effective way keeping in mind the developments in this space globally
across other countries of the world successfully practicing eJustice.
Awareness and The entity must take responsibility for spreading awareness of the
Outreach need and efficacy of ICT in judicial processes and service delivery, and
taking up initiatives that would encourage the adoption of ICT as a
means of accessing information related to judiciary in Bangladesh and
benefitting from the different judicial services that are on offer.
Technical The entity must assume the sole responsibility and authority on all
Competence technical matters related to eJustice in the country implying thereby
that all eJustice efforts proposed to be taken up will either (a) emanate
from the central exclusive authority; or (b) when fresh initiatives are
proposed by other entities and technical matters are called into
question, the eJustice institutional entity would be the sole authority
empowered to take decisions in this regard.
Steering the The eJustice institutional entity must take responsibility for driving the
Implementation implementation process for eJustice through its various interventions
Process as detailed in the Action Plan in this document and follow it up with
regular updates as required in the course of implementation.
Ownership and/or The institutional entity must take responsibility for ownership and/or
Management of management of all shared resources related to eJustice including,
shared resources though not limited to, a Unified Data Centre, ICT Networks, Service
Delivery Infrastructure, eJustice Helpdesks/Call Centre and the like
Representation The institutional structure must be the first entity of choice for
functions for eJustice representing eJustice within the country and beyond, including working
within and outside as the single point of contact on all matters related to the eJustice
Bangladesh within Bangladesh.

The Recommended Institutional Framework for eJustice
The recommended institutional framework comprises the following entities:
 The Chief Justice of Bangladesh at the apex level, or his direct appointee for the purpose;
 The National eJustice Taskforce; and
 The National eJustice Office.
Functions to be rendered
The following are the functions to be rendered for the different entities mentioned above:
A. THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF BANGLADESH AT THE APEX LEVEL, OR HIS DIRECT

APPOINTEE
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh (or his direct appointee) will be at the apex
level of decision-making for eJustice. Whereas on technical issues (related to functional or to
technology aspects) the National eJustice Taskforce will be the final decision-making body, for all
non-technical (including, though not limited to, administrative and financial) matters the decision of
the Chief Justice (or his direct appointee) will be final and binding. On non-technical issues,
however, it will be incumbent upon the Taskforce to make recommendations. Besides this, on all
matters including technical ones, the Chief Justice will have summary powers and he/she can
exercise this power as he/she deems fit.
B. THE NATIONAL E-JUSTICE TASKFORCE
The National eJustice Taskforce will be a multi-stakeholder body comprising representatives from
the Judiciary, the lawyer community, representative members from law firms, representative
members of civil society, representative members from the ICT wing of the Government of
Bangladesh and representatives from law enforcement agencies (like Police, Prisons etc) and
other agencies of the government that frequently interact with the Judiciary.
The Taskforce will be the body ultimately responsible for all technical and functional matter related
to ICT in the Judiciary as has been said above. Therefore, decisions on these aspects will be
arrived at here and then sent over to the Chief Justice for his final approval. On these matters the
National eJustice Office will undertake appropriate study, consultation or perform due diligence to
make recommendations to the Taskforce. Empowered with these inputs the taskforce will
deliberate and finally decide.
C. THE NATIONAL E-JUSTICE OFFICE
A National eJustice Office (NJO) as illustrated in Figure 8 is proposed to be set up to serve as the
dedicated executive office for eJustice in Bangladesh. The NJO will be housed completely within
the Supreme Court and will be headed by a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) who will report on
technical matters related to eJustice directly to the Chairperson of the National e-Justice Taskforce
(NJT). The CEO will also serve as the Secretary to the Taskforce and be present in all meetings
of the NJT. It is also recommended that the CEO be a senior sitting Judge of the Supreme Court
who, while he/she reports on technical matters as above, continues to report administratively as
earlier.

 to put in place a central institutional framework housed in the Supreme Court, adequately
empowered and exclusively responsible for driving ICT adoption in Bangladesh Judiciary;
 to draft and agree upon a Terms of Reference for this new institutional entity and its
constituent professional units and Job Descriptions for key personnel within the country; and
 to take on board views of all appropriate stakeholders for this new institutional setup as also
opinion of the legal community and civil society before formally setting it up so as to have the
continued participation of all concerned in the working of the institution.
Table 17 Interventions, Outputs and Implementation Responsibilities for Strategy I
I1: Finalise This intervention includes  Terms of Team to be
organisation finalizing the Terms of Reference of appointed by
structure and Reference for the NJO, the the NJO and eJustice
prepare different functional units, the Job Foundational
organisation reporting architecture, Descriptions as Support Workgroup
design for an manpower composition of described on
institutional each of the functional units, job the left
framework to description for every key  Organisation
drive the ICT functionary, inter-relationships Design Report
adoption in of the NJO with other organs for the NJO
Bangladesh of the Judiciary as well as  Terms of
judiciary other agencies in the GoBD. Reference and
other related
This intervention also includes details of the
finalisation of the Terms of National
Reference for the National eJustice
eJustice Taskforce, finalising Taskforce as
its constitution, frequency with described on
which it must meet and other the left
related details
I2: Operationalise This exercise will comprise  National Team to be
the adopting recommendations of eJustice Office appointed by
institutional the earlier assignment (I1),  National eJustice
framework identifying resources who will eJustice Foundational
staff the NJO, and undertaking Taskforce Support Workgroup
external recruitment wherever
required and formalize and set
up the NJO.
Similarly this also includes the

constitution, Terms of
Reference and other details
related to the National eJustice
Taskforce.

Table 18 Measurement Indicators for Interventions under Strategy I
Intervention Name Measurement Indicators
I1: Finalise organisation structure  Swiftness in drafting of the Terms of Reference

and prepare organisation  Constitution of the Team
design for an institutional  Number of different agencies participating in the
framework to drive the ICT exercise (particularly the Taskforce)
adoption in Bangladesh  Promptness with which the Terms of Reference of
judiciary the institutional framework is ratified
 Extent of clarity of roles and responsibilities of
individuals involved
 Comprehensiveness of coverage of functions to be
performed by the institution
 Type of instrumentality recommended by which the
agency will be authorized
dissemination among a wider group of government
entities
I2: Operationalise the institutional  Drafting of the Terms of Reference for the exercise
framework  Constitution of the Team
 Ease with which individuals are selected for the key
roles and completeness of the organisational staff
requirement
 Swiftness and completeness with which all identified
bodies are set up and operationalised
 Promptness with which the instrumentality
recommended is brought into force
dissemination among a wider group of entities.

Chief Justice of
Bangladesh
(Supreme Court)
National eJudiciary Taskforce

(Multi-stakeholder body to supervise and facilitate the implementation of the Strategy)
The National eJudiciary Office

Chief Executive Officer
National eJudiciary Office
Monitoring & Evaluation Cell
Policy, Process & Legal Reform Division Technology Deployment Division Capacity Building & Outreach Division Governance Division
Process Data Technology Service

Research Capacity Partnership Governance Governance Governance
Policy Unit Process Unit Legal Unit Outreach Unit Delivery
Unit Building Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Governance
Network Portal and Knowledge Service

Mobile Apps Judiciary Applications Management Delivery Unit
Communicati
Unit Data Centre Unit Unit (Kiosks)
on Unit
Figure 8 Proposed Institutional Framework for eJustice

Strategy C: Undertake continued role-based capacity building of all
stakeholders of the eJustice system to maximise its adoption
Along with other factors like institutional framework, financial resources, legal foundations and ICT
infrastructure, availability of a skilled workforce with good capacity for learning is essential for
sustained success of eJustice. A survey of eGovernment projects carried out by the World Bank
revealed that successful eGovernment projects spend at least 10% of their budgets on training.
Human capacity building for eJustice is based on identifying knowledge, skills and attitudinal
imperatives of staff and officials in line with their role requirements in the eJustice system and
undertake interventions to generate the agreed set of skills, not necessarily restricted to technical
competencies. This strategy focuses on how to realise this.
At a minimum the Capacity Building strategy needs to cover, (a) stakeholder groups for whom
capacity building would be undertaken; (b) respective knowledge domains and their
interdependencies; (c) modalities and methods of instruction; (d) periods for which such capacity
building needs to be carried out; (e) a comprehensive workplan for the conduct of capacity building;
(f) institutional responsibility for driving and taking ownership of capacity building interventions; (g)
possible partners and modalities of their engagement in the capacity building interventions
including the services that they would provide; and (h) an elaborate monitoring and evaluation
system by which the implementation progress of the strategy could be assessed.
As an integral part, the strategy must also recommend the positive impact of ICT training and skill
acquisition on the career paths of staff and officials.
 to establish, in collaboration with key stakeholders, the ICT human capacity needs, as well as
to prepare strategies for training design and delivery for Judiciary officials and staff in
accordance with their role requirements;
 to deliver targeted training and knowledge sharing programs;
 to monitor and evaluate training and make improvements based on participants and evaluators’
feedback; and
 to develop and build in-house training capacity to build human capacity on a sustained basis.
Table 19 Interventions, Outputs and Implementation Responsibilities for Strategy C
C1: Define and This intervention will lead to eJustice Human Team to be
implement a an eJustice Human Capacity Capacity appointed by
comprehensive Development Strategy for all Building eJustice Enabling
plan for role- stakeholders of eJustice. The Strategy

based capacity central idea would be to Environment

building of all develop, in line with a needs Targeted and Workgroup
stakeholders of assessment exercise, key sustained
the Knowledge. Skills and Attitude human capacity
Bangladesh required for the successful building among
eJustice and sustained operation of members of the
system eJustice. Please note too that Judiciary,
this initiative would not administrative
necessarily exclude training staff and other
on any specific ICT application identified
or tool (for example, the stakeholders
eJustice solution itself).
The second stage would to

implement the plan including:
 Mode of capacity building
design and delivery
 Goals, objectives, and
expected benefits,
outcomes and impacts of
capacity building
 Design/develop course
outlines, course
categories, course pre-
requisites, course manuals
 Develop training schedules
venues, resources, roles
and responsibilities
 Requirements of In-house
training capacity
 Conduct sustained human
capacity building
Table 20 Measurement Indicators for Interventions under Strategy C
C1: Define and implement a  Swiftness in drafting Terms of Reference

comprehensive plan for role-  Constitution of the team for the intervention
based capacity building of all  Extent of stakeholder representation achieved
stakeholders of the  Timeliness with which the strategy is recommended
Bangladesh eJustice system and the implementation commenced

 Extent of coverage of the eJustice requirements and

stakeholders
 Extent of variety of media used to deliver training
 Extent of convenience and interest generated among
recipients
dissemination among stakeholders
Strategy G: Institutionalise and enforce governance mechanisms to ensure

compliance of standards, guidelines and norms required to be
followed for a comprehensive implementation of the eJustice
system
The Strategy "S" focusses on the need for standards that must to be followed in the areas of
process, data and technical interoperability in order that reusability of processes, data and
technology components is maximised (thus bringing down cost through economies of scale and
scope) and information can be exchanged between different sub-systems of eJustice system and
with those external to it (for example, in Police and Prisons). The referred strategy also dealt with
other standards that will likely be called into question, for example, in the area of record
management, service delivery and the like. However, in addition to standards being developed as
such, it is also important that (a) the process of development and finalisation of standards is also
streamlined through clear management processes and (b) their compliance or otherwise by
agencies is also objectively established.
In light of the above, this strategy focusses on all interventions that are directed at capturing
management processes behind the finalization of standards; and independent and objective
verification of their compliance by entities. The programme also aims at the institutionalization of
a periodical assessment of compliance by judicial entities in Bangladesh.
 to collaboratively finalise and institutionalize all management processes and criteria involved in
proposal, recommendation, approval, classification, adoption, regularization and retirement of
standards in the areas of functions, processes, metadata, service delivery or any other attribute
involved in the development of eJustice systems;
 to conduct periodical compliance checks or seek compliance reports of finalised standards;
 to disseminate results of such inspection efforts among senior members of the Judiciary and
other identified stakeholders; and
 to maximize the enforceability of service delivery commitments from judicial agencies, legally
or otherwise, through appropriate grievance redressal mechanisms.

Table 21 Interventions, Outputs and Implementation Responsibilities for Strategy G
G1: Define This intervention will involve a Standards Team to be
management consultative process aimed at Finalisation and appointed by
processes to capturing all processes for Compliance eJustice Enabling
be followed for proposal, recommendation, Process Environment
the proposal, approval, classification, Handbook (Part Workgroup
adoption and adoption, regularization and 1)
retirement of retirement of standards in the
standards in areas of functions, processes,
the areas of metadata, service delivery or
information any other attribute involved in
interoperability, eJustice, along with the role
technical assignments for different
interoperability, steps of the process. Roles for
service the different steps of the
delivery, process would rest with
record-keeping designated positions in the
and archival institutional framework
and any other proposed for eJustice (under
though Strategy "I").
necessary
G2: Define Following on the above Standards Team to be
compliance exercise, this assignment will Finalisation and appointed by
mechanisms be a suo-moto or “on request” Compliance eJustice Enabling
for pre-agreed exercise carried out by Process Environment
standards, designated teams to assess Handbook (Part Workgroup
guidelines and compliance with standards 2)
norms in each and guidelines by judicial
of the areas entities implementing eJustice
mentioned system. Such exercises will
above serve as the windows of
interaction between the
entities and the experts and
give the latter a window to
understand problems that
agencies face while also
serving as an aid to monitor
compliance of standards.
G3: Define Analysing different types of Grievance Team to be
comprehensive commitments made through Redressal appointed by
grievance the Judiciary Service Delivery Mechanism and eJustice Enabling
redressal Charter, this intervention will Processes Environment
norms and identify possible sources and Report Workgroup
practices the different types of
grievances, appropriately

classify them according to
their criticality, volume of
complaints and other such
criteria, and recommend
appropriate grievance
redressal processes that need
to be followed for their
satisfactory resolution.
Table 22 Measurement Indicators for Interventions under Strategy G
G1: Define management  Swiftness in drafting of the Terms of Reference for

processes to be followed for the exercise
the proposal, adoption and  Constitution of the team for the intervention
retirement of standards in the  Extent of stakeholder representation achieved
areas of information  Timeliness with which process are recommended
interoperability, technical and promptness with which they are ratified
interoperability, service  Extent of coverage of the standards and their
delivery, record-keeping and compliance
archival and any other thought  Type of instrumentality by which recommendations
necessary would be implemented
G2: Define compliance  Swiftness in drafting Terms of Reference
mechanisms for pre-agreed  Constitution of team for the intervention
standards, guidelines and  Timeliness with which compliance process are
norms in each of the areas recommended and promptness with which they are
mentioned above ratified
 Increase and rate of increase in the number of
adherents
 Extent of stakeholder agreement achieved on
finalised processes
G3: Define comprehensive  Swiftness in drafting of Terms of Reference
grievance redressal norms  Constitution of team for the intervention
and practices  Extent of stakeholder representation achieved
 Timeliness with which redressal recommended and
promptness with which they are ratified
 Number of grievance cases reported and rate of
increase in the number of cases

 Extent of backlog unresolved grievance cases

 Type of instrumentality by which recommendations
would be implemented
Strategy O: Roll out comprehensive awareness campaigns for the ICT

system and its benefits on various platforms
Awareness building and outreach for eJustice encompasses a range of activities including
disseminating knowledge of ICT initiatives by the Judiciary, encouraging litigants and lawyers to
adopt ICT as a medium of interaction with service providers, promoting eJustice efforts and such
other activities felt required to promote sustained adoption of eJustice among stakeholders.
A meaningful awareness and outreach programme must include the following elements12:
 CONVEYING benefits of eJustice including apprising people of information and services on
offer that they can readily access;
 ASSISTING, in making use of ICT-enabled information and services being made available;
 REASSURING citizens that their data are subject to the required norms of privacy and that all
information they send through the official channels are secure; and
 EVALUATING citizens’ satisfaction levels from information and services that have been made
available or on any other aspect of eGovernment.
 to disseminate information through a variety of channels and media on eJustice interventions
being promoted by the Judiciary;
 to assist litigants, lawyers and other stakeholders through convenient means with the use of
ICT-enabled information and services being provided by the Judiciary;
 to reassure and build trust and confidence in litigants, lawyers and other stakeholders on
aspects of information security and data privacy; and
 to elicit feedback from eJustice consumers and measure their satisfaction with the offerings.
Table 23 Interventions, Outputs and Implementation Responsibilities for Strategy O
O1 Finalise and This exercise will lead to the Comprehensive Team to be
implement finalisation of a eJustice appointed by
12
Adapted from the eGovernment Strategy for the Government of Sri Lanka (OneGovernment 2020) prepared by the author

comprehensive comprehensive awareness Awareness and eJustice Delivery
plan for building and outreach plan to Outreach Plan Tools Workgroup
awareness and popularize and propagate
outreach eJustice interventions being
campaign to promoted by the Judiciary in eJustice
maximise the Bangladesh. Workshops and Awareness and
adoption of ICT conferences are suggested Outreach
and citizen wherein participants from Initiatives
participation in stakeholder groups
the eJustice effort consisting of government
agencies including those
responsible for law
enforcement, private sector
including law firms, lawyer
community, litigants,
academia, civil society and
other stakeholders would be
invited for an exchange of
views and experiences on
judicial services provided
using ICT.
Table 24 Measurement Indicators for Interventions under Strategy O
O1: Finalise and implement  Swiftness in drafting Terms of Reference for the
comprehensive plan for exercise
awareness and outreach  Constitution of the team for the intervention
campaign to maximise the  Extent of stakeholder representation achieved
adoption of ICT and citizen  Promptness with which the recommended initiatives
participation in the eJustice are ratified
effort  Increase and rate of increase in the number of
participants
 Diversity of channels, mediums and devices
considered and actually implemented

Strategy R: Encourage adoption of the ICT eCourts system through highly
visible rewards and incentives for all stakeholder types of the
system

Beyond having an eJustice system complete with standards and guidelines that must be followed
in its operation and maintenance, it is also important that measures are put in place not just to
enforce compliance but also to encourage it. Rewards and incentives (and disincentives) are
considered necessary from this perspective for users within the judicial agencies in Bangladesh.
This strategy aims at recommending what steps must be taken towards the above for staff and
officials within the Judiciary and for external users and implementing the same to maximise the
adoption of the eJustice system while adhering to the prescribed standards.
 to propose appropriate measures that will help the Judiciary encourage adoption of eJustice
system and compliance with accompanying directives and guidelines; and
 to bring into effect such orders, directives, rules and regulations that will serve as instruments
of enforcement for staff and officials for practices required to be followed for eJustice.
Table 25 Interventions, Outputs and Implementation Responsibilities for Strategy R
R1: Finalise This exercise aims at Report on Team to be
rewards for recommending professional measures to appointed by
institutional rewards for officials and staff enforce and eJustice Enabling
entities and within judicial agencies to encourage Environment
incentives for encourage usage of the usage of Workgroup
individual end eJustice system. Conversely, eJustice among
users this also includes, by way of internal users
participating in enforcement, disincentives including an
the that will accrue from non- implementation
implementation usage of the system. mechanism
of the eJustice
system Additionally, it also aims at Report on
recommending incentives for measures to
external users to encourage enforce and
sustained usage of eJustice. encourage
Conversely, this also includes, usage of
to discourage non-usage, eJustice among
possible inconveniences that external users
may result to external users including an
should the eJustice system implementation
not be used. mechanism

Once finalised and accepted,

this exercise also aims at
operationalising
implementation mechanisms
for recommendations above.
Table 26 Measurement Indicators for Interventions under Strategy R
R1: Finalise rewards for  Swiftness in drafting Terms of Reference for the exercise
institutional entities  Constitution of the Team for the intervention
participating in the  Extent of stakeholder representation achieved
implementation of the  Promptness with which the recommended rewards and
eCourt system disincentives are ratified
 Increase and rate of increase in the number of adherents
 Type of instrumentality by which recommendations would
be implemented

e@syJUSTICE 2021
Easy Access to Speedy Justice for ALL through ICT by 2021
Themes Strategy
Technology
Development
and
A
Make available judicial information to all through convenient
and secure channels of citizen access
Deploy case-centric eJustice solutions in phases using a pilot
A
Access to
Service
Delivery
Deployment T approach Information and
Services
Institutionalise/enforce governance through compliance of
Governance
and Monitoring G standards, guidelines and norms for comprehensive
Awareness and
O
implementation of the eJustice system
Roll out comprehensive awareness campaigns for the ICT
system and its benefits on various platforms
O
Awareness
T
Core
Tools for
Delivery
Technology
Outreach Encourage adoption of eJustice system through highly visible and Outreach Deployment
R rewards and incentives for all stakeholder types
Undertake continued role-based capacity building of all
C
C R G
Institutional stakeholders of the eCourt system to maximise adoption
Capacity Enabling
Design, setup and operationalise an institutional framework to
Building
I drive the ICT adoption in judiciary Capacity Rewards and Governance &
Environment
Building Incentives Monitoring
Perform Comprehensive Business Process Re-engineering
B with a view to computerisation in future
Standardisation Standardise process, data, service delivery, technology
S Foundational
and Re-
engineering
L
elements to enable accurate/complete information exchange/
Build a robust legal and regulatory foundation for the
introduced changes to take effect and help the transition
I
Institutional
B
Business Process
S
Standards and
L
Legal and
Support
towards paperless judiciary Framework Re-engineering Interoperability Regulatory
Figure 9 The Proposed ICT in Judiciary Strategic Framework

4. Implementation of the
Strategic Plan
4.1 Rationale for Prioritisation of the Interventions
Table 27 brings out the different interventions recommended grouped according to their respective
strategies.
Table 27 List of all proposed strategic interventions
S S1: Capture and standardise the complete functional, sub-functional and process
thesaurus/ composition for Bangladesh judiciary
S2: Standardise definition/ representation of judicial data elements towards designing
the complete metadata repository for Bangladesh Judiciary
S3: Define and finalise the complete technical interoperability framework including
standards and guidelines for Bangladesh Judiciary
S4: Define and finalise standards and guidelines for record-keeping in Bangladesh
judicial entities
S5: Define and finalise the Judicial Service Charter aligned with other eGovernment
interventions and finalise service delivery parameters for services to be rendered
by judicial entities
B B1: Adopt BPMN as a process representation standard and undertake comprehensive
BPR of all civil, criminal, other judicial and administrative processes of the
Judiciary
L L1: Finalise legal amendments and regulatory interventions for process changes
introduced in the strategy to take effect
T T1: Prepare the complete functional, technical and operational design of the complete
T2: Develop and Deploy on a pilot basis Phase I of eJustice suite of solutions
T3: Roll out Phase I across Bangladesh Judiciary
T4: Develop and Deploy on a pilot basis Phase II of eJustice suite of solutions
T5: Roll out Phase II across Bangladesh Judiciary
T6: Prepare a roadmap for Open Data in Bangladesh Judiciary Sector
A A1: Develop the complete multi-channel service delivery framework for the judiciary in
Bangladesh
A2: Design and implement the eJustice portal as the one-stop solution for all
information and service related to the Judiciary in Bangladesh
I I1: Finalise and operationalise organisation structure and prepare organisation design
for an institutional framework to drive the ICT adoption in Bangladesh judiciary
C C1: Define and implement a comprehensive plan for role-based capacity building of all
stakeholders of the Bangladesh eJustice system
G G1: Define management processes to be followed for the proposal, adoption and
retirement of standards in the areas of information interoperability, technical
interoperability, service delivery, record-keeping and archival and any other though
necessary

G2: Define compliance mechanisms for pre-agreed standards, guidelines and norms in
each of the areas mentioned above
G3: Define comprehensive grievance redressal norms and practices
O O1: Finalise and implement comprehensive plan for awareness and outreach campaign
to maximise the adoption of ICT and citizen participation in the eJustice effort
R R1: Finalise rewards for institutional entities and incentives for individual end users
participating in the implementation of the eJustice system
Recommendations for the most optimum implementation path

While Table 27 represents a comprehensive and complete coverage of interventions required for
eJustice to be implemented in full earnest, the following considerations influence the implementation
path recommended:
 Readiness assessment of ICT in the sector indicates that stakeholders may not be completely ready
for all the interventions, particularly those that are among the more complex of the lot. In any case,
were the complete set above to be implemented, imperatives of logical sequencing would imply that
it will be a while before technology-oriented interventions roll out.
 In order not to impede the existing momentum it is considered prudent that the complete eJustice
system be rendered operational within the plan period even as the recommended path allows for an
easy-paced implementation of the technology solutions.
 If need be, the more complex implementation components can still take place after the technical
systems are commissioned; room should, therefore, be left for effecting post-facto corrections in the
system.
 Within the boundaries of the above considerations, the most optimum path needs to be selected.
In light of the above, the following recommendations are advanced:

 Among the suite of interventions directed at implementing strategy "S", it will be prudent at this stage
not to take up S1, S2 and S3 separately the way they are intended; instead elements of S1 should
be included within the scope of intervention "B1" while elements of S2 and S3 should be subsumed
within the mandate meant for "T1".
 Intervention "T6" is not considered critical at this juncture and can be dropped; however, this needs
to be implemented once the full eJustice system has been commissioned.
 Likewise, elements of intervention "A1" could be included within the intervention "T1"in terms of at
least criteria for selection of a channel/device and specific recommendations for service delivery
channels and terminal devices of delivery for specific eJustice services.
 Similarly management processes to define the adoption, testing and retirement of standards could
be attempted only after the first set of standards have been defined in all spheres of standardisation
effort; this also needs to be attempted once the full eJustice system has been operationalised.
Prioritisation of eJustice Sub-Systems

Prioritisation among the interventions selected for implementation above has been considered with the
help of two approaches:
A. LOGICAL SEQUENCING: This includes those interventions that share a logical order of
implementation between them. For example, an intervention aimed at process standardisation and
re-engineering must necessarily precede that of technical design of the system of which the
processes form a part. Similarly, before embarking on technology solutions it is desirable that the
legal sanction and acceptability around technology solutions be obtained, although in this example

(as compared to the earlier one) development of technology solution is only “loosely coupled” to the
development of e-Laws.
B. PRIORITISATION USING A MODEL: This approach has been used for the different technology
components that constitute the solution. The different solution components have been seen in the
light of two parameters- (a) How Visible will the technology component be in the whole solution; and
(b) How complex will it be to develop and deliver services that result from it. Table 28 brings this out.
Table 28 Prioritisation among the technology components

Service Visibility Delivery Complexity
Solution
High Medium Low High Medium Low
JSP- Justice Sector Portal- Computer
  
and Mobile-based Web Solution
EFS- Electronic Filing System   
CMS- Case Management System    
CRT- Court Recording and Transcription    
ANL- Case Management Analytics   
EDR- Electronic Discussion Room    
SKC- Stakeholder Communication   
CQS- Calendaring and Queueing System   
ANS- Alerts and Notification Systems   
CGS- Complaints and Grievances
  
Solution
DBS-Dashboard Solutions- Judges and
  
Lawyers
Based on the second approach then, and as High

shown in Figure 10, the different technology DBS
component have been bunched into two Phase Two
ANL
groups- Phase I and Phase II- with Phase I
being taken up first and Phase II the next.
Delivery Complexity
Figure 10 brings this out. EDR

CRT
Further each Phase of the solutions will be CMS

SKC
“piloted” at one or more locations and, if the CGS
pilot is successful, will go live first at the pilot
Phase One
location before a pilot is similarly attempted for
the other Phase of solutions. CQS ANS
EFS
JSP
Low High
Service Visibility
Figure 10 Prioritisation applied to technology components
4.2 Conceptualisation of Programmes

Figure 9 is referred. Although strategies emerge from different strategic themes and strategic
interventions lie within them, another way to conceptualise the different strategies are on the basis of
the roles the strategies play. For example, as shown in Figure 9,

1. Strategies I, D, S and L can be conceptualised as offering foundational support for other
interventions to happen, preparing the rules of the game, as it were.
2. Strategies C, R and G could be conceptualised as, using the tier of foundation below, constituting
the Enabling Environment, that is preparing the wherewithal for service delivery, the operational
mechanism.
3. Strategies O and T could be thought of as resulting in the tools of delivery including, respectively,
awareness of ICT and ICT itself.
4. Strategy A can be considered to be the service delivery itself including such measures as "One-
Stop Shops" etc.
The central reason behind seeing the interventions in this light is that between interventions of the
same tier, similar competencies would be required and therefore, resources (including manpower) can
be shared. Also, the grouping of interventions thus serves as an implementation convenience13.
Taking this reasoning forward, the implementation has been conceptualised to be in four large groups
of interventions called "Programmes" as follows:
1. eJustice Foundational Support Programme covers interventions related to Strategies I, D, S
and L, and is looked after by the eJustice Foundational Support Workgroup with an appropriate
Chairperson;
2. eJustice Enabling Environment Programme covers interventions related to Strategies C, R
and G, and is looked after by the eJustice Enabling Environment Workgroup with an appropriate
Chairperson;
3. eJustice Delivery Tools Programme covers interventions related to Strategies O and T, and is
looked after by the eJustice Delivery Tools Workgroup with an appropriate Chairperson; and
4. eJustice Service Delivery Programme covers interventions related to Strategy A and is looked
after by the eJustice Service Delivery Workgroup with an appropriate Chairperson.
The lone strategy that was outside the pyramidal structure, Strategy M, will require competencies similar
to that for Strategy A and is therefore clubbed with it under eJustice Service Delivery Programme.
However, during the implementation of the monitoring arrangements that are designed under Strategy
M (see Section 4.7), the responsible individuals will need to be considered separately as there would
otherwise be a conflict of interest. These resources at that stage would be responsible for the eJustice
Observatory as shown in the institutional structure recommended under Strategy "I", thus removing the
potential conflict of interest.
Figure 12 brings out the relationship between the Programmes and the constituent interventions.
13
It is because programmes are considered as an implementation convenience that they no indicators are associated with
them; instead themes which form the primary areas of activity have indicators and targets related to them as described in 4.7

4.3 Proposed Action Plan for Implementation
Drawing from the observations made in Section 4.1 of this document Table 29 represents the proposed Action Plan for eJustice in Bangladesh.
Table 29 Proposed Action Plan for eJustice in Bangladesh
Time (in quarters of a year)

Pre-
Tasks/ Activities Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
req
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Strategy S: Standardise all process, data, service delivery and technology elements with a view to bring about accurate and
complete information exchange and retrieval
S4: Define and finalise standards and
guidelines for record-keeping in B1
Bangladesh judicial entities
S5: Define and finalise the Judicial Service
Charter aligned with other eGovernment
interventions and finalise service delivery B1
parameters for services to be rendered by
judicial entities
Strategy B: Perform comprehensive business process re-engineering to harness internal efficiency and effectiveness
B1: Adopt BPMN as a process representation
standard and undertake comprehensive
I1
BPR of all civil, criminal, other judicial and
administrative processes of the Judiciary
Strategy L: Build a robust legal and regulatory foundation for the introduced changes to take effect and help the transition towards
paperless judiciary
L1: Finalise legal amendments and regulatory
interventions for process changes B1
introduced in the strategy to take effect
Strategy T: Deploy eJustice suite of solutions in phases using a pilot approach

Pre-
req
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
T1: Prepare the complete functional, technical
and operational design of the complete B1
T2: Develop and Deploy on a pilot basis Phase
T1
I of eJustice suite of solutions
T3: Roll out Phase I across Bangladesh
T2
Judiciary
T4: Develop and Deploy on a pilot basis Phase
T2
II of eJustice suite of solutions
T5: Roll out Phase II across Bangladesh
T4
Judiciary
Strategy A: Make available judicial information to all through convenient and secure channels of access
A2: Design and implement the Judiciary portal
as the one-stop solution for all information
I1
and service related to the Judiciary in
Bangladesh
Strategy I: Design, setup and operationalise an institutional framework to drive ICT adoption in Bangladesh judiciary
I1: Finalise and operationalise organisation
structure and prepare organisation design
None
for an institutional framework to drive the
ICT adoption in Bangladesh judiciary
Strategy C: Undertake continued role-based capacity building of all stakeholders of the eCourt system to maximise its adoption
C1: Define and implement a comprehensive
T2
plan for role-based capacity building of all

Pre-
req
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
stakeholders of the Bangladesh eJustice
system
Strategy G: Institutionalise and enforce governance mechanisms to ensure compliance of standards, guidelines and norms required
to be followed for a comprehensive implementation of the eJustice system
G2: Define compliance mechanisms for pre-
agreed standards, guidelines and norms in
the areas of information interoperability, T1
technical interoperability, service delivery, (partial)
record-keeping and archival and any other
thought necessary
G3: Define comprehensive grievance redressal
S5
norms and practices
Strategy O: Roll out comprehensive awareness campaigns for the eJustice system and its benefits on various platforms
O1: Finalise and implement comprehensive
plan for awareness and outreach campaign
B1, I1
to maximise the adoption of ICT and citizen
participation in the programme
Strategy R: Encourage adoption of the eJustice system through highly visible rewards and incentives for all stakeholder types of the
system
R1: Finalise rewards for institutional entities
and incentives for individual end users
B1
participating in the implementation of the
eJustice system

4.4 Institutional Measures for Implementation
The institutional framework for implementation (referred to as the implementation structure to
distinguish it from the institutional framework recommended under Strategy “I”) will be effectively the
vehicle to be used to implement eJustice initiatives proposed in the strategy. The structure is important
for the following reasons:
 The implementation structure will ensure continued and consistent leadership, involvement and
ownership of the initiatives that are planned and thus comfort implementers with a sense of continuity
and commitment, particularly from the Judiciary.
 The structure also makes for clear ownership and accountability structures through unambiguous
roles and responsibility allocation, even as it enables collaboration among them.
 The structure will ensure that the appropriate and compatible skill sets are deployed for the initiatives
from within existing resources, while, at the same time providing adequate room for induction from
outside by virtue of flexibility available at different levels.
 The institutional structure proposed for implementation is particularly important in that it represents
a transitory arrangement towards the final eJustice institutional structure recommended under
Strategy "I". In fact, with a one-to-one mapping between the implementation structure and the
institutional structure it will ensure that (a) no intervention proposed is deferred owing to a delay in
setting up the institutional structure recommended under Strategy "I"; and (b) the one-to-one
mapping (see Box 4) ensures that when the institutional structure is set up there is a smooth
continuity of roles from the implementation structure.
Transition from the Implementation Structure to the Institutional Structure

