Delhi HC: Lawyers Face High Cost of Paid Legal Databases

• The Delhi High Court recently observed that most Indian lawyers cannot afford subscriptions to paid legal databases.
• Justices C Hari Shankar and Vinod Kumar highlighted that legal professionals heavily rely on free portals like Indian Kanoon for judgments.
• This observation was made during hearings for appeals filed by Indian Kanoon against a single-judge's 'right to be forgotten' decision.
• The Court stressed that access to free legal information is crucial for the livelihood of legal professionals, especially those outside commercial law or in smaller towns.
• Paid services such as Manupatra and SCC Online are often financially out of reach for a significant portion of the Indian legal community.

The Court articulated that a lawyer's ability to earn a living is directly dependent on their capacity to access and understand the law and relevant legal judgments.

The Delhi High Court recently underscored a significant challenge facing the Indian legal profession: the prohibitive cost of paid legal research platforms. A division bench, comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Vinod Kumar, observed that the vast majority of legal practitioners in the country cannot afford subscriptions to commercial legal databases, leading to a heavy reliance on free online resources.

This crucial observation emerged during the hearing of a series of appeals lodged by Indian Kanoon, a prominent free legal information portal. The appeals were filed in response to a single-judge's prior decision that recognized the 'right to be forgotten,' a legal principle allowing individuals to request the removal of certain personal information from public view. The Court's comments directly addressed the practical realities of legal research for a broad spectrum of lawyers across India.

The Court elaborated on the financial disparities within the legal community, noting that many lawyers, particularly those who do not specialize in commercial law, lack the means to subscribe to expensive legal databases such as Manupatra and SCC Online. These paid platforms typically offer unredacted versions of judgments, which remain inaccessible to a large segment of the profession due to cost barriers. In contrast, free legal research portals in India, like Indian Kanoon, provide an indispensable alternative.

Justice C Hari Shankar specifically highlighted the plight of lawyers practicing in smaller 'mufassil towns' or those appearing before lower courts like munsifs, judges of small causes, or in district courts such as Tis Hazari and Rohini, who handle 'small cases.' For these practitioners, who constitute a substantial portion of the legal profession, Indian Kanoon serves as their primary, if not sole, resource for accessing legal judgments and conducting essential research, effectively becoming their 'be all and end all' due to its free accessibility.

Beyond mere convenience, the Delhi High Court emphasized that access to judgments through free legal databases is intrinsically linked to the livelihood of legal professionals. The Court articulated that a lawyer's ability to earn a living is directly dependent on their capacity to access and understand the law and relevant legal judgments. Without such access, their professional effectiveness is severely hampered, effectively foreclosing their right to practice.

This judicial stance signals a recognition of the critical role free legal research portals play in ensuring access to justice and supporting the economic viability of a vast majority of lawyers in India. The Court's observation underscores the necessity of maintaining accessible, unhindered legal information for the continued functioning and fairness of the legal system, particularly in the context of evolving legal principles like the 'right to be forgotten' and its potential impact on the availability of public records.

This observation by the Delhi High Court signals a judicial recognition of the critical role free legal databases play in ensuring access to justice and supporting the livelihood of a vast majority of lawyers in India. Lawyers and compliance officers should monitor how this judicial stance influences future 'right to be forgotten' cases and policy discussions around the accessibility of legal information, potentially impacting the scope of redactions or removals from public legal records.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlets.