On a recent Tuesday morning, a Bengaluru courtroom exemplified the seamless integration of technology in India’s judicial system. A witness provided testimony via a clear video link, while judges reviewed shared documents on connected screens. However, just 400 kilometers away in a Bihar district court, a similar hearing faced likely adjournment—not due to legal necessities but rather technical inadequacies like an unstable internet connection or a shared webcam being unavailable. Such experiences highlight the dual realities of India’s e-court system: a judiciary aspiring for digital transformation yet achieving it at inconsistent rates based on geographical location.
The foundation for this digital shift has been laid for nearly two decades. The Supreme Court of India’s e-Committee, in collaboration with the Department of Justice under the e-Courts Mission Mode Project, has been steering the judiciary through three phases of digitization. The Phase III vision document specifically emphasizes “access and inclusion,” aiming for a judiciary that functions uniformly, irrespective of location. Official statistics present an impressive picture: India is often cited as a leader in virtual hearings, having conducted millions of cases via video conferencing since 2020 with widespread court connectivity.
The COVID-19 pandemic served as a significant catalyst. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5 of 2020 mandated High Courts to establish rules for video conferencing to ensure court functions continued without risking health. While this order normalized virtual hearings more effectively than previous policy efforts, it also introduced structural disparities. Each High Court developed its own video-conferencing regulations, based on varying notions of “adequate infrastructure.” Some courts swiftly embraced virtual processes, whereas others limited them to temporary measures. Consequently, India now operates not a unified virtual court system, but 25 distinct and overlapping ones, each with differing expectations for litigants and lawyers.
This disparity extends beyond regulations to physical resources. Urban commercial and constitutional courts benefit from dedicated internet bandwidth, backup power, and trained technical staff. In contrast, lower courts, like taluka courts, often face challenges such as limited shared devices, unreliable electricity, and inadequate technical training for staff. These issues significantly impact litigants, especially those whose hearings depend on functioning video links for timely resolutions.
The e-Committee’s reports candidly acknowledge these gaps, providing state-wise data on virtual hearing implementation and performance disparities. An independent evaluation for Phase III outlines achievements alongside persistent challenges, including inconsistent connectivity and digital literacy among court staff, and infrastructure funding that fails to reach needy courts.
Constitutionally, this situation poses serious concerns. Article 21 guarantees equal access to justice, but current disparities mean that justice depends more on infrastructure than on the merits of a case. Virtual courts intended as equalizers risk becoming additional layers of inequality, exacerbating existing divides in access to justice.
Solutions are feasible and not prohibitively expensive. Firstly, infrastructure funding under Phase III should ensure basic standards for all court complexes, such as minimum bandwidth and backup power. Secondly, the e-Committee’s video-conferencing rules should become binding standards, with a public compliance dashboard. Thirdly, technical training for registry staff at lower courts is crucial to prevent technical issues from delaying justice. Lastly, bar associations should actively report infrastructure failures to maintain pressure on High Court administrations.
India possesses the vision, funding, and judicial intent to become a digital judiciary. However, the discipline to implement this vision across all courts remains lacking. Until this changes, the country will continue to experience two judicial realities: one fully digital and another waiting for resources to catch up.
Authors: Sarvesh JP, Project Associate at Bay of Bengal Programme Inter-Governmental Organisation; Deepanjana Saha, Doctoral Researcher at Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment.