The implementation structure is different from the institutional structure in that the former represents only a
transitory arrangement as against the latter which is permanent. While the implementation structure lasts
with the Action Plan, the institutional structure is proposed as a permanent establishment.
Although the Action Plan does suggest implementation of Strategy "I" to be taken up first and the institutional
structure to be put in place and operationalised, leeway has been allowed assuming this might take longer
than expected. In that event, the implementation structure (which is a transient arrangement and would,
therefore, be easier to set up) that is a pre-requisite for implementation can address the immediate
requirement of implementation regardless. Further, the implementation structure proposed is such that it
makes for an easy transition to the institutional structure once implementation of the Action Plan is complete.
This will also ensure continuity in treatment through continuance of the same personnel.
To illustrate,
 The eJustice Implementation Steering Committee could become the National eJudiciary Taskforce as the
latter also has the same orientation. No change in constitution of the WG must necessarily occur for this.
 The eJustice Chief Implementation Officer assumes the role of the Chief Executive Officer in the
institutional structure; it is intended that the same person continue.
 Chairpersons of the four Workgroups (WG) associated with programmes in the Implementation Structure
would take the roles of Heads of the four Divisions in the institutional structure as follows:
o Chairperson, eJustice Foundational Support WG, becomes Head, Policy, Process & Legal Reform Div.;
o Chairperson, eJustice Enabling Environment WG becomes Head, Capacity Building & Outreach Div;
o Chairperson, eJustice Delivery Tools WG would be Head, Technology Deployment Division; and
o Chairperson, eJustice Service Delivery and Monitoring WG would be Head, Governance Division.
 The team that was deployed for initiatives M1, M2 and M3 would not move with the team in charge of
Strategy "A" but instead assume the institutional responsibility for the eJustice Observatory.
Box 4 Transition from the Implementation Structure to the Institutional Structure

KEY DECISION MAKING
Multi-Stakeholder eJustice Implementation Steering
Strategic Layer
Committee
Tactical Layer
eJustice Chief Implementation Officer
TECHNICAL OPERATIONS
Operational Layer
eJustice Programme Workgroups
Teams deployed by Workgroups
Figure 11 4-tiered eJustice Implementation Structure

As a further measure to expedite the installation of the implementation structure it is also proposed that,
for a quick unimpeded roll-out of the implementation, a stop-gap arrangement lasting for a period not
exceeding one year be put in place till such time that the implementation structure is put in place. This
stop-gap arrangement could be headed by a recently retired Judge of the Supreme Court and work with
the help of either (a) a Project Management Team recruited from external sources whose members
fulfil the same roles as that of the implementation structure; or (b) a group of individual consultants with
similar roles and reporting to the Judge. The retired Judge could himself report to the Chief Justice of
Bangladesh or his direct appointee.
Figure 12 gives a complete snapshot of the implementation structure recommended. Essentially, a four-
tier set up has been recommended as also shown, for better illustration, in Figure 11. The following
represents indicative Terms of Reference for some of the key entities that constitute the implementation
structure.
Terms of Reference for the eJustice Implementation Steering Committee

The constitution of the eJustice Implementation Steering Committee (eJISC) shall formally trigger the
commencement of implementation of the eJustice Strategy. Through meetings the eJISC must formally
adopt a Terms of Reference for itself in its role of rendering advising, overseeing, monitoring and related
functions for the plan. The eJISC may also decide upon a quorum (a minimum representation of its
members) in any meeting where key decisions are taken.
A few specific Terms of Reference for the body is as follows.
1. Selection of the Chief Implementation Officer and Constitution of the Workgroups
One of the first things that the eJISC shall do is to select the Chief Implementation Officer (CIO) and
constitute and set up the different Workgroups with their respective Chairpersons. The latter shall be
done in consultation with and based on inputs from the CIO.
2. Approving and Communicating the Annual Budgetary Requirements
Upon receiving communication from the CIO on the annual budgetary requirements for each year, the
eJISC would, in consultation with its members, formally approve the annual budgetary requirement of

the implementation of the eJustice Strategy, subject to appropriate changes it feels necessary. The said
budget would include a programme-wise budgetary allocation. The approval, therefore, would imply an
approval for the programme-wise budgets. At the level of the CIO, programme-wise budgets would be
fixed and any diversion from one programme to another would require the approval of the eJISC.
3. Monitoring the implementation Process
The CIO would closely interact with the head of the eJISC to apprise him (her) of the progress of
implementation or on anything else (s)he feels fit. Formally, every quarter the eJISC would organize a
Status Workshop to assess the progress of implementation wherein all Chairpersons of the Workgroups
will individually need to appraise the eJISC of the progress of implementation in their respective
spheres. The CIO will summarize for the entire eJustice Strategy in such a meeting.
4. Approval of Deliverables
The eJISC would also be the sole authority to formally endorse all deliverables of the eJustice Strategy.
Terms of Reference of the Chief Implementation Officer

The CIO would at an operational level be responsible for and would be authorized with driving,
promoting, developing, advising, governing and monitoring the implementation of the eJustice Strategy.
Key functions the CIO would render are as follows.
1. Rolling out the eJustice Strategy
The CIO would, in collaboration with the Workgroups, roll out a General Terms of Reference for
monitoring of individual programmes which shall be adopted by the Chairpersons of the different
Workgroups. This would include agreeing upon the timelines adopted and indicators with associated
targets for the respective programmes. For this purpose the Workgroups would submit their individual
action plans, along with indicators and targets at least two weeks in advance of CIO's meeting with
them for the purpose. This process would take place at the beginning of every year of the
implementation, except the first year, for which the Workplan delivered as part of this assignment would
suffice (though indicators and associated targets will need to be agreed upon for the first year too).
2. Monitoring the eJustice Strategy
Besides the above, the CIO would convene a meeting of Chairpersons of the Workgroups on at least a
monthly basis to formally take stock of progress of the programmes whose implementation is underway.
This process would be facilitated by implementation reports for the programmes sent at least a week in
advance of the said meeting. The implementation reports must carry, at a minimum, the following
information:
 list of interventions underway;
 progress on as measured by
o adherence to timelines, and
o self-evaluation in terms of indicators that were set out to measure the implementation progress;
 reasons for slippage of time, if any;
 ways in which indicators were measured or are proposed to be measured;
 progress in terms of meeting targets associated with indicators;

 measures proposed by the Workgroups to bring about better performance on the indicators, if the
targets associated with the indicators have not been met; and
 any other observation which the Workgroups feel is important to highlight to the CIO.
The CIO would take on board suggestions of the Workgroups and evaluate the efficacy of the measures
being proposed. Should the CIO think appropriate it would suggest changes in the Workgroups'
approach. The CIO would also evaluate repercussions of any under-achievement in a programme (in
terms of time, or otherwise) on any of the other programmes. Should it detect any such fallout, it would
communicate the same to the affected Workgroup’s Chairperson and ask for concomitant changes to
be introduced in the Workgroup’s plans.
3. Endorsing and Communicating the Annual Budgetary Requirements
The CIO would also endorse and communicate budgetary requirements every year. This process would
be facilitated by Annual Budgetary Requirement Reports for the programmes sent by respective
Workgroups at least a month in advance of the meeting of the CIO in which this would be taken up.
4. Risk Mitigation
The CIO would also need to take stock of any emerging risks and such other imminent possibilities that
it thinks would significantly affect the smooth running of the eGovernment Strategy. The CIO, while
addressing this issue would also come out with mitigation strategies to tackle such risks and highlight
them to the eJISC.
5. Inclusion/Exclusion/Amendment for the Interventions
The CIO would also need to deliberate on (a) the inclusion of any new intervention in any programme
which it thinks has become important and therefore needs to be included, or (b) the deletion of any
intervention which it thinks is no longer required or is no more feasible to implement, or (c) changing
the contours of the intervention by taking into account any finding that was not known at the time the
same was conceived. In all of these cases, the requisite changes would be made by the Workgroup in
charge of overseeing the programme itself. Also, in all of these cases the CIO would fully take into
account changes on account of inter-linkages between the different programmes.
6. Any Other Matter
The CIO would take on board for deliberation and decision-making any other matter highlighted by the
Workgroups that demand its intervention.

Multi-Stakeholder eJustice Implementation
Steering Committee
(Multi-stakeholder body chaired by the Chief Justice (or his appointee) for the final
approval of project deliverables)
eJustice Chief Implementation Officer
eJustice Service Delivery

eJustice Foundational eJustice Enabling eJustice Delivery Tools
and Monitoring
Support Workgroup Environment Workgroup Workgroup
Workgroup
Strategy S Interventions (2) Strategy G Interventions (2) T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 Strategy A2 A3

A1 A Interventions (1)
Strategy T Interventions (5)
L1
Strategy L Interventions (1)
Strategy C Interventions (1)
B1 B Interventions
Strategy B2 (1)
O1 O2 M1 M2
Strategy M Interventions (3)
M3
Strategy O Interventions (1)
I2 (1)
I1 I Interventions
Strategy Strategy R Interventions (1)
Figure 12 Institutional Structure for Implementation

4.5 Implementation Risks and Mitigation Measures
The following risks are felt pertinent at this stage to analyse
 Lack of Consistent and Continued political and executive support
 Non-availability of funds
 Expecting results too soon
 Partial implementation
 Delay in implementation
 Going by the book
 Inadequate collaboration between stakeholders
 Change at the helm of affairs
 Irregular monitoring
Table 30 presents each of these risks and analyses possible mitigation measures for each of them.
Table 30 Implementation Risks and Mitigation Measures
Risk Description Impact, if risks materialize Mitigation Measure(s)
Lack of Consistent and Implementation will suffer Mitigation measures considered

Consistent and continued if there is sub-optimal during the formulation of the plan
Continued executive support executive commitment; include, inter alia, the following.
executive would significantly the implementation will  The process of assessment and
support contribute to languish as actual analysis has involved and taken
execution as achievements will fall into consideration views from all
envisaged. Also, it short of requirements, stakeholders who participated in
is important that particularly in strategic the planning process, thus
the support not direction. ensuring that not only are their
just be consistent views taken on board but also
with strategies that they have a role and hence
that constitute the sense of ownership for the plan
plan but also be itself.
continued without  The implementation of the plan
any major lapses. itself requires the close
involvement of the top executive
levels particularly of the Judiciary.
Non-availability Measures Inadequate availability of The strategic plan has taken up
of funds recommended as funds would have the mitigation measures to address this
part of the plan following impact risk in the following ways.
must be  Being not in a position  Making interventions as loosely
supported with a to implement coupled as possible ensures that
continued supply everything, the decision partial implementation risks are
of adequate makers would then minimized.
funding as choose between  Sequencing within a programme
required different interventions. among the interventions ensures
The holistic focus of the that the ones accorded highest
plan would then be priority are taken up on board first
impaired. to deliver quick results.

 Stakeholders who are  This action plan itself takes into

not involved would lose account pre-requisites for the
interest. implementation of the
 There is a chance of interventions.
interdependencies not  It is also recommended that
being considered wherever a planning exercise is
completely while picking recommended to be taken up, it is
and choosing from actually done so. The pruning of
among interventions. the costs could be done through
 Many activities where a (a) calling individual consultants
comprehensive planning rather than consultancy firms,
is required either done where individual consultants
internally or through would be able to extend
external consultancies, necessary expertise, and (b)
would head immaturely undertaking a comprehensive
into the implementation internal planning exercise in lieu
without the support of of external consultants.
the planning.  During the implementation of the
plan, the above need to be borne
in mind.
Expecting There is a chance The implementation may  As far as possible the
results too soon that in the over- turn out to be unplanned implementation plan
eagerness to and ad-hoc. recommended as part of this
implement the Delivery in all report must be followed.
plan, too much is interventions may not be  Any course corrections or
attempted to be properly tested and hence changes to the same must be
delivered and too may be susceptible to deliberated well among the
soon without errors, thus eroding the stakeholders before coming to a
considering how stakeholders’ interest in solution.
realistic that the initiatives  Standard timeframes assumed as
would be. part of the implementation are
comfortable.
 Interdependencies ensure that for
any activity to be taken up, the
pre-requisites are taken on board
first.
Delay in Delay in Delay in the This issue has been addressed
implementation implementation implementation would through the following means
could arise owing result in stakeholders  The action plan gives sufficient
to many reasons losing interest. Also, an time for such activities as the
for example, non- inordinate delay may also formation of institutional
availability of result in key stakeholders structures that would look into the
stakeholders, not being available at all, plan implementation.
delay in for example owing to  Where recommendations are
necessary transfers and the like. made for effecting significant
approvals, delay changes in the institutional
in the formation of arrangements, interim measures

the requisite have been recommended which

institutional would make for a smooth
structures for transition (for example in the
implementation institutional structures for
and the like. implementation).
 All stakeholders are involved right
from the early stages so that their
continued involvement is
ensured.
Going by the Interventions in Whereas the issues to be  It is recommended, therefore that
book the plan are addressed may remain every exercise be preceded by a
based mainly on largely the same, planning with a wide stakeholder
findings as of strategies and measures participation so as to bring on
2014; however, required to address them board emerging issues.
technology being may well change with time  Such cross-stakeholder meetings
a fast-evolving keeping in mind emerging are envisaged at three tiers, the
field realities are realities. Impact of going intervention, the programme and
prone to changes. by the book may be finally the steering committee
Going by the book undertaking interventions level.
may not always that are not in sync with  To get abreast with emerging
deliver the emerging realities and requirements, an exclusive
required results. thus would make for research unit has been
What is required underachievement of the recommended that has been
is find out results. Synergies across tasked with research and analysis
measures that initiatives would also activities.
need to be taken suffer.  The eJustice Maturity Index will
in the light of become a barometer of progress
emerging realities of eJustice and continue to inform
stakeholders accordingly.
Inadequate Inadequate The implementation would  Collaborative requirements of the
collaboration collaboration suffer since plan have been kept in mind by
between would not make  Advisory and functional involving stakeholders across
stakeholders for timely inputs inputs from across different areas of activity by giving
from the different different areas of ownership initiatives to
stakeholder involvement would not stakeholders for many
groups as to what come in timely. programmes and interventions
is required to be  The execution support and leaving it completely to them
done in light of and facilitation from the as to how they would like to
emerging different groups would execute the institutional and
realities. languish too. collaborative aspects of the
Delays would also  Implementation would implementation.
result in all get delayed thus  This would make for high buy-in,
activities where delaying all activities involvement and ownership from
the delayed which have this delayed the stakeholders.
activity is a pre- activity as a pre-
requisite. requisite.

Change at the Change at the top Replacements may not  At the executive level at the top a
helm of affairs level can hinder associate themselves as group rather than individuals have
the progress of closely as did their been associated in discussions; it
activities of the predecessors. Also, it is unlikely that all of them would
plan would take some time for be deployed elsewhere.
them to learn the nuances  Top executive leadership and
emerging from the direction from the Judiciary
planning exercise. It is though has been assumed and is
likely that the critical for a smooth
implementation would get implementation of the plan.
delayed thus affecting a
whole list of interventions.
Irregular Monitoring  The intervention or the  Mitigation measures include the
monitoring structures based programme execution recommendation of a Secretariat
on objectively wing would be bereft of to be constituted which would be
verifiable any timely advisory tasked exclusively with monitoring
indicators and inputs for their efforts. the implementation of the
timely milestones  Stakeholder interests programmes on a timely basis14.
are a good way to may also wane as a  At the programme level, too,
monitor the result. monitoring frequency have been
implementation of  A ready stock take of recommended, based on
the plan. the status of the indicators and milestones.
implementation will
likely elude the top level
planners.
4.6 Critical Success Factors for Implementation

The following are identified as some of the key Critical Success Factors that would influence the
implementation of this strategy:
1. Coming on Board of all stakeholders
Being a maiden strategic effort and the fact that the ambit of the plan covers all operations of the
Judiciary, it is important that all concerned stakeholders be involved in the exercise. Should the
involvement be less than complete the benefits emanating out of this exercise will be less than
expected. This may even set an unwelcome precedent.
2. Continued Budgetary Support

Since the implementation plan spans across six years it is important that there be sustained
commitment and budgetary support required for the Action Plan all through its course. In fact, there
must be continued political and executive commitment which is a pre-requisite for a successful
implementation of this plan.
3. Consistent and Continued Commitment

It is recommended that preferably the set of people who were associated with the planning be
retained in key roles for its implementation. Being really a comprehensive exercise, a change in the
14
Please also see the component for institutional aspects of implementation for the assignment.

team composition during its implementation may just mean that the finer nuances painstakingly
conceptualized during the planning phase may just get lost during its implementation.
4. Proper selection/ recruitment of individuals

The eJustice Institutional Framework will be a newly constituted unit formed as a result of
recommendations. Care must be taken while selecting individuals who take up these roles since
they play a very central role in the overall implementation of the plan
5. Expectation Management
Concerted measures are required for managing expectation of the eJustice Strategic Plan from
stakeholders in all quarters. There is a need to convey that the plan is not really a panacea or that it
would deliver results overnight and that this essentially will deliver the best results only in the long
term and with the active participation of all involved stakeholders.
6. Due Representation to all Groups

While committees, workgroups, taskforces and other institutional structures have been formed at
different levels and owners have been assigned for the different interventions identified to be taken
up, team composition has been deliberately kept open. However, every effort needs to be made to
rope in as many stakeholder groups of interest as is possible without causing undue delay in the
implementation.
4.7 Monitoring and Evaluation of the eJustice Implementation

An effective judiciary is predictable, resolves cases in a reasonable time frame, and is accessible to the
public[2]. Owing to shortfall in each of these counts, UNDP and GoBD jointly intend eJustice to (a)
improve standardisation of processes, data and technology across all judicial establishments in
Bangladesh and thereby improve predictability of the judicial system; (b) infuse efficiency in internal
operations of the judiciary through process re-engineering and induction of ICT; and (c) use tools and
mechanisms with the benefit of ICT to improve service delivery to end users of the judicial system.
However, to successfully do this, the Judiciary will need comparative performance data to quantitatively
and qualitatively monitor and evaluate progress of outlined initiatives and to design future reforms. This
monitoring involves comparison within Bangladesh over time as well as in relation to other countries.
Essentially, a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation system will enable the following[2]:
A. BETTER EVIDENCE-LINKED PLANNING: As evaluating judicial performance requires recording of
empirical baseline data based on pre-identified indicators, a proper monitoring system will allow
planners to assess relative success rates of different reforms on objective considerations as against
subjective inferences15.
B. BUILDING TRUST IN THE JUDICIARY: Evaluating judicial reform programs with specific indicators
and making the findings public will raise accessibility of judicial performance data as against current
trends where such data is scarce. This will boost confidence and raise public participation in reforms.
C. COMPARISON AMONG JUDICIARIES: Availability of data will facilitate comparisons between
judiciaries (nationally/internationally) and stimulate healthy competition between courts and
demonstrate to different jurisdictions what is possible to achieve under conditions similar to theirs.
D. COOPERATION WITH INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS: Multilateral and bilateral
organizations, for example the World Bank, supporting judicial reforms need performance data for
15
Data for this may be measured by structured observation, questionnaires, surveys, interviews, and desk research, as well as
computation of statistical parameters. With an eJustice system such data could also be provided by the system itself.

their own analyses. Without information made available by these agencies, reformers would work in
isolation, without benefiting from the experience of other reformers. Judicial reform projects financed
by such organizations will benefit in both design and evaluation.
E. GREATER CONFIDENCE IN THE RULE OF LAW AND THE ECONOMY: Judicial performance
information will promote greater confidence in rule of law as well as the economy as such indicators
will be important for commercial litigants as well as for criminal defendants and civil society at large.
Performance Measurement of Judicial Systems- Two Approaches

Research indicates that, largely two genres of court performance measurement studies have been carried out.
The well-acclaimed International Framework for Court Excellence (IFCE) is a quality management system designed to
help courts to improve their performance through "Global Measures of Court Performance" that comprises eleven
focused, clear, and actionable core court performance measures aligned with the values and areas of court excellence
recognised by the IFCE. These eleven core measures are aligned with universally accepted judicial values and areas of
court excellence identified by the IFCE and are seen as the key to the successful functioning of courts[43].
1. Court User Satisfaction: The percent of court users who believe that the court provides procedural justice, i.e.,
accessible, fair, accurate, timely, knowledgeable, and courteous service.
2. Access Fees: A measure of accessibility defined as the average court fees paid per civil case.
3. Case Clearance Rate: The number of finalized (outgoing) cases expressed as a percentage of registered/filed
(incoming) cases.
4. On-Time Case Processing: The percentage of cases resolved or otherwise finalized within established timeframes.
5. Pre-Trial Custody: The average elapsed time criminal defendants are jailed awaiting trial.
6. Court File Integrity: The percentage of case files and records that meet standards of accuracy, completeness,
currency, and accessibility.
7. Case Backlog: Percentage of cases in the court system longer (“older”) than established timeframes.
8. Trial Date Certainty: The proportion of important case processing events (trials) that are held when first scheduled.
9. Employee Engagement: The percent of judicial officers and other court employees who indicate that they are
productively engaged in the mission and work of the court (a proxy for court success).
10. Compliance with Court Orders: Recovery of criminal and civil court fees as a proportion of fees imposed (a measure
of compliance with law and of efficiency).
11. Cost per Case: Money expenditures per case (net cost per finalization).
In non-profit and public institutions the importance of non-financial indicators is demonstrated by the relevance assumed
in recent decades of models like BSC that through appropriate indicators can be used to best represent the achievement
of complex and to articulate goals of public organizations. In the second case as part of a wider research project of the
“International Laboratory for the Study of Judicial Systems” of Parthenope University (Naples) aimed at developing and
testing a Performance Management System for courts, titled “Court Performance Measurement System” (CPMS). CPMS
is based on the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) framework that has been modified by adding the dimension of Information
System success to the traditional four indicators of the BSC (financial, customer, internal operating, innovation and
learning)[44].
Common Measurement Tool to measure citizen satisfaction with service delivery in Canada
The Common Measurement Tool (CMT) is an easy-to-use computer-based client-satisfaction survey instrument to
benchmark citizen satisfaction levels across jurisdictions that enables public-sector managers understand expectations,
assess satisfaction, and identify priorities for improvement. Jurisdictions can also compare their results, identifying best
practices and sharing lessons learned[45]. The CMT has been validated and improved over the last 14 years through
use across the Canadian Public Sector[46]. The CMT is designed to be an adaptable tool with organizations free to add
customized questions to improve quality of service.
The CMT was developed by the Institute for Citizen-Centered Service (ICCS) that also acts as the custodian for the tool
maintains a CMT benchmarking database that enables organizations to compare anonymously their results with those of
peer organizations. Significant enhancements to the original CMT include questions on satisfaction with electronic and
telephone service delivery, specific drivers of satisfaction for each service delivery channel, consistency in both French
and English, and a new user manual written for public-sector managers[45].
Access to the Enhanced CMT is available through a renewable annual license agreement signed between the ICCS and
the user department. A license-plus arrangement could also be obtained if the organisation enrols into an ICCS
membership thereby benefitting not just from an unrestricted use of the tool but also of a host of support services[46].

The CMT has been adopted by the Victorian Government Departments and agencies, including Local Government. The
State Service Commission in New Zealand has also adopted the CMT and urges State Services agencies to take up the
CMT, free of charge, by signing a Memorandum of Understanding with the SSC[45]. The tool has also been adopted by
the United Arab Emirates[46].
Recommendations on Monitoring & Evaluation from Current State Assessment

From current state assessment findings, monitoring and evaluation is conceptualised in two ways -
A. Monitoring and evaluation of the implementation process should be periodically done through
status reports and other instruments. Objectively-defined indicators developed at different levels
of implementation (for example, inputs, outputs, outcome and impact) should be used for the
purpose (Recommendation A).
B. Monitoring should also be done of eJustice as a whole without necessarily linking it with one or
more eJustice initiatives. This monitoring will track the development of eJustice in the country
through objectively-defined indicators whose aggregate could be conceptualised as an eJustice
Maturity Index. Value of this index could be tracked from year to year with its value and that of its
constituent components indicating to implementers and policymakers where the shortfalls likely
are. A dedicated “Observatory” replete with data required for this index to be developed is
recommended (Recommendation B).
The Proposed Monitoring & Evaluation Framework

Figure 7 is referred for Recommendation A above. The overall strategic framework follows the
architecture Vision  Strategic Themes  Strategies  Interventions. As shown in the figure referred
each of these tiers has been associated with qualitative and/or quantitative indicators that can form an
objective basis for monitoring the progress of implementation at that tier. To elaborate,
 Implementation of Interventions results in outputs evaluated by “Output Indicators”;
 Realisation of Strategies will result in outcomes represented by “Outcome Indicators”; and
 Focusing on Strategic Themes will result in achievement of impact represented by “Impact
Indicators”.
The overall idea is to achieve the Vison of Easy Access to Speedy Justice” that is represented by the
three components of an effective judiciary characterised, as stated above, by predictability, efficiency
and access to end users.
In consonance with the two alternative ways of measuring performance of justice systems (see case
study above) and factoring in current state readiness of Bangladesh Judiciary Table 31 represents the
set of indicators at the outcome and impact level16. Annexure III provides a complete list of indicators
suggested including those associated with outputs too.
Table 31 M&E Framework- Outcome and Impact Indicators

Strategic Impact
Strategies Outcome Indicators
Themes Indicators
Standardisation On-Time Case Strategy S: Standardise all  Types of cases
and Re- Processing process, data, service categorised and
engineering Percentage of delivery and technology timeframes allocated for
cases resolved elements with a view to bring
16
A 2013 study commissioned by UNDP for backlog reduction in the Dhaka District Court recommended indicators including,
(a) number of cases closed on a month-by-month basis and number of trials held; (b) number of cases being closed relative to
the number filed; (c) number of adjournments granted; (d) workload of the administrative staff (peshkars and sheristadars); (e)
elapsed time between the filing and closure of cases; and (f) perceptible positive public impression[36]. These indicators, in so
far as ICT adoption will make a difference, have been included within the set recommended here.

Strategic Impact
Themes Indicators
or otherwise about accurate and complete different steps of case
finalized within information exchange and management
pre-established retrieval  Ease of access of judicial
timeframes records
Strategy B: Perform  Extent to which time and
comprehensive business cost savings are
process re-engineering to generated out of following
harness internal efficiency re-engineered processes
and effectiveness
Strategy L: Build a robust  Extent to which external
legal and regulatory paperwork is reduced
foundation for the introduced (owing to its persistence
changes to take effect and concurrent with electronic
help the transition towards alternative)
paperless judiciary
Technology Case Strategy T: Deploy case-  Extent to which data
Design and Clearance Rate centric eCourt solutions in duplication is prevented/
Deployment The number of phases using a pilot data once captured is
finalized approach available uniformly across
(outgoing) cases the system
expressed as a  Extent to which internal
percentage of paperwork is reduced
registered/filed (owing to its persistence
(incoming) concurrent with electronic
cases alternative)
 Extent of time and cost
Court File savings resultant to judicial
Integrity staff
Number of case Strategy A: Make available  Extent of savings in cost
files and records judicial information to all and time to the end user
(in %) that meet through convenient and through availability of the
standards of secure channels of citizen eJustice platform
accuracy, access  Extent of convenience to
completeness, the end user through
currency, and eJustice
accessibility.
Institutional Employee Strategy C: Undertake  Number of judicial staff (in
Capacity Engagement continued role-based %) using the eJustice
Building Number of capacity building of all system to render their
judicial officers stakeholders of the eJustice judicial functions
and other system to maximise its  Number of administrative
administrative adoption staff (in %) using the
staff (in %) who eJustice system to render
indicate that their administrative
they are functions
productively Strategy I: Design, setup  Existence of an
engaged in the and operationalise an independent body to drive

Strategic Impact
Themes Indicators
mission and institutional framework to the eJustice agenda for
work of the court drive the ICT adoption in Bangladesh
Bangladesh judiciary
Governance and Extent of Strategy G: Institutionalise  Number of judicial offices
Monitoring Predictability and enforce governance (in %) where processes
Number of mechanisms to ensure being followed are
judicial cases (in compliance of standards, substantially different from
%) where guidelines and norms what is standardised and
processes being required to be followed for a agreed
followed comprehensive  Number of grievances (in
conform to what implementation of the %) that are resolved to the
is standardised eJustice system satisfaction of the
and agreed complaining entity
Awareness and Court User Strategy O: Roll out  Number of people (in %)
Outreach Satisfaction comprehensive awareness using the eJustice system
Number of court campaigns for the ICT to access the judicial
users (in %) system and its benefits on system and its services
who believe that various platforms  Number of people (in %) to
the court whom eJustice is
provides accessible
procedural Strategy R: Encourage  Cost of accessing judicial
justice, i.e., adoption of the ICT eCourts services (in % comparison
accessible, fair, system through highly visible with earlier)
accurate, timely, rewards and incentives for all  Extent of compliance
knowledgeable, stakeholder types of the achieved of standards and
and courteous system guidelines to be followed
service. (in % terms)
Identified Targets associated with Goals of the eJustice System

Traditionally eJustice systems have not been subject to rigorous and quantitative performance
monitoring system to evaluate the impact of ICT on key performance indicators. It is only recently that
comprehensive quantitative measurement techniques have begun to emerge. At the same time
incremental improvements to judicial performance through adoption of ICT are not available as
benchmarks[2]. What is available, though, are absolute performance indicator values of several court
systems mainly in the developed world. However, such benchmarks (for example, a clearance rate in
excess of 100%) can scarcely serve as benchmarks in the Bangladesh context where no empirical
measurement exercises have so far been carried out to determine their current values 17. In light of this,
target setting for the implementation plan period has emerged from discussions with stakeholders.
Table 32 brings out targets associated with some of the goals associated with impact indicators
mentioned above. Targets to be associated with outcomes have not been provided here as these will
be determined by the studies recommended to be taken up and targets recommended therein will then
be applied on their respective implementation components.
17
Owing to information and data gaps Bangladesh was not reported in the ITU's ICT Development Index for the year 2012[18].

Table 32 eJustice Impact Indicators and Goals to be realised
Strategic
Impact Indicators eJustice Goals
Themes
Standardisation On-Time Case Processing At least 90% by 2021 are
and Re- Percentage of cases resolved or otherwise resolved within pre-
engineering finalized within pre-established timeframes established timeframes as
measured by the output of
Case Management System
Technology Case Clearance Rate Increase in clearance rate of
Design and The number of finalized (outgoing) cases 20% by 2021 over what is
Deployment expressed as a percentage of registered/filed observed in the first year of
(incoming) cases operation of eJustice
Court File Integrity At least a score of 90% by

Number of case files and records (in %) that 2021 based on reports filed
meet standards of accuracy, completeness, by audit and/or inspection
currency, and accessibility. teams
Institutional Employee Engagement At least a score of 90% by

Capacity Number of judicial officers and other 2021 as indicated by
Building administrative staff (in %) who indicate that they surveys undertaken
are productively engaged in the mission and
work of the court
Governance and Extent of Predictability A predictability score of 90%

Monitoring Number of judicial cases (in %) where by 2021 as revealed by
processes being followed conform to what is surveys undertaken that
standardised and agreed take into account the
categorisation of cases and
prescription of different
timeframes for different
types of cases.
Awareness and Court User Satisfaction Court User Satisfaction as
Outreach Number of court users (in %) who believe that represented by the index to
the court provides procedural justice, i.e., be designed by one of the
accessible, fair, accurate, timely, recommended exercises and
knowledgeable, and courteous service. data collected through
surveys
Strategies and Interventions for Monitoring & Evaluation

Maintaining consistency with the description adopted in Section 3.7, the strategy and related
interventions to be adopted are described below.
 to continually measure the level of satisfaction of litigants, lawyers and other service seeking
communities with the services being provided by the eJustice system through a tool designed for
the purpose;

 to track the progress of the planned interventions under eJustice as closely as possible through a
system of collaboratively developed and objectively defined indicators;
 to monitor the progressive readiness and maturity of the eJustice system in Bangladesh through a
custom-built measurement index specially designed for the purpose; and
 to equip policymakers and senior functionaries of the Judiciary with the required data to help
formulate policies and strategies related to eJustice in particular and to the Justice sector in general.

Table 33 brings out a list of strategic interventions to be implemented, their outputs and implementation
responsibilities.
Table 33 Interventions, Outputs and Implementation Responsibilities for Strategy M
M1: Design of a This exercise will deal with a bi- Judicial Team to be
comprehensive tool lingual satisfaction Services appointed by
for Feedback and measurement tool for judicial Satisfaction eJustice Service
Satisfaction services extended. The Measurement Delivery
Measurement on Common Measurement Tool Tool Workgroup
services delivered used by agencies in Canada
by Judicial and cited in this report will serve
agencies as a useful template to start
with. The tool should be such
as to be administered through
multiple channels. Periodical
updates in the tool in line with
citizen feedback will also be
desirable.
M2: Holistic concept This exercise will be in two eJustice Team to be
and design of an parts: Maturity Index appointed by
eJustice Maturity  the first part will be design a Design and eJustice Service
Index to reflect the holistic eJustice Maturity implementation Delivery
progressive Index reflective of evolution Report Workgroup
evolution of of eJustice in Bangladesh;
eJustice in and
Bangladesh  the second part will indicate
how to about collecting data
that would be required to
measure for parameters that
have been considered for
the eJustice Maturity Index.
Outputs of the Satisfaction
Measurement tool/exercise
will also be taken into
account for this purpose.
M3: Computation of This exercise will implement the Annual results Team to be
eJustice Maturity recommendations of the for the eJustice appointed by
Index as exercise M2. This will include Maturity Index eJustice Service
conceptualised on data collection from varied Delivery
an annual basis sources as identified in the Workgroup

and making related report mentioned above,
data-informed identifying data collectors,
recommendations frequency of data collection and
analysis methodologies to
arrive at conclusions thereof.
Table 34 Measurement Indicators for Interventions under Strategy M
M1: Design of a comprehensive  Swiftness in drafting of the Terms of Reference for the
tool for Feedback and exercise
Satisfaction Measurement on  Constitution of the eJustice Workgroup
services delivered by Judicial  Extent of stakeholder representation achieved
agencies  Promptness with which the recommended rewards and
disincentives are ratified
be implemented
entities
M2: Holistic concept and design of  Swiftness in drafting of the Terms of Reference for the
an eJustice Maturity Index to exercise
reflect the progressive  Constitution of the eJustice Workgroup
evolution of eJustice in  Extent of stakeholder representation achieved
Bangladesh  Promptness with which the recommended rewards and
disincentives are ratified
be implemented
entities
M3: Computation of eJustice  Swiftness in drafting of the Terms of Reference for the
Maturity Index as exercise
conceptualised on an annual  Constitution of the eJustice Workgroup
basis and making related  Extent of stakeholder representation achieved
data-informed  Promptness with which the recommended rewards and
recommendations disincentives are ratified
be implemented


entities
4.8 High Level Budgetary Requirements for the Implementation

Table 35 Intervention-wise budget
Table 36 Year-wise Budget
Intervention Budget
Year Budget For an exercise of this nature it is (in crore BDT)
(in cr BDT) not really possible to predict the S4 0.47
Year 1 25.44 budget with a great deal of S5 0.75
Year 2 9.73 accuracy primarily because that will B1 2.81
Year 3 74.50 require a much deeper study of L1 0.28
T1 2.81
Year 4 155.80 processes and detailed design of
T2 71.56
Year 5 10.15 technology systems recommended
T3 67.81
to be implemented. However, with
Year 6 19.98 T4 80.34
assumptions indicated in Annexure T5 19.66
Year 7 19.98
X, a high-level budgetary A2 1.32
Total 315.58 calculation has been made and the I1 0.98
implementation of this strategy is estimated to cost BDT 315.579 C1 17.60
crores. It may be noted, though, that this estimate will be G2 0.22
appropriately revised following the exercise T1 which is a detailed G3 0.98
technical and operational design of the entire eJustice suite of M1 8.70
solutions and is expected to have recommendations of the M2 8.70
implementation budget for exercises T2, T3, T4 and T5. Table 35 M3 8.74
and Table 36 respectively bring out the intervention-wise and O1 20.59
year-wise budgetary allocations. Figure 13 brings out the relative R1 1.28
year-wise values in a graphical format. Total 315.58
Year-wise requirement of Budget

