The government’s ambitious Phase III of its eCourts project has made rapid strides but the four-year central sector scheme, authorised in September 2023, is facing critical bottlenecks as well, leading to delays in the delivery of justice and increasing the pendency of lawsuits across courts.
Consider this: As per the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), nearly 53 million cases were pending across all courts as of July 2025, with the figure continuing to rise. And given the current rate of case disposal, it would take over 300 years to clear this backlog, experts warn.
Phase III has a budget of Rs 7,210 crore for the years 2023 to 2027. This phase emphasises digitisation of over 310 million documents, cloud infrastructure, virtual courts, eSewa Kendras, video conferencing, and extensive IT hardware and software upgrades — all aimed at transforming the judiciary into a seamless, paperless, and more accessible institution.
Technology vs. Procedural hurdles in justice delivery
Anand Desai, managing partner of DSK Legal, says: despite these transformative efforts, procedural matters consume a disproportionate share of judicial resources. According to the Centre for Social and Economic Progress Discussion Note-12 (2022), procedural matters — including routine administration, adjournments, and jurisdictional disputes — account for 45% to 55% of court time, sharply limiting the courts’ ability to focus on substantive adjudication. “This inefficiency underscores the urgent need to go beyond mere digitisation to streamline case management comprehensively,” he says.
Citing the undisputed success of two other government initiatives namely: the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP), which has succeeded in removing the unique geographical and jurisdictional challenges inherent in addressing crimes committed online, and the Income Tax Department’s Faceless Assessment Scheme which has revolutionised tax adjudication by removing direct interface between taxpayers and assessing officers, Desai observes, “These initiatives demonstrate the promising impact of technology and systemic reform in related domains.
”Justice Dhananjay Chandrachud, former CJI who is credited with putting implementation of the eCourts Phase III project on the fast track, however, is of the opinion that pendency of cases has increased because of the corresponding increase in the country’s population. He also goes on to add that given the sheer size of the Indian judicial system and the fact that technology and AI adoption come with their own set of challenges. “We have to customise solutions tailored to our specific requirements for the simple reason that technology is and can be a gamechanger.
”The verdict among the judicial and legal fraternity is unanimous too. Technology can — and should — be applied to judicial case management to significantly reduce non-substantive judicial time. Prompt-based electronic filing of cases in civil and criminal courts and tribunals, with detailed digital records encompassing party information, relevant dates and events, submissions, and reliefs sought, can facilitate intelligent sorting and allocation. This can ensure that cases are referred directly to the appropriate court and tribunal, including specialised benches at the outset, thereby minimising jurisdