II. The Problem: Ad Hocism, Lock-In, and Skill Deficits

Current procurement practices across courts often suffer from legacy inefficiencies.

• Court IT committees lack procurement expertise, leading to weak RFPs or limited bargaining power.
• Absence of structured vendor evaluation, performance monitoring, or exit planning - little emphasis on technical quality or outcome delivery.
• In-house capacity remains underdeveloped, making courts dependent on external contractors even for minor fixes or upgrades.
• Procurement cycles are long and often disconnected from emerging needs or user pain points.

III. What Good Procurement Looks Like: Modern, Modular, Measurable

Drawing on Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) principles, and best practices from public procurement, the judiciary should adopt the following design principles:

1. Modular Architecture and Procurement
   
   It is advisable to break projects into discrete components (ex: case listing, e-notice, document management, VC integration). By procuring each component based on functionality, specialist vendors may contribute while maintaining interoperability. Further, courts benefit from easier upgrades, experimentation and better risk and cost control.
2. Standardised Supplier Selection Framework
   
   Use a structured multi-stage selection process: Longlist → shortlist → RFP → demo → evaluation.
   • Score vendors on technical capability, functional fit, security posture, delivery record, and legal compliance.
   • Use site visits, demos, and prior performance validation.

3. Lifecycle Contracting
   
   Build contracts with:
   • Clearly defined service-level agreements (SLAs);
   • Benefit-linked payment milestones;
   • Performance monitoring KPIs (bugs resolved, uptime, adoption, training delivered).

   Include maintenance, scalability, knowledge transfer, and exit provisions in all contracts. This ensures courts can transition between vendors without data loss or system collapse.

4. Outcome-Based Pricing and Delivery
   
   Move from unit-cost or time-based contracts to performance and output-based pricing.

   Examples: “20% reduction in registry backlog,” “judgment uploaded within 72 hours,” “system uptime above 99%”.

5. Empanelment with Competitive Pressure
   • Maintain a pre-qualified vendor pool at the central and High Court levels.
   • Ensure continuous onboarding of new players including startups, open-source communities, and DPI-compliant platforms.
   • Encourage multiple options for each functional category (ex: different scheduling or audio transcription providers).
6. Agile Procurement and Contracting
   
   Use procurement models that allow for iterative delivery, user feedback, and milestone-based payments (ex: agile sprints, limited pilots, sandboxing). This reduces risk and improves responsiveness.
7. Clear Governance Structures
   • Embed procurement and vendor management within a structured judicial IT framework, including:
     • Chief Technology Officers (CTOs) at High Courts;
     • Vendor Management Leads and Legal Reviewers;
     • Product Owners and Architects to translate domain needs into specifications.

   Include independent technical experts in bid evaluation and vendor selection, especially for projects involving AI, cybersecurity, architecture design, or data integration.

IV. Structuring Judicial Procurement Reform: Suggested Elements

To move towards more professional and strategic procurement, the following institutional measures are recommended:

These structures must be housed within the eCommittee and High Court IT Committees, supported by domain-specific advisors and public procurement consultants.

1. Dedicated Vendor Management Function
   
   Embedded within each High Court’s IT structure, this team will:
   • Draft and release RFPs;
   • Evaluate and negotiate with vendors;
   • Track service-level agreements and escalations;
   • Serve as the interface between vendors and domain users;
   • Lead legal and financial vetting with internal and external experts.

2. Procurement KPIs and Performance Metrics
   
   Procurement and vendor leads will be measured on:
   • % of contracts awarded on time and within budget;
   • Number of bugs/defects post-deployment;
   • System uptime and user satisfaction;
   • Timeliness of resolution of contract disputes or escalations.
3. Five-Step End-to-End Procurement Process
   1. Understand vendor landscape (technical offerings, past deployments).
   2. Draft technical and functional specifications tied to the architecture.
   3. Design and manage RFP process (queries, responses, evaluations).
   4. Negotiate with shortlisted vendors (aligned with strategy, risk appetite).
   5. Manage post-award delivery, vendor relationships, and transition plans.
   
4. Supplier Evaluation Framework
   
   Use weighted scoring across criteria like:
   • Technical capability (30–40%);
   • Financial strength and governance (20%);
   • Relevant client experience (20%);
   • Account management and adaptability (20%).

   This creates a transparent, auditable basis for decision-making, and guards against informal or misaligned vendor selection.

5. Strategic Negotiation Playbooks
   
   The model outlines how courts should:
   • Bundle procurement to get better master service agreement (MSA)-level deals;
   • Engage supplier leadership early to set expectations;
   • Develop internal negotiation teams;
   • Build outcome-linked contracts with clear exit provisions.
   

V. Case Studies: How Professionalised Procurement can work

1. Passport Seva Project (MEA + TCS): Structured as a public-private partnership, the MEA retained sovereignty over data and core services, while TCS provided customer service infrastructure and digital workflow tools.

   Lesson: A carefully scoped contract allowed MEA to focus on governance while outsourcing only operational functions.



2. UIDAI (Aadhaar): UIDAI’s modular architecture enabled multiple vendors to work on biometric enrolment, authentication APIs, security layers, and data infrastructure. All components adhered to strict data standards and were evaluated based on transparent KPIs.

   Lesson: Modular procurement, strict technical specifications, and performance tracking enabled a vast national platform without full vendor lock-in.



3. FASTag + NETC Ecosystem: Developed through interoperable procurement of hardware (RFID readers), back-end software, and bank integrations, the system worked because of open APIs and shared compliance frameworks.

   Lesson: Standardisation and certification mechanisms reduce vendor capture and enable multiple actors to contribute.

   
   
4. GeM (Government e-Marketplace): Created to reduce corruption and delay in public purchases, GeM enables transparent, competitive procurement and rating of vendors across public institutions.

   Lesson: A central platform can offer flexibility, choice, and accountability in public procurement while retaining adherence to rules.

VI. Why This Matters: Procurement Is Judicial Capacity

If procurement continues as a compliance-driven, lowest-cost exercise, judicial IT will remain brittle, siloed, and unresponsive. On the other hand, smart procurement enables courts to build adaptable, secure, and citizen-focused systems.

Professionalised vendor management and contracting allows courts to:

• Scale digital services faster, with lower failure risk.
• Respond to feedback and evolving user needs.
• Safeguard sensitive data while leveraging external expertise.
• Create competition and innovation in the legal tech ecosystem.
• Retain long-term control and upgradeability of systems.

In short, procurement is a public value decision, not just a financial or legal formality. Done well, vendor management enables resilience, innovation, and responsiveness, which are essential for the future of justice.

VII. Further Resources

1. Reinventing India’s procurement laws: a global perspective XKDR (2023). Uday, D.