(in BDT Crores)
180.00
155.80
160.00
140.00
120.00
100.00
74.50
80.00
60.00
40.00 25.44 19.98 19.98
20.00 9.73 10.15
0.00
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Figure 13 Year-wise Requirement of Budget (in BDT Crores)

5. Conclusion
Legal information management is the very backbone of an efficient judiciary[23]. To be able to render
effective justice courts of law depend on the quality of information relating to the case. Where
information and records are not properly managed, the court of law is unable to make an impartial and
timely decision, thus, defeating the very purpose of judicial institutions to provide legal rights to
individuals and society.
There is increased pressure on the courts of law today to embrace technology because with the
increased level of IT literacy and awareness and rising democratisation of ICTs, there are increased
demands on government to provide information to citizen around the clock. The pervasiveness of ICTs
provides new opportunities for court automation and information management in judiciary. With this
opportunity, courts around the globe are embracing ICTs at various levels to provide faster, reliable and
consistent service to the society.
However, in order that effective use is made of ICT a comprehensive and holistic, as against a patchy
and piecemeal, approach is the only way to proceed. e@syJUSTICE 2021 for ICT adoption in
Bangladesh Justice sector is one such effort where all dimensions of interventions have been
considered with the information at hand even as the recommendations are tempered to suit the need
of the hour not to impede existing momentum in this direction. With time, though, new developments
may emerge which the strategy will then need to consider in its implementation. Even otherwise, come
2021 when the currency of this strategy will expire, a fresh strategy will then need to be conceptualised
with the results of implementation of this strategy on board. Implementation, therefore, is an
evolutionary, as against a revolutionary effort. It is this spirit with which e@syJUSTICE 2021 needs to
be approached.

6. Annexures

6.1 Annexure I: The Structure of the Judiciary in Bangladesh
As Figure 14 indicates at the top of the hierarchy is the Supreme Court of Bangladesh with two divisions – HCD
and AD. There is a network of subordinate courts and tribunals under the HCD. Besides, the above-mentioned
courts there are some tribunals and special courts like Juvenile Court, Labour Court, Family Court, Administrative
Tribunal, etc[9].
The Supreme Court is the highest court of Bangladesh and is provided for by Article 94(1) of the constitution. The
Supreme Court consists of the Chief Justice, and such number of other Judges as the President may deem to
necessary to appoint to each division. The Chief Justice and the Judges appointed to the AD shall sit only in the
division, and the other Judges shall sit only in the HCD. The AD has jurisdiction to “hear and determine appeals”
against “judgments” decrees, orders or sentences’ passed by the HCD. It has also an advisory jurisdiction vide
Article 106 of the Constitution whereby the President of Bangladesh may, on a question of law, obtain the opinion
of the Supreme Court upon it by referring the question to the AD which would then report its opinion on the same.
The HCD has “original, appellate and other jurisdictions and powers as are conferred on it” by the constitution or
any other law. It also has a special original jurisdiction under which it is authorized to enforce fundamental rights of
the citizens and to issue certain orders and directions in the nature of writs of prohibition, mandamus, certiorari,
habeas corpus and quo warranto. In addition, the HCD exercises special and statutory original, appellate,
revisional, admiralty and miscellaneous jurisdictions under numerous laws.

The Supreme Court of Bangladesh
Appellate Division
High Court Division
Court of District Judge Court of Session Judge
Court of Add. District Judge Court of Addl Session Judge
Court of Jt. District Judge Court of Jt. Session Judge
Court of Senior Asstt. Judge

Chief
Chief Judicial
Metropolitan
Court of Assistant Judge Magistrate
Magistrate
Addl. Chief Addl Chief

Metropolitan Judicial
Magistrate Magistrate
Courts- Other Court of

Metropolitan Judicial
Magistrate Magistrate
First/ Second/
Third Judicial
Magistrate
Figure 14 Structure of Judiciary in Bangladesh

6.2 Annexure II: Approach and Methodology followed for the Exercise
This description briefly covers the overall approach for the assignment that has been followed and provides a
glimpse into a few methodologies deployed while performing tasks related to the assignment.
Strategic Approach adopted for the Assignment

• UNDP Guidelines for the Assignment
• Evolving and Current Political, Legal and Structural Issues (for Judiciary) in Bangladesh
Foundations • National ICT Policy and Bangladesh Supreme Court ICT Policy
• Any alignment required with international covenants and agreements
• Principles of Citizen-Centricity
Aligned Aligned Aligned Aligned

Stages of the
PREPARATION OF
STATUS AND
Project
DESIGN OF IMPLEMENTATION
PROJECT INCEPTION ENVIRONMENT
ENVISIONED MODEL STRATEGY
ANALYSIS 6 YR. ACTION PLAN
Time
(in days) SIX DAYS TEN DAYS SIX DAYS EIGHTEEN DAYS
Draft ICT Master Final ICT Master Plan for
Plan for the SC the Project
Agreed Project
Deliverables
Charter for the
Project Revised ICT Master Plan
(post stakeholder inputs)
Streams of Study and
Recommendations
Process Issues
People Issues
Technology Issues
Strategy, Communication and Collaboration Issues
Citizen-Centric Guidelines
Current State Assessment ICT Strategic Roadmap Quick Win Identification
Methodologies Integrated Project Plan Methodology Definition Methodology Methodology
to be Used Preparation Methodology Best Practices Identification Business Process Re- Supreme Court ICT
and Selection Methodology engineering Concepts Landscape
Figure 15 Overall Approach Proposed for the Assignment
Figure 15 brings out the overall approach that has been followed for the assignment. The assignment proceeded
through four sequential stages of (a) Project Inception; (b) Status and Environment Analysis; (c) Design of
Envisioned Model; and (d) Preparation of the Implementation Strategy (6 year roadmap), lasting respectively 6, 10
and 18 working days.
Issues being faced have been considered for study and subsequent recommendations in the four streams of (a)
Process Issues; (b) People Issues; (c) Technology Issues; and (d) Strategy, Communication and Collaboration
Issues. Deliverables emerging and methodologies deployed during the assignment have also been shown in Error!
eference source not found.. Detailed set of activities that performed in each of the stages above are as would
make up the scope earmarked for the assignment.
Key Methodologies Deployed

Select methodologies deployed for the assignment include the ones mentioned below:
1. Identification and Selection of Best Practices for Benchmarking

This methodology is covered under two parts:
 Identification of Best Practices
 Selection of Best Practices
Identification of Best Practices

Figure 16 brings out the different steps that would be followed in IDENTIFYING best practices relevant for the
assignment.
Mirror against
Identify Settings/ Entities Select Suitable
Bangladesh Supreme
for Benchmarking Best Practices
Court ICT Reqmts.
• Countries and regions with • Select Best Practices that • Extract the best practices
similar socio-political and have had a sustained and map them against
judicial configurations and record of success Bangladesh Supreme
Governance • Select Best Practices that Court ICT requirements
• Countries and regions with can be replicated • Discard Best Practices not
similar socio-economic and elsewhere suitable culturally
demographic profile (vulnerable • Select Best Practices that • Include Best Practices that
sections) have already been enable citizen-centricity,
• Identify elements for analysis operationalized transparency and
based on “tracks” of exercises • Make a set of criteria that accountability, people’s
identified earlier will help form the basis of participation, improved
• Identify states and countries selection and map the best decision-making and
that have formulated and practices with this set of innovation, capitalize on
implemented eCourt policies criteria existing investment etc
and strategies successfully • Be guided by the • Adopt and Adapt selected
• Identify countries and regions Bangladesh ICT and SC Best Practices
from where eCourt systems are ICT policies and the extant
successfully being used eGovernment policy for
dispensing justice Bangladesh
Figure 16 Identification of Best Practices
Selection of Best Practices

Once best practices are
identified and suitably
adapted, they would be
prioritized thus having a
direct bearing on the
recommendations for the
exercise. Prioritization of
selected practices would
be on the twin
considerations of:
 Feasibility of the
implementation of the
particular practice,
and
 Desirability for the
practice itself.
The higher the practice

Figure 17 Selection of Best Practices
ranks in terms of both of
these, the earlier it would be implemented. Figure 17 brings this out.
2. Prioritisation Methodology

Prioritization and quick win selection will be made High
using the twin criteria of Service Visibility and
FOURTH WAVE SECOND WAVE
Delivery Complexity with the latter including
factors including the need for immediate large
investments, from either financial, organizational
Delivery Complexity
or human resources’ point of view.
High service visibility will motivate the

stakeholders across the spectrum and low
complexity combination will be those that would be THIRD WAVE FIRST WAVE
recommended for “Quick Wins” for the Supreme
Court.
Figure 18 illustrates the approach.
Low High
Service Visibility
Figure 18 Prioritization Methodology

6.3 Annexure III: Snapshot of the Australian Government Interactive Functions Thesaurus
Figure 19Australian Governments' Interactive Functions Thesaurus

6.4 Annexure IV: Techniques of Case Management Systems
Despite courts differing on the application of caseflow management concepts depending on their own needs and
legal systems in operation, courts across the globe have applied standard techniques to manage cases efficiently.
As mentioned in the report the underlying principle is that, within the guiding procedural codes, the court, and not
lawyers or litigants, controls the manner in which each case will be processed through the system[20].
An essential pre-requisite for implementing caseflow management is that courts first must review their own
operations and then define performance goals and measures, such as creating timelines for processing cases that
follow acceptable time standards for different case types and processing steps, and adjusting work practices to be
more efficient to better meet these goals. Such changes require not only consistent administrative actions from
court staff but also changes in the judge’s role in the process.
The following is a list of some case management techniques[20]:

A. DEFINE AND ADHERE TO TIMELINES: Depending upon the type of case and its complexity timelines for
key case processing steps (like from filing to notification, from notification to first hearing, etc) can be defined.
This is required in order to focus resources toward processing cases in a timely fashion without sacrificing
fairness and quality. However, (a) such timelines must allow for some flexibility by case type and for special
circumstances; and (b) they must also combined with enforcement measures, such as fines or even case
dismissal to ensure discipline among all parties involved.
B. DECLARE FIRM HEARING DATES AND CAP THE NUMBER OF ADJOURNMENTS: The court must also
declare firm and credible hearing dates and limit the number of hearing adjournments. The court must publish
policies that allow for reasonable adjournment justifications, and enforce its own rules within a reasonable
margin of discretion.
C. PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS: Pretrial discussions and conferences allow the opportunity to narrow down
contentious issues and evidentiary questions before the trial, while discouraging unnecessary pretrial motions
or other delay tactics. This ensures that all parties understand what information needs to be provided and
what are the respective obligations of parties at different stages of the case.
D. EARLY DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS: Early disclosure and limits to late submission of evidence can also
be imposed to not just ensure that both parties are aware of the evidence that will be presented but that
available evidence is not held back to delay the trial and force trial continuations.
E. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: Alternative processes encompass a range of options to resolve
cases through mediation outside of the court or as a court-annexed function, arbitration, and the establishment
of small claims courts.
F. SUMMARY JUDGMENTS: Summary judgements and similar forms of no contest processes that allow courts
to make a decision without a trial is also a technique that is based on written statements and evidence
presented for the record when there is no dispute as to the facts of the case and one party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.
G. DIFFERENTIATED CASE MANAGEMENT: Differentiated case management implies that cases can be
provided multiple tracks for case disposition with differing procedural requirements and timeframes depending
on the complexity of the case type. Based on this, courts establish special track timelines and a screening
process to assign cases to the appropriate tracks. Courts then continuously monitor case progress to ensure
adherence to track deadlines and requirements, and establish procedures for changing the track assignment
if needed.

6.5 Annexure V: Document-Centric Vs. Data-Centric Systems
The document-centric approach implies the creation of a document outside of the system that will use it with the
key information contained within the confines/structure of the document. The document may be attached to an
approval workflow in which the approver opens the attached document, reviews it and then either approves or
rejects in the workflow. The document is the central data concept of this application type.
In a data-centric approach the user enters key information to already defined data attributes. The reviewer will have
enough information contained in the data attributes to make a decision on whether to approve it or not. The data
in this case is the central data concept of the application; if there are attached documents then they will provide
more details and are treated as supporting artefacts.
Benefits of a Data-Centric Model

The following are some of the benefits emerging from following this approach[47]:
A. MACHINE-READABLE FORMAT OF DATA

With the visibility and availability of electronic data no longer hidden within the documents, more functions can be
handled within the system without manual intervention and more use can be made of the data.
B. THE VALUE OF SEARCH, ANALYTICS AND REPORTING

If information is in machine-readable data form with attributes that describe its characteristics, it is easier to analyse
and will yield more beneficial information. It also enables data and application re-use and hence reduces
development time for applications. Owing to the same reasons search and discovery functionalities yield more
complete and accurate results as outputs that would earlier not have shown up (owing to data not being
discoverable within documents) now would.
C. DRIVES STANDARDIZATION
With improved search ability due to a data centric model the eJustice system will help drive standardization in
process and procedures as entering data related to documents requires filling into a pre-decided standard template.
D. INTEGRATIONS
The data centric model also enables the eJustice system interact with other applications like ERP, CRM and
eProcurement.
E. PRODUCT HIERARCHY AND PART CLASSIFICATION

As data related to documents will need to be entered classifying documents and data becomes easier too. Without
classification it would be tedious to find and reuse data from one source in another thus saving time and expense.
This classification scheme needs to be kept under centralized control and the allowable entries in classification
field must be kept to a minimum to make them usable. Drop-down lists as against free-form data entry should be
preferred to maximise data discovery and re-use.

6.6 Annexure VI: Mobile App Screenshots from the First Judicial
District of Pennsylvania
The mobile app developed by the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania for iPhone and Android devices displays
hearing lists for Trial Division - Civil as well as docket entries for the listed cases. Figure 20 illustrates.
Figure 20 Mobile App from the Pennsylvania Judiciary

6.7 Annexure VII: Details of the eJustice Institutional Framework
As a matter of further detail, the following are provided in this section as relates to the eJustice Institutional
Framework:
 Terms of Reference of the Chairperson, National eJustice Taskforce
 Functions to be performed by the National eJustice Office
 Terms of Reference of the Chief Executive Officer of the National eJustice Office
A. Terms of Reference of the Chairperson, National eJustice Taskforce

The Terms of Reference of the Chairperson, eJustice Taskforce, principally include, though are not limited to the
following tasks and responsibilities:
 Timely and periodical review of progress of implementation of eJustice Action Plan;
 Initiate timely production of new eJustice strategies, updating policy and attendant matters of strategic interest
in response to stakeholder needs;
 Ensuring timely responses to any questions asked in the National Parliament on eJustice;
 Ensure that adequate funding support is available for proposals emerging from the National eJustice Office and
to make sure that timely and appropriate budgetary allocation is made for eJustice at the start of every financial
year;
 Ensure that agencies and stakeholders adhere to applicable standards, frameworks and guidelines drawn up
by the NJO in its pursuit of ICT adoption and to take up such measures to encourage/enforce such adherence
as considered fit for the purpose;
 Provide timely interventions to resolve any arising disputes between the stakeholders in their collective pursuit
of eJustice;
 Regularly collaborate with the Chief Justice to ensure that eJustice is fully aligned with measures being taken
in the realm of judiciary or to attend to any other arising issue; and
 Ensure an adequate performance of all tasks that are delegated to the Taskforce by the Chief Justice over and
above what has been mentioned above.
B. Functions to be performed by the National eJustice Office

The functions performed by the NJO will be in four conceptual categories
 Policy, Process and Legal Reform;
 Technology Deployment;
 Capacity Building and Outreach; and
 Governance.
A. POLICY, PROCESS AND LEGAL REFORM

Policy, process and legal reform consists in putting in place all foundational aspects for eJustice initiative to succeed
and will be further realised through the following conceptual units 18:
Policy
 This includes taking responsibility for and rendering advice on all policy and strategy matters related to eJustice
in the country.
 In particular, this will include (a) making timely revisions to the current strategy in view of emerging
developments and/or change in the environment; and (b) drafting new strategies once the currency of the
existing strategies expires.
 This function automatically includes providing need-based strategic and policy advise whenever requested.
18
Conceptual Units must be differentiated from a physical unit with the former being more of a logical unit and not necessarily
coterminous with a physical unit. For example, depending upon the workload, two conceptual units could well be looked after
by one physical unit, which is akin to one person being responsible for two functions.

