Judicial Infrastructure And Courtroom Digitization, Viable Standards To Progressive Path Ahead

Digitization is an imperative in a country like India where traditional access to justice has been affected by increasing caseloads, and ever-rising demand. But merely applying templatized digital solutions may not be sufficient. To resolve mounting caseloads, procedural delays, and accessibility challenges, India needs a comprehensive reimagining of her judicial processes.

While the pandemic prompted the Indian legal fraternity to adopt digital techniques, recent cases indicate the need to better these services. Lessons on best practices adopted by developed economies offer some insights on a viable transformation journey.

Lessons From Developed Economies

Developed economies such as the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan have a framework with digitization. The United Kingdom's Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) Reform Programme focuses on user-centered design. The essential focus is on three aspects- an online claim system, digital case management platforms, and video hearing capabilities. Similarly, justice through service delivery systems in the United States has enabled electronic filing systems, case management databases, and virtual hearing platforms.

The road to a digital-first approach not only has similar benefits, but countries may encounter culture challenges. Japan's digitization should serve as lessons in overcoming roadblocks to adopting technology. In Japan, culture has been stated as a factor for late adoption of technology in the legal circuit. There clearly is a paradox – how could a country as innovative as Japan be a late entrant in large-scale technology adoption in the legal arena?

There are many reasons for this phenomenon. South east Asian super-powers such as China and Japan have historically relied on the Confucian philosophy of “mediation instead of litigation”. Japan, which has been renowned for innovations such as Radio, Smart-phones, Camera equipment, and semiconductor innovations, only recently turned to digital techniques in legal setup. To a great degree, and as early as 2022, civil cases in Japan were still reliant on paper-based techniques which added cost and complexity. Culturally, the Japanese legal fraternity preferred traditional methods such as facsimile, and paper than digital techniques.

In 2025, Akihiro Hironaka, Nishimura & Asahi, argues in a paper, that unlike Hong Kong or Singapore, where litigations were considered common, Japan's civil procedure system was litigation-averse. Another study indicated that litigation was a time-consuming and expensive affair in Japan. Giorgio Fabio Colombo and Hiroshi Shimizu, argued in a paper published on Oxford University's Comparative Law Forum that between 2006 to 2010 it took 360 days (as opposed to the OECD average of 539 days) for a litigation to move from procedure to final enforcement. Litigations were also a costly proposition considering that a procedure itself could cost 32.2% of the claimed amount for a litigant.

For India, these case studies indicate that there is a vast potential to leverage digital infrastructure in addressing chronic issues such as case backlogs, procedural delays, or limited access to justice. However, we need something structurally far stronger than just a digital push. Take for instance, digital payments in the banking sector. Today, QR codes, retail and even cross-border payments are considered to be simple interfaces. But such a simplicity has been the handiwork of countless back-end technological interventions, assistance from countless entities, and continual regulatory hand-holding.

Good Legal Framework is more than just a Tech-Stack

The Indian legal framework has witnessed digital push. A foundational policy framework that has provided strategic direction is the eCourts Project, conceptualized in 2005 by the eCommittee, Supreme Court of India. Currently, the project is in Phase III emphasizing "access and inclusion." Post the pandemic, litigants have experienced features such as digital dashboards, and virtual legal hearings. The legal scenario is yet to see seamless interoperability as experienced in India's payments landscape - interoperability of how funds can be moved between different banks, insurance companies, NBFCs, retailers etc.

A greater challenge is in tackling silos. For example, cases discussed at the NCLT may have a different window and data structure than a case discussed by a CBIC or a GST commission. Indeed, variances will arise as cases vary, however corporate practitioners often rue about the lack of a single unified view for legal compliance. Also missing is a dedicated case management system which can inform senior judges and counsels on a particular case.

The idea of a single unified legal structure, perhaps a single dashboard, is empowering to billions of citizens who perceive legal structure as inaccessible. Former Chief Justice Of India Sharad Bobde remarked in 2019 that only 0.5% of our population had access to a legal remedy. A simple yet unified technology stack or a website that integrates multiple government departments, state departments, and Union Territories could be wishful thinking.

However, such an interface could resolve the accessibility barriers for litigants. A simple system one that operates as easily as a UPI transaction for users with limited digital literacy could spur legal inclusion. Such a digitization process could ensure access to justice for economically disadvantaged and even technologically inexperienced individuals. This requires parallel investment in digital literacy programs and alternative access mechanisms.

A wishful thinking on single platforms could also be evangelized for case management systems. Such systems could streamline case tracking, document management, and scheduling processes, reducing administrative burdens and improving efficiency. These systems by nature could focus on cybersecurity, which currently requires specialized attention as it handles sensitive personal and legal information.

While courtroom digitization and infrastructure modernization should be taken on a mission-critical mode, it should also be a sustainable one. That, because digitization requires calibrated investment in judicial capacity-building and uniform standards across courts. India's e-Courts Mission Mode Project provides a foundation for judicial transformation, but the structure needs to be remodelled factoring into ground-realities. Doing so would ensure that technological upgrade is not just a facelift but a fundamental reimagining of justice delivery.

Author: Akshat Khetan Founder At AU Corporate Advisory and Legal Services (Twitter @akshat_khetan). Views are personal.