Process and Standards
 This includes taking responsibility for (a) capturing all the processes of the Judiciary both for internal functioning
and external service delivery; (b) ensuring that processes are duly standardised and re-engineered in line with
the Action Plan; (c) ensuring that standards and guidelines are developed for each of the elements of
processes, information, technology and service delivery; (d) acting as the custodian of all processes, metadata,
standards and guidelines as above; and (e) acting as custodian for any other standards and guidelines.
 By extension, this also includes effecting updates and amendments to existing standards and guidelines in light
of emerging development
Legal Reform
 This includes recommending and taking responsibility for effecting all required legal and quasi-legal changes
in order that eJustice efforts have a strong foundation in law and the regulatory structure.
 By extension, this also includes acting as the custodian of all draft legal and quasi-legal recommendations.
Research and Innovation

 This includes all research and statistical activities for eJustice in the country;
 This also includes conceptualising an eJustice Maturity Index19 and introducing timely updates to the same.
This, therefore, automatically implies the inclusion of new parameters for maturity assessment into the Index
as also of amending the old ones.
B. TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT
Technology Design and Deployment entails the design and deployment of all technology and technology-related
components including, though not limited to, the following:
Knowledge Management
 This includes all knowledge management activities across judicial agencies.
 By extension, therefore, this also includes the construction and operation of a Knowledge Management solution
and its periodical enhancement as and when required.
Mobile Technology
 This includes the design and operation of all mobile-based services (including mobile applications) from the
Judiciary in Bangladesh.
 By implication, this function encompasses providing expertise in so far as mobile-based technologies is
concerned to other stakeholders on a need-basis (for example to provide help on partnerships with mobile
service providers).
Network Administrator
 This function includes the administration, management and support of the dedicated Judicial Services Network
(JSN) and all aspects related thereto.
Data Centre Administrator

 This function includes the administration, management and support of the Judicial Data Centre and all
middleware components hosted therein (for example, an Enterprise Service Bus with search and discovery
facilities) and all aspects related thereto.
Service Delivery Infrastructure Administrator

 This function implies the coordination, development, administration, management and support of the Service
Delivery Infrastructure (namely, the Justice Kiosks) and all aspects related thereto.
19
More details on this are provided in the Monitoring and Evaluation section

Portal and Applications Administrator
 This function includes the administration, management and support of the Judiciary portal that has been
recommended under this plan and all aspects related thereto. This also includes all applications, sub-
applications and modules available on a shared basis to agencies.
C. CAPACITY BUILDING AND OUTREACH

Capacity Building and Outreach involves the design and conduct of all capacity building and outreach activities
including, though not limited to, the following:
Capacity Building
 This function includes the conceptualization, design, coordination, and conduct of all training and educational
inputs required for the smooth implementation of the eJustice Action Plan and to internalize the use of ICT
among staff and officials.
 The function covers the professional profiling of all judicial officials/staff and suggesting a training roadmap for
them in line with their respective roles, in consultation with their agencies.
Outreach
 This function includes management of all eJustice awareness events in the country at all levels;
 This includes identifying target audiences for each of these events, sending invites for these events, planning
and ensuring the smooth conduct of these events; and
 By extension this also includes all communication to be made over social media channels (including necessarily
through authorized presence on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter).
Partnership Management
 This function includes exploring, developing and maintaining partnership options between the National eJustice
Office and other stakeholders with a view to enabling ICT adoption among judicial agencies in the country.
D. GOVERNANCE
For effective governance to take place it is not just important that standards are consultatively finalised with
stakeholders but also that mechanisms are put in place to ensure that the standards thus finalised are followed
through and their compliance is ensured. Governance, therefore will require the performance of the following
functions.
Process Governance
 This function includes ensuring that the process standards that have been drawn up and the set of processes,
associated with functions that have been finalised are made known to all relevant stakeholders.
 By extension this also includes eliciting reports of compliance on the above from the agencies as well as
performing checks on them suo moto to see if the standards finalised are indeed being complied with.
Data Governance
 This function includes ensuring that the metadata standards that have been drawn up and the metadata
elements corresponding to such standards are made known to all relevant stakeholders.
performing checks on them suo moto to see if the metadata standards finalised are indeed being complied with,
particularly at the point of data capture.
Technology Governance
 This function includes ensuring that (a) the technology standards that have been drawn up; and (b) guidelines
for usage of shared resources (technology, data, applications, infrastructure, resources etc) are made known
to all relevant stakeholders.

performing checks on them suo moto to see if the standards and guidelines finalised are indeed being complied
with.
Service Delivery Governance

 This function includes ensuring that the service delivery parameters that have been drawn up and the
associated targets for them are made known to all relevant stakeholders.
 By extension this also includes (a) eliciting reports of compliance on the above from the service delivery points;
(b) performing checks on them suo moto to see if the parameters and targets finalised are indeed being
complied with; and (c) calling upon the responses provided by stakeholders in so far as services extended are
concerned (as part of feedback) and checking whether such feedback is consistent with the compliance reports.
C. Terms of Reference of the Chief Executive Officer, NJO

The Terms of Reference of the Chief Executive Officer, National eJustice Office include, though are not limited to
the following tasks and responsibilities:
 Facilitate the provision of timely information for progress review of eJustice implementation to the National
eJustice Taskforce;
 Undertake timely and periodical review of the progress of implementation of specific interventions;
 Provide such assistance as may be desired by staff of NJO to undertake timely production of new eJustice
strategies, updating eGovernment policy and attendant matters of strategic interest in response to stakeholder
needs;
 Duly equip the NJO with information to ensure timely responses to any questions asked in the Parliament or by
the Chief Justice on eJustice;
 Participate, whenever required, in a leadership and advisory role in strategic meetings for eJustice;
 Duly apportion responsibilities among staff of NJO to fulfil all functions identified for the NJO while ensuring that
requisite technical expertise is always available at hand;
 Formulate new proposals based on emerging requirements and make timely requests for funding approvals to
the National eJustice Taskforce in order to minimize time lag for implementation;
 Ensure that judicial agencies adhere to applicable standards, frameworks and guidelines drawn up by the NJO
and to take up such measures to encourage/enforce such adherence as he/she deems fit for the purpose;
 Regularly collaborate with the Chief Justice and other members of the Judiciary (or other law enforcement
agencies) that he identifies to take on board their suggestions in taking decisions on eJustice; and
 Ensure satisfactory performance of all services from the shared data, infrastructure, applications and resources
that is made available by NJO to judicial agencies;
 Ensure adequate follow-up and implementation of the decisions taken at all “strategic” meetings at the level of
the National eJustice Taskforce;
 Take a leading role in forging new partnerships between NJO and other external bodies whenever required for
the purposes of eJustice in the country;
 Ensure an adequate delegation of responsibilities to duly empowered staff/officials within the Technical Office
in such a manner that the latter may, in his/her absence or whenever the need arises, independently perform
all activities required of them; and
 Ensure an adequate performance of all tasks delegated by the Taskforce or the Chief Justice over and above
what has been mentioned above.

6.8 Annexure VIII: Suggested List of Indicators to be used for eJustice Monitoring and Evaluation
Table 37 brings out the complete suggested list of indicators to be used for monitoring of implementation of the proposed interventions.
Table 37 Suggested List of Indicators for eJustice Monitoring and Evaluation
Impact Indicators Strategies Outcome Indicators Interventions Output Indicators
On-Time Case Strategy S: Standardise all  Types of cases S4: Define and finalise  Swiftness with which team to oversee this
Processing process, data, service categorised and standards and guidelines for initiative is set up
Percentage of cases delivery and technology timeframes allocated record-keeping in Bangladesh  Number of standards and guidelines finalised
resolved or otherwise elements with a view to for different steps of judicial entities  institutional arrangements in place to continually
finalized within pre- bring about accurate and case management oversee the implementation and report any
established timeframes complete information  Ease of access of breach
exchange and retrieval judicial records S5: Define and finalise the  Swiftness with which the Service Charter is
Judicial Service Charter finalised
aligned with other  Extent of Stakeholder involvement in exercise
eGovernment interventions  Number of parameters finalised
and finalise service delivery  Coverage of parameters in terms of services
parameters for services to be sought by the end user
Strategy B: Perform  Extent to which time B1: Adopt BPMN as a process  Swiftness with which BPMN is finalised as a
comprehensive business and cost savings are representation standard and process representation standard
process re-engineering to generated out of undertake comprehensive  Extent of services/process re-engineered
harness internal efficiency following re-engineered BPR of all civil, criminal, other  Extent of standardisation achieved in re-
and effectiveness processes judicial and administrative engineering (shared sub-processes between
processes of the Judiciary processes)
 Extent to which data elements standardised and
shared between processes
Strategy L: Build a robust  Extent to which L1: Finalise legal amendments  Number of legal and quasi-legal
legal and regulatory external paperwork is and regulatory interventions recommendations made
foundation for the reduced (owing to its for process changes  Extent to which such recommendations are
introduced changes to take persistence concurrent introduced in the strategy to meant to obviate manual processes
effect and help the with electronic take effect  Swiftness with which recommendations are
alternative) adopted

transition towards
paperless judiciary
Case Clearance Rate Strategy T: Deploy case-  Extent to which data T1: Prepare the complete  Swiftness with which design is accepted and
The number of finalized centric eCourt solutions in duplication is functional, technical and implementation plan rolled out
(outgoing) cases phases using a pilot prevented/ data once operational design of the  Extent of coverage of functional requirements in
expressed as a percentage approach captured is available complete case-centric eJustice the technical design
of registered/filed uniformly across the solutions  Extent of alignment of the design to
(incoming) cases system recommendations of the standardisation
 Extent to which internal exercise earlier carried out
Court File Integrity paperwork is reduced  Extent of usage of multi-channel service
Number of case files and (owing to its delivery requirements in the design
records (in %) that meet persistence concurrent T2: Develop and Deploy on a  Extent of adherence to the implementation plan
standards of accuracy, with electronic pilot basis Phase I of case- in Phase I pilot
completeness, currency, alternative) centric eJustice solutions  Extent of usage of data on which pilot testing
and accessibility.  Extent of time and cost carried out
savings resultant to T3: Roll out Phase I across  Number of locations across which rollout carried
judicial staff Bangladesh Judiciary out
 Extent of coverage of implementation across
court complexes in Bangladesh
T4: Develop and Deploy on a  Extent of adherence to the implementation plan
pilot basis Phase II of case- in Phase I pilot
centric eJustice solutions  Extent of usage of data on which pilot testing
carried out
T5: Roll out Phase II across  Number of locations across which rollout carried
Bangladesh Judiciary out
 Extent of coverage of implementation across
court complexes in Bangladesh
Strategy A: Make  Extent of savings in A2: Design and implement the  Swiftness with which the portal design is
available judicial cost and time to the Judiciary portal as the one- finalised and accepted

information to all through end user through stop solution for all information  Extent of adherence of the implementation to
convenient and secure availability of the and service related to the the implementation plan
channels of citizen access eJustice platform Judiciary in Bangladesh  Existence of institutional mechanisms to
 Extent of convenience regularly update contents
to the end user through  Extent to which relevant stakeholders involved
eJustice in the design and development process
Employee Engagement Strategy C: Undertake  Number of judicial staff C1: Define and implement a  Swiftness with which the capacity building
Number of judicial officers continued role-based (in %) using the comprehensive plan for role- design is finalised and accepted
and other administrative capacity building of all eJustice system to based capacity building of all  Extent of adherence of the implementation to
staff (in %) who indicate stakeholders of the render their judicial stakeholders of the the implementation plan
that they are productively eJustice system to functions Bangladesh eCourt system  Extent to which needs analysis takes into
engaged in the mission maximise its adoption  Number of account the availability of skills with staff
and work of the court administrative staff (in  Extent to which needs analysis takes into
%) using the eJustice account the eJustice skills requirements for staff
system to render their  Diversity of medium over which capacity
administrative building carried out
functions
Strategy I: Design, setup  Existence of an I1: Finalise and operationalise  Swiftness with which organisation design
and operationalise an independent body to organisation structure and recommendations and those for any transient
institutional framework to drive the eJustice prepare organisation design arrangements are made and adopted
drive the ICT adoption in agenda for Bangladesh for an institutional framework  Adherence to the implementation plan for
Bangladesh judiciary to drive the ICT adoption in operationalisation of the institutional framework
Bangladesh judiciary recommendations
 Extent to which staffing recommended is
available to start with
 Extent of completeness of the organisation
structure when implementation process is
commenced

Extent of Predictability Strategy G: Institutionalise  Number of judicial G2: Define compliance  Swiftness with which compliance mechanisms
Number of judicial cases and enforce governance offices (in %) where mechanisms for pre-agreed for standards and guidelines agreed upon are
(in %) where processes mechanisms to ensure processes being standards, guidelines and finalised and adopted
being followed conform to compliance of standards, followed are norms in each of the areas  Extent to which such compliance reporting is
what is standardised and guidelines and norms substantially different mentioned above institutionalised in the reporting and inspection
agreed required to be followed for from what is regime followed
a comprehensive standardised and  Extent of coverage of compliance to the total
implementation of the agreed standards' requirement of eJustice in
eJustice system  Number of grievances Bangladesh
(in %) that are resolved G3: Define comprehensive  Number of services (as % of total) in which
to the satisfaction of grievance redressal norms and deviations from promised norms are considered
the complaining entity practices for grievance redressal
 Swiftness with which recommendations are
adopted and implemented
 Swiftness with which institutional mechanisms
are established to redress customer grievances
Court User Satisfaction Strategy O: Roll out  Number of people (in O1: Finalise and implement  Swiftness with which plan recommendations are
Number of court users (in comprehensive awareness %) using the eJustice comprehensive plan for accepted and implemented
%) who believe that the campaigns for the ICT system to access the awareness and outreach  Extent of stakeholders considered for
court provides procedural system and its benefits on judicial system and its campaign to maximise the implementation
justice, i.e., accessible, various platforms services adoption of ICT and citizen  Extent to stakeholders for which outreach
fair, accurate, timely,  Number of people (in participation in the programme activities actually carried out
knowledgeable, and %) to whom eJustice is  Diversity of communication media deployed to
courteous service. accessible reach out to end users
 Extent to which user feedback collected during
campaigns and incorporated into outreach and
other activities

Strategy R: Encourage  Cost of accessing R1: Finalise rewards for  Extent to which rewards and incentives
adoption of the ICT judicial services (in % institutional entities and considered (in % terms) for end users in their
eCourts system through comparison with incentives for individual end respective categories
highly visible rewards and earlier) users participating in the  Swiftness with which recommendations adopted
incentives for all  Extent of compliance implementation of the eCourt and implemented
stakeholder types of the achieved of standards system  Extent to which incentives are linked to
system and guidelines to be compliances that are required to be observed
followed (in % terms)

6.9 Annexure IX: Intervention-wise Details of Budgetary Allocation
Table 38 Intervention-wise details of budgetary allocation proposed

Capital Costs (in Million USD) Operational Costs (in Million USD)
Operations and
Miscellaneous
Total (Capital)
Design Costs
Development
Infrastructure
Planning and
Consultancy/
Procurement
Maintenance
Recruitment/
Promotional/
Training and
Total for the

Intervention
Operational
Awards etc
No Project Remarks
Organising
Expenses
Travelling
Salaries,
System
Others
Event
Costs
Costs
Total
S4 Define and finalise  5 personmonths of effort
standards and guidelines  10% for project management;
for record-keeping in 5% for procurement
Bangladesh judicial expenses; and 5% for
entities 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.06 miscellaneous
S5 Define/finalise Judicial  8 personmonths of effort
Service Charter aligned  10% for project management;
with other eGovernment 5% for procurement; and 5%
interventions and finalise for miscellaneous
service delivery
parameters for services
by judicial entities 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.10
B1 Adopt BPMN as a  30 personmonths of effort
process representation  10% for project management;
standard and undertake 5% for procurement; and 5%
comprehensive BPR of for miscellaneous
all civil, criminal, other
judicial, administrative
processes of Judiciary 0.30 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.36
L1 Finalise legal  3 personmonths of effort
amendments and  10% for project management;
regulatory interventions 5% for procurement; and 5%
for process changes for miscellaneous
introduced in the strategy
to take effect 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04

Operations and
Miscellaneous
Total (Capital)
Design Costs
Development
Infrastructure
Planning and
Consultancy/
Procurement
Maintenance
Recruitment/
Promotional/
Training and
Total for the

Intervention
Operational
Awards etc
No Project Remarks
Organising
Expenses
Travelling
Salaries,
System
Others
Event
Costs
Costs
Total
T1 Prepare complete  30 personmonths of effort
functional, technical and  10% for project management;
operational design of the 5% for procurement; and 5%
eJustice suite of solutions 0.30 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.36 for miscellaneous
T2 Develop and Deploy on a Please see Annexure X and
pilot basis Phase I of assumptions below
eJustice suite of solutions 0.00 0.57 5.65 0.00 2.20 8.42 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.75 9.17
T3 Roll out Phase I across Please see Annexure X and
Bangladesh Judiciary 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.69 8.69 assumptions below
T4 Develop and Deploy on a Please see Annexure X and
pilot basis Phase II of assumptions below
eJustice suite of solutions 0.00 0.00 10.25 0.00 0.05 10.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.30
T5 Roll out Phase II across Please see Annexure X and
Bangladesh Judiciary 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.52 2.52 assumptions below
A2 Design and implement  Effort in effort estimates
eJustice portal as one-  Hardware accounted for in T2
stop solution for all  10% for project management;
information/service 5% for procurement; and 5%
related to Judiciary in for miscellaneous
Bangladesh 0.14 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.17
I1 Finalise, operationalise  10 personmonths for design
organisation structure  10% for procurement; 10% for
and prepare organisation project management; and 5%
design for an institutional for miscellaneous
framework to drive ICT
adoption in judiciary 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.13
C1 Define, implement a  20 personmonths for design
comprehensive plan for  10%-project management; 5%
role-based capacity for procurement; and 5% for
building of stakeholders miscellaneous
of the Bangladesh  140*2 batches of capacity
eJustice system building with 2 sessions per
0.20 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.02 0.00 0.00 2.02 0.01 2.05 2.26 batch/group

Operations and
Miscellaneous
Total (Capital)
Design Costs
Development
Infrastructure
Planning and
Consultancy/
Procurement
Maintenance
Recruitment/
Promotional/
Training and
Total for the

Intervention
Operational
Awards etc
No Project Remarks
Organising
Expenses
Travelling
Salaries,
System
Others
Event
Costs
Costs
Total
G2 Define compliance  10 personmonths for design
mechanisms for pre- (internal exercise)
agreed standards,  10% for project management;
guidelines, norms in and 5% for miscellaneous
areas mentioned above 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03
G3 Define comprehensive  10 personmonths for design
grievance redressal  10% for procurement; 10% for
norms and practices project management; and 5%
0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.13 for miscellaneous
M1 Design comprehensive  10 personmonths for design
tool for Feedback and  10% for procurement; 10% for
Satisfaction project management; and 5%
Measurement on for miscellaneous
services delivered by
Judicial agencies 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.01 1.12
M2 Holistic concept and  10 personmonths for design
design of an eJustice  10% for procurement; 10% for
Maturity Index to reflect project management; and 5%
the progressive evolution for miscellaneous
of eJustice in Bangladesh 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.01 1.12
M3 Computation of eJustice  70 people to be deployed for 2
Maturity Index as months each every year (data
conceptualised on an entry level) for survey etc
annual basis and making
related data-informed
recommendations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.12 1.12
O1 Finalise, implement  10 personmonths for design
comprehensive plan for  10% for project management;
awareness and outreach 5% for procurement; and 5%
campaign to maximise for miscellaneous
the adoption of ICT and  2 employees for 6 years for
citizen participation in the social media campaign
eJustice effort 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.36 0.00 0.66 1.51 2.54 2.64

Operations and
Miscellaneous
Total (Capital)
Design Costs
Development
Infrastructure
Planning and
Consultancy/
Procurement
Maintenance
Recruitment/
Promotional/
Training and
Total for the

Intervention
Operational
Awards etc
No Project Remarks
Organising
Expenses
Travelling
Salaries,
System
Others
Event
Costs
Costs
Total
 1 eJustice Conference for 6
years; 1 Divisional Workshop
for 6 years ( 42 for 7 divisions)
 Electronic/Print Media
Outreach of USD
200,000/year for 6 years
 Publish Reports for USD
50,000 every year
R1 Finalise rewards for  5 personmonths for design-
institutional entities and internal exercise
incentives for individual  10% for project management;
end users participating in and 5% for miscellaneous
the implementation of the  25 awards every year each of
eJustice system 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.16 worth USD1000
Grand Total 20.46 20.00 40.46

6.10 Annexure X: Details of Budgetary Allocation on Technology Interventions (Hardware, Software, Network,
Infrastructure, Customisation Elements)
In line with the workplan proposed for implementation and the modules selected for Phase I, Table 39 brings out the hardware, software, network and infrastructure
requirements assumed for the phase under assumptions listed in Annexure XI 20.
Table 39 Details of Budgetary Allocation on Technology Interventions (Phase I)
Unit Price Total Amount
Application Description Qty
(USD) (USD)
HARDWARE COMPONENTS
Database Server RISC /EPIC/SPARC Servers (Two Db with modification access in active-active
cluster and 1 portal & 1 view /replicated mode with each other in failover mode) 4 45,600.00 1,82,400.00
Application Server Intel Blades (Failover) 2 13,000.00 26,000.00
Web Server Intel Blades (Failover) 2 13,000.00 26,000.00
DNS and LDAP Server (Domain Controller and Intel Blades (Failover)
Additional Domain Controller for Failover) 2 13,000.00 26,000.00
Back-up and Anti-Virus Server Intel Blades 1 13,000.00 13,000.00
Enclosure Blade System Enclosure (42 U) 1 3,260.00 3,260.00
Any Other Peripherals (Staging server, Details as below
Integration server, messaging server,
development server, PCs for desktop)
Staging Server Intel Blades 1 13,000.00 13,000.00

Development Servers Intel Blades 2 13,000.00 26,000.00
Personalisation Server Intel Blades 2 13,000.00 26,000.00
Integration Server Intel Blades 1 13,000.00 13,000.00
Messaging Servers Intel Blades 2 13,000.00 26,000.00
Metadata Server / Archival Server Intel Blades 2 13,000.00 26,000.00
Desktop PC for Monitoring & Data Centre
Management 2 3,250.00 6,500.00
20
Technology specifications mentioned here are only for the purposes of arriving at a budgetary estimate. They should not be construed in any way as recommendations. Deriving technology
specifications to meet the functional requirements recommended in this strategy is actually the output of the intervention T1 recommended in the workplan.

(USD) (USD)
AMC for 4 years (1st year warranty) At the rate of 15% every year 4 61,974.00 2,47,896.00
Total for Hardware Components 6,61,056.00
NETWORK COMPONENTS
Router Backbone Router (Cisco /Juniper High End Series21) 2 73,300.00 1,46,600.00
Switch Layer 3 Switch with supervisor module in failover. With 48 trans-receiver ports 2 65,000.00 1,30,000.00
Hardware based Firewall Two firewalls with high througput in failover mode 2 45,000.00 90,000.00
Load Balancer Server Load balancing 1 20,400.00 20,400.00
SAN SAN Storage (10 TB scalable to 80 TB) 1 37,500.00 37,500.00
Tape Library shall be configured with minimum 80 number of data cartridges
Tape Library
scalable to 200 1 33,000.00 33,000.00
Rack Network Rack 1 3,300.00 3,300.00
Leased Line or Broadband Router-cum-
Cost need to be checked with the local service providers
Firewall 2 5,700.00 11,400.00
Any Other (SAN switch, IPS, fire proof
Details as below
enclosure for media storage)
SAN Switch 2 13,000.00 26,000.00
Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) 2 52,100.00 1,04,200.00
Fire Proof Enclosure for Media Storage 1 4,100.00 4,100.00
AMC for 4 years (1st year warranty) 4 90,975.00 3,63,900.00
Total for Network Components 9,70,400.00
SOFTWARE COMPONENTS
Operating System Microsoft® Windows Server (Latest Edition of Enterprise Server)

22 1,303.00 28,666.00
Backup Software For hot and cold backup 1 48,860.00 48,860.00
Anti-Virus Antivirus Software (Server License) 1 978.00 978.00
Database Database Licenses 4 24,430.00 97,720.00
Workflow Some OEM provides workflow suite as separate component 1 24,430.00 24,430.00
21
The makes (here and elsewhere in estimation sheets) have been mentioned only for illustration and as a basis for estimation; these should not be construed as recommendation for the same.

(USD) (USD)
Document Management System Lumpsum cost for 4000 registered DMS users 1 1,30,293.00 1,30,293.00
Mailing Solution Exchange /Lotus Notes 1 24,430.00 24,430.00
Identity Management System 1 19,550.00 19,550.00
1 core license for 2000 users @ USD 2500. CRM user depends on number of
business customers / lawyers etc for which lumpsum amount per customer
@USD 33 and number of customers are considered as 10,000. Lumpsum cost
ERP including CRM with third party interfaces
for portal is taken as USD 16500. BI only for selected 200 users @ USD 3000.
with payment gateways etc
Implementation @ 20% of the total cost (The Phase I figures assumed for
number of users are (a) 500 users for ERP; (b) 5000 users for CRM; (c) 100
users for the BI solution, with the remaining being allocated for Phase II22). 1 20,77,800.00 20,77,800.00
Any Other (EMS, Clustering, Custom
Details as below
application, 5 years AMS)
Enterprise Management Software 1 1,51,470.00 1,51,470.00
Clustering Licenses 1 9,772.00 9,772.00
Custom applications 3 35,000.00 1,05,000.00
AMS for 5 years 5 5,22,793.80 26,13,969.00
Total for Software Components 53,32,938.00
INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENTS
Data Centre (Tier 3) and its DR counterpart
Tier 3 Data Centre 1 3,25,000.00 3,25,000.00
Maintenance @15% for five years 5 48,750.00 2,43,750.00
Total for Infrastructure Components 5,68,750.00
Grand Total for Hardware, Network and Packaged Software Components 75,33,144.00
22
An actual estimate for the number of users is beyond the scope of this project. As such, these calculations have been made as conservative as possible with the possibility of these estimates
being subsequently revise after completion of the exercise T1 (see explanation made earlier in the document).

Table 40 brings out the hardware, software, network and infrastructure requirements assumed for Phase II under assumptions listed in Annexure XI.
Table 40 Details of Budgetary Allocation on Technology Interventions (Phase II)
(USD) (USD)
HARDWARE COMPONENTS
Database server Specifications same as in Phase I 0 45,600.00 0.00
Application Server Intel Blades (Failover) 2 13,000.00 26,000.00
Web Server Intel Blades (Failover) 13,000.00 0.00
DNS and LDAP Server (Domain Controller and Intel Blades (Failover)
Additional Domain Controller for Failover) 13,000.00 0.00
Back-up and Anti-Virus Server Intel Blades 13,000.00 0.00
Enclosure Blade System Enclosure (42 U) 3,260.00 0.00
Any Other Peripherals (Staging server, Integration Details as below
server, messaging server, development server, PCs
for desktop)
Staging Server Intel Blades 13,000.00 0.00
Development Servers Intel Blades 13,000.00 0.00
Personalisation Server Intel Blades 13,000.00 0.00
Integration Server Intel Blades 13,000.00 0.00
Messaging Servers Intel Blades 13,000.00 0.00
Metadata Server / Archival Server Intel Blades 13,000.00 0.00
Desktop PC for Monitoring & Data Centre Management 2 3,250.00 6,500.00
AMC for 4 years (1st year warranty) At the rate of 15% every year 4 4,875.00 19,500.00
Total for Hardware Components 52,000.00
NETWORK COMPONENTS
Router Backbone Router (Cisco /Juniper High End Series) 73,300.00 0.00
Layer 3 Switch with supervisor module in failover. With 48 trans-receiver
Switch
ports 65,000.00 0.00
Hardware based Firewall Two firewalls with high throughput in failover mode 45,000.00 0.00
Load Balancer Server Load balancing 20,400.00 0.00

(USD) (USD)
SAN SAN Storage (10 TB scalable to 80 TB) 37,500.00 0.00
Tape Library shall be configured with minimum 80 number of data
Tape Library
cartridges scalable to 200 33,000.00 0.00
Rack Network Rack 3,300.00 0.00
Leased Line or Broadband Router-cum-Firewall Cost need to be checked with the local service providers 5,700.00 0.00
Any Other (SAN switch, IPS, fire proof enclosure for
Details as below
media storage)
SAN Switch 13,000.00 0.00
Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) 52,100.00 0.00
Fire Proof Enclosure for Media Storage 4,100.00 0.00
AMC for 4 years (1st year warranty) 0.00 0.00
Total for Network Components 0.00
SOFTWARE COMPONENTS
Operating System Microsoft® Windows Server (Latest Edition of Enterprise Server) 2 1,303.00 2,606.00
Backup Software For hot and cold backup 48,860.00 0.00
Anti-Virus Antivirus Software (Server License) 978.00 0.00
Database Database Licenses 24,430.00 0.00
Workflow Some OEM provides workflow suite as separate component 24,430.00 0.00
Document Management System Lumpsum cost for 4000 registered DMS users 1,30,293.00 0.00
Mailing Solution Exchange /Lotus Notes 24,430.00 0.00
Identity Management System 19,550.00 0.00
ERP including CRM with third party interfaces with The Phase I figures assumed for number of users are (a) 1500 users for
payment gateways etc ERP; (b) 5000 users for CRM; (c) 100 users for the BI solution, with the
remaining being allocated for Phase II 1 50,58,000.00 50,58,000.00
Any Other (EMS, Clustering, Custom application) Details as below 0.00
Enterprise Management Software 1,51,470.00 0.00
Clustering Licenses 9,772.00 0.00
Custom applications 2 35,000.00 70,000.00

(USD) (USD)
AMS for 5 years 5 10,12,121.20 50,60,606.00
Total for Software Components 1,01,91,212.00
INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENTS
Data Centre (Tier 3) and its DR counterpart
Total for Infrastructure Components 0.00

Grand Total for Hardware, Network and Packaged
Software Components 1,02,43,212.00
Table 41 brings out the customisation effort estimates over and above what has been assumed in the above tables for Phase I and II.
Table 41 Details of module-wise customisation effort estimates (persondays)

Project
Module Name Sub-Module Complexity Design Development Testing Training Total
Management
Portal About Us (History, Setup) Medium 1.2 1.2 0.78 0.3 0.3 3.78
Vision, Mission Statements Medium 1.2 1.2 0.78 0.3 0.3 3.78
Contact information Medium 1.2 1.2 0.78 0.3 0.3 3.78
Judiciary Policies etc Medium 1.2 1.2 0.78 0.3 0.3 3.78
Statistics Medium 1.2 1.2 0.78 0.3 0.3 3.78
Sitemap Medium 1.2 1.2 0.78 0.3 0.3 3.78
Search High 1.5 1.5 0.975 0.375 0.375 4.725
Advertisement and Notices Medium 1.2 1.2 0.78 0.3 0.3 3.78
Newsletter Medium 1.2 1.2 0.78 0.3 0.3 3.78
Annual report Medium 1.2 1.2 0.78 0.3 0.3 3.78
Latest announcements Medium 1.2 1.2 0.78 0.3 0.3 3.78
FAQs Medium 1.2 1.2 0.78 0.3 0.3 3.78
Streaming video/audio files High 1.5 1.5 0.975 0.375 0.375 4.725
Related links Medium 1.2 1.2 0.78 0.3 0.3 3.78

Project
Management
Rules and Regulations Medium 1.2 1.2 0.78 0.3 0.3 3.78
Enquiries Medium 1.2 1.2 0.78 0.3 0.3 3.78
Information-Reform Programs Medium 1.2 1.2 0.78 0.3 0.3 3.78
Tenders Medium 1.2 1.2 0.78 0.3 0.3 3.78
Feedback Medium 1.2 1.2 0.78 0.3 0.3 3.78
Success stories Medium 1.2 1.2 0.78 0.3 0.3 3.78
Forms to download Medium 1.2 1.2 0.78 0.3 0.3 3.78
Careers Medium 1.2 1.2 0.78 0.3 0.3 3.78
Case search (advanced) High 1.5 1.5 0.975 0.375 0.375 4.725
Process manual Medium 1.2 1.2 0.78 0.3 0.3 3.78
Web-enabled email system High 15 15 9.75 3.75 3.75 47.25
Chat messenger and chat rooms High 15 15 9.75 3.75 3.75 47.25
Blogs (moderated) High 3 3 1.95 0.75 0.75 9.45
Discussion forums High 4.5 4.5 2.925 1.125 1.125 14.175
e-campaigns Medium 1.2 1.2 0.78 0.3 0.3 3.78
On-line tutorials and courses Medium 1.2 1.2 0.78 0.3 0.3 3.78
Job posting, Job search, Apply Medium 1.2 1.2 0.78 0.3 0.3 3.78
Maintaining Users Medium 1.2 1.2 0.78 0.3 0.3 3.78
Password management Medium 1.2 1.2 0.78 0.3 0.3 3.78
Role and Privilege Medium 1.2 1.2 0.78 0.3 0.3 3.78
Case-specific documents High 15 15 9.75 3.75 3.75 47.25
Electronic Creating a new case Medium 5 5 3.25 1.25 1.25 15.75
Filing System Updating existing case Medium 5 5 3.25 1.25 1.25 15.75
Upload documents Medium 5 5 3.25 1.25 1.25 15.75
Interface with email and alerts High 8 8 5.2 2 2 25.2
Verification High 8 8 5.2 2 2 25.2
Approvals High 8 8 5.2 2 2 25.2

Project
Management
Case Registering a Case High Accounted for in packaged software costs and customisation efforts
Management Scheduling
System High
Hearings/Adjournments
Interface with email and alerts High
Approvals High
Verification High
Categorisation of Cases High
Closure of Cases High
Interface with other modules High
Interface with external systems High
Attaching documentation High
Court Creating a new case High 8 8 5.2 2 2 25.2
Recording and Transcription Engine High 8 8 5.2 2 2 25.2
Transcription
Attaching documentation High 8 8 5.2 2 2 25.2
Interface with other modules High 8 8 5.2 2 2 25.2
Interface- alerts and notifications High 8 8 5.2 2 2 25.2
Case Lumpsum of bespoke efforts on Accounted for in packaged software costs and customisation efforts
Management a packaged solution High
Analytics
Calendaring Data Input Interface High Accounted for in packaged software costs and customisation efforts
and Queueing Interface with other modules High
System
Interface- alerts and notifications High
Queueing Engine High
Alerts and Alerts business logic High Accounted for in packaged software costs and customisation efforts
Notifications Interface with email and alerts High
System
Interface with mobile alerts High
Return receipt, snoozing,
answering requirements High

Project
Management
Human Lumpsum of bespoke efforts on Accounted for in packaged software costs and customisation efforts
High
Resources a packaged solution
Financial Lumpsum of bespoke efforts on Accounted for in packaged software costs and customisation efforts
High
Management a packaged solution
Assets Lumpsum of bespoke efforts on Accounted for in packaged software costs and customisation efforts
High
Management a packaged solution
Complaints Categorisation of Complaints High Accounted for in packaged software costs and customisation efforts
and Logging of Complaints High
Grievances
Proceedings of hearings etc High
Recording resolution High
Interface- alerts and notifications High
Attachments High
Interface with other modules High
Workflow and approvals High
Reports 50 pre-defined queries Medium 15 15 9.75 3.75 3.75 47.25
Undefined on-the-fly queries High 10 10 6.5 2.5 2.5 31.5
Rendering query outputs in a
High
report 5 5 3.25 1.25 1.25 15.75
Queries 50 pre-defined queries Medium 15 15 9.75 3.75 3.75 47.25
Undefined on-the-fly queries High 10 10 6.5 2.5 2.5 31.5
Rendering query outputs in a
High
report 5 5 3.25 1.25 1.25 15.75
Mobile Apps Lumpsum High 100 100 65 25 25 315
Dashboard Lumpsum
plus
High
personalisation
features 15 15 9.75 3.75 3.75 80
Total 1114.46

6.11 Annexure XI: List of Assumptions made for Budgetary Allocation
The following is a list of assumptions made to arrive at the budgetary allocation recommended:
1. TECHNOLOGY INTENSIVE INTERVENTIONS: As has been said in the document not enough
data is available for budgetary allocation to be done with a great deal of accuracy for an assignment
of this nature. Therefore budget estimation, particularly for technology-intensive operations
(interventions T2, T3, T4 and T5) will be predicted with a much better accuracy as part of the output
of the exercise T1, one of whose mandates will be to arrive at detailed technology specifications
and load-sizing. Therefore, for these interventions, budgetary allocations will be overridden by the
estimates emerging from T1.
2. RATES: The following rates have been assumed in the calculations-
 External consultants @ USD 10000 for every personmonth of deployment
 Data entry operators or their equivalent @ USD 2000 for every personmonth of deployment
 Average employee salary @ USD 2500 for every personmonth of engagement
 The Annual eJustice Conference has been budgeted to cost USD 40,000 for every conference
 The eJustice Workshop at the Division Level are costed at USD 10,000 per workshop
arranged
3. CAPACITY BUILDING SESSION: One capacity building session will be conducted by 2 trainers
for six hours each. To arrive at per session cost, trainer expenses have been assumed at USD
100 per hour whereas USD 2000 each has been assumed for venue arrangement, training aids
and miscellaneous expenses.
4. SALARIES: Salary expenses for staff constituting the institutional framework have not been
considered; however, where internal effort is envisaged, notional expenses have been assumed
using salary rates as mentioned above.
5. TRANSACTION VOLUMES: The hardware has been sized assuming 1500 peak users hits through
the application layer and assuming 2500 peak user hits on the portal layer. These numbers have
been benchmarked with Indian Railway Reservation site (irctc.co.in) which can book upto 7200
tickets per minute[48].
6. MAINTENANCE: For both hardware and networking one year warranty has been assumed and
maintenance at the rate of 15% per year has been assumed for four years across the board. For
software maintenance has been assumed at an average rate of 20% every year for five years; for
infrastructure too the same has been followed, though with a rate of 15%.
7. STORAGE: For storage the existing backlog of 2.8 million cases has been taken as the starting
point. Assuming a data storage requirement equivalent to 50 scanned pages of 80 KB each, and
further assuming that, as part of the backlog reduction programme, 50% of the cases will be
admitted into the trial proceedings, we arrive at a figure of 5.6TB. Accordingly, a SAN storage size
of 10TB has been assumed, scalable to 80TB.
8. NUMBER OF USERS FOR PACKAGED SOFTWARE: Of the three varieties of packaged software
considered (ERP, CRM and BI) it has been assumed that in the final stages there would be 2000
users of ERP across the country, 10000 “customers” for the CRM at any point of time and 200
users of the BI solution.
9. NUMBER OF SITES FOR ROLLOUT: It is assumed that in the rollout phases the solution will be
rolled out across 70 court complexes with 3 personnel being deputed at each place for
troubleshooting and assistance in rollout.
10. CUSTOMISATION EFFORTS: A 20% buffer has been assumed for customisation on ERP and
other packaged solutions; besides this, it has been assumed that custom-built modules will be
required with each amounting to USD 35,000 worth of effort. Additionally, some other modules
have also been factored in as shown in Table 41.

11. ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED: Items not considered in the budget include (a) expenses towards
building a Disaster Recovery site; (b) network requirements at other locations and network tariffs;
(c) client workstations (desktops, notebooks and tablets); and (d) office and other utility
applications not necessarily linked to eJustice.

References
[1] E. Buscaglia and M. Dakolias, “Comparative International Study of Court Performance
Indicators- A Descriptive and Analytical Study,” World Bank, Washington D.C., 1999.
[2] M. Dakolias, “Court Performance Around the World : A Comparative Perspective,” Yale Hum.
Rights Dev. J., vol. 2, no. 1, 1999.
[3] W. H. Malik, “e-Justice: Towards a Strategic Use of ICT in Judicial Reform,” in Marrakech
Conference- Strategies for the Modernization of Justice in Arab Countries, Organized by
POGAR, UNDP/WB/MOJ Morocco, March 2002, 2002.
[4] D. Reiling, “Technology for Justice- How Information Technology Can Support Judicial
Reform,” Amsterdam, 2009.
[5] D. J. G. C. Bharuka, Rejuvenating Judicial System through eGovernance and Attitudinal
Change, First Edit. New Delhi: Wadhwa and Company, 2003.
[6] M. Velicogna, “Justice Systems and ICT- What can be learned from Europe?,” Utr. Law Rev.,
vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 47–60, 2007.
[7] S. J. R. M. Husain, “JUDICIAL REFORMS AND LEGAL AID SERVICE : EXPERIENCE IN
BANGLADESH,” in International Conference and Showcase on Judicial Reforms, 2005, pp. 3–
5.
[8] M. E. Karim, “A Research Guide to the Legal System of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh,”
GlobaLex (Hauser Global Law School Program), 2013. [Online]. Available:
http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/bangladesh1.htm accessed November 2014.
[9] P. K. Panday and A. Hossain Mollah, “The Judicial System of Bangladesh: an overview from
historical viewpoint,” Int. J. Law Manag., vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 6–31, Feb. 2011.
[10] Supreme Court of Bangladesh, “Supreme Court ICT Deparment- All ICT Activities,” 2014.
[Online]. Available: http://ict.supremecourt.gov.bd/?src=others/activities.php accessed
November 2014.
[11] UNDP, “UNDP promotes better Court services through ICT tools,” UNDP, 2013. [Online].
Available:
http://www.bd.undp.org/content/bangladesh/en/home/presscenter/articles/2014/03/13/undp-
promotes-better-court-services-through-ict-tools/ accessed November 2014. [Accessed: 15-
Nov-2014].
[12] R. E. Messick, “Judicial Reform and Economic Development : A Survey of the Issues,” World
Bank Res. Obs., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 117–136, 1999.
[13] M. Wimmer and R. Traunmüller, “Integration - The Next Challenge in e-Government,” pp. 29–
31, 2002.
[14] F. B. Vernadat, “Technical, semantic and organizational issues of enterprise interoperability
and networking,” Annu. Rev. Control, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 139–144, Apr. 2010.
[15] National Archives of Australia, “Overview of Classification Tools for Records Management,”
2003.
[16] National Archives of Australia, “Australian Governments’ Interactive Functions Thesaurus
(AGIFT),” 2007. [Online]. Available: http://agift.naa.gov.au/000533.htm.
[17] Singapore Academy of Law, “Electronic Litigation in Singapore : A Roadmap for the
Implementation of Technology in the Litigation Process,” Singapore Academy of Law,
Singapore, 2005.
[18] Hasanuzzaman, A. Chowdhury, M. A. Mannan, M. M. I. Shamim, M. M. Islam, F. Sultana, T.
H. Khan, and M. N. Islam, “Global e-Indices ’ Rankings and Bangladesh : Indicators for

Measuring Digital Bangladesh,” Access to Information (a2i) Programme in Bangladesh, Dhaka,
2013.
[19] H. Pandit, “Right to privacy and Data Protection Law in Bangladesh,” The Bangladesh Today,
Dhaka, Jun-2014.
[20] H. P. Gramckow and V. Nussenblatt, “Caseflow Management: Key Principles and the Systems
to Support Them,” Washington D.C., 23/2013, 2013.
[21] L. Hammergren, “MALAYSIA- Court Backlog and Delay Reduction Program (A Progress
Report),” World Bank, Kuala Lumpur, 2011.
[22] Center for the Study of Democracy, “E-Tools for Criminal Case Management within Selected
EU Member States,” Sofia, Bulgaria, 2012.
[23] W. Satirah, W. Mohd, and A. Haider, “E-Court : Information and Communication Technologies
for Civil Court Management,” pp. 2296–2304, 2013.
[24] A. Howard, “21st century smarter government is ‘data-centric’ and ‘digital first,’ says US CIO,”
O’Reilly, 2012. [Online]. Available: http://radar.oreilly.com/2012/04/21st-century-smarter-
governmen.htm Accessed Novembe 2014.
[25] N. Nix, “NJ state judiciary releases mobile APP for jurors,” New Jersey On-Line, 2014.
[Online]. Available:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/12/nj_state_judiciary_releases_mobile_app_for_jurors.
html Accessed October 2014.
[26] W. Kluwer, “Almanac of the Federal Judiciary,” iTunes Preview, 2014. [Online]. Available:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/texas-center-for-judiciary/id589598524?mt=8 accessed
October 2014.
[27] First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, “Mobile Applications- iFJD,” The Philadelphia Courts,
2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.courts.phila.gov/mobile/ accessed October 2014.
[28] J. Rothenberg, I. Graafland-Essers, H. Kranenkamp, A. Lierens, C. van Oranje, and R. van
Schaik, “Designing a National Standard for Discovery Metadata- Improving Access to Digital
Information in the Dutch Government,” The Hague, 2004.
[29] A. Alasem, “An Overview of e-Government Metadata Standards and Initiatives based on
Dublin Core,” Electron. J. e-Government, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2009.
[30] A. Alasem, “An Overview of e-Government Metadata Standards and Initiatives based on
Dublin Core,” Electron. J. e-Government, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2009.
[31] J. Rothenberg, I. Graafland-Essers, H. Kranenkamp, A. Lierens, C. van Oranje, and R. van
Schaik, “Designing a National Standard for Discovery Metadata- Improving Access to Digital
Information in the Dutch Government,” The Hague, 2004.
[32] M. N. Islam and J. K. Saha, “Country Paper on Household ICT Access and Individual ICT
Usage in Bangladesh,” in 9th World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Meeting (WTIM-11),
2011, no. November, pp. 7–9.
[33] Press Trust of India, “Government plans ATM-type kiosks for easy access to court
documents,” The Economic Times, 2014. [Online]. Available:
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-11-03/news/55720112_1_court-complexes-
justice-delivery-system-court-documents Accessed November 2014.
[34] Z. Hamin, M. B. Othman, and A. M. Mohamad, “Benefits and Achievements of ICT Adoption by
the High Courts of Malaysia,” in IEEE Symposium on Humanities, Science and Engineering
Research, 2012, vol. 2, no. 100, pp. 1233–1238.
[35] J. Rosa, C. Teixeira, and J. S. Pinto, “Risk factors in e-justice information systems,” Gov. Inf.
Q., vol. 30, no. June 2010, pp. 241–256, 2013.
[36] K. G. Casady, “Toolkit for Backlog Reduction – A Guideline for the Implementation of a Civil
Backlog Reduction Programme in the Dhaka,” UNDP JUST Project, Dhaka, 2013.

[37] The World Bank, “Judicial Training,” The World Bank Group, 2012. [Online]. Available:
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTLAWJUSTINST/0,,contentMDK:2
0756081~menuPK:2035840~pagePK:210058~piPK:210062~theSitePK:1974062,00.htm
accessed November 2014.
[38] N. C. for S. C. Institute for Court Management, “Catalog and Course Schedule- 2015,”
Williamsburg, Virginia, 2014.
[39] eCommittee of Supreme Court of India, “Policy and Action Plan Document- Phase II of the
eCourts Project,” Delhi, India, 2014.
[40] Council of the European Union, “Multiannual European e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018,”
http://www.statewatch.org/, Brussels, 2014.
[41] R. Susskind, “Strategies for successful e-Services in Courts : eFiling , eChambers & eCourts,”
in Australia eCourt Integration Project (AIJA Conference), 2005.
[42] Wikipedia, “Electronic Filing System (Singapore),” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, 2014.
[Online]. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Filing_System accessed November
2014.
[43] D. H. Hall and I. Keilitz, “Global Measures of Court Performance- Discussion Draft Version 3,”
International Framework for Court Excellence, 2012.
[44] L. Lepore, C. Metallo, and R. Agrifoglio, “Evaluating Court Performance : Findings From Two
Italian Courts,” Int. J. Court Adm., no. December, pp. 1–12, 2012.
[45] K. K. Mukherjee, O. Van Zyl, and T. Alexander, “eTransform Africa : Modernising Government
through ICTs (Transformation-Ready : The strategic application of ICTs in Africa),”
Johannesburg, 2012.
[46] Institute for Citizen-Centered Service, “Enhanced CMT Brochure,” Toronto, 2012.
[47] J. B. Pressly and E. Suhas, “PLM Systems: Document-centric or Data-centric?,” Sogeti Global
Engineering Services, 2013.
[48] The Economic Times, “IRCTC website to book 7,200 tickets per minute,” The Economic
Times, 2013. [Online]. Available: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-05-
27/news/39557183_1_irctc-website-tatkal-tickets-booking-capacity Accessed November 2014.
[49] eGovernment Unit in the Cabinet Office, “e-Government Metadata Standard Version 3.1,”
London, 2006.
[50] S. Zigiaris, “BUSINESS PROCESS RE-ENGINEERING - BPR,” EU, 2000.
[51] M. A. Karim, “Digital Bangladesh for Good Governance,” in Bangladesh Development Forum
2010, 2010, pp. 15–16.

Author
Kamal K Mukherjee
P-118, Second Floor
Scottish Castle
Uppal South End
Sohna Road
Gurgaon, India
Phone: +91 98104 86255 (Mobile)
Skype: kakeema
Email: kamalkmukherjee@yahoo.co.in; kamalkmukherjee2013@hotmail.com
Copyright UNDP 2015-2017

ETools For The Construction Industry Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ETools For The Construction Industry Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United Nations

e@sy JUSTICE 2021

The Core Tenets of Judicial Reform

ICT as an instrument of change

Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector i

The JUST project focuses on four areas:

The Current Exercise

As against embarking on piecemeal computerisation of different components of the

Challenges in the Current State

Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector ii

Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector iii

Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector iv

The Way Forward- eJustice Vision and Themes

Strategic Themes Brief Description Associated Goals

Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector v

Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector vi

Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector vii

Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector viii

eJustice Institutional Framework

Workplan and Budgets

Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector ix

Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector x

Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector xi

2. Current State Assessment and Gap Analysis .................................................... 7

3. Strategic Framework for ICT in Bangladesh Judiciary ..................................... 34

4. Implementation of the Strategic Plan ............................................................... 71

References ............................................................................................................. 131

Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector xii

Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector xiii

Change Drivers of Judicial Reform

Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector 1

Identifying performance problems in Indian Judiciary- Constitution Review Committee

Multi-dimensional Interventions for Judicial Reform

USER ACCESS TO JUSTICE

LEGAL/QUASI-LEGAL PROCEDURES AND PROCESSES

Figure 1 Multi-dimensional Interventions of the Judicial Reform Process

Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector 2

ICT in the Judiciary

1.1 Project Background

Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector 3

ICT to induce efficiency in Case Management and better Service Delivery

Table 1 ICT Activities in the Supreme Court of Bangladesh

Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector 4

1.2 Scope of the Strategy

Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector 5

Figure 3 A Phased Approach for ICT Adoption and eJustice

Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector 6

Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector 7

2.2 Principal Issues and Concerns in Bangladesh Judiciary

Concerns in Bangladesh Judiciary- Process Issues

Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector 8

The Classification System in Australia

The need for Process Re-engineering in Singapore Courts

Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector 9

3. LEGAL AND QUASI-LEGAL SUPPORT

4. CASE MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING

Backlog in Bangladesh Judiciary

Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector 10

Monitoring of new cases as an Integral Component of a comprehensive effort to reduce backlog

5. CLASSIFICATION AND TEMPLATISATION

As a manifestation of standardisation of information input at various stages of case management,

Template-based information entry into Singapore's eCourt system

Strategy for the adoption of ICT in Bangladesh Justice Sector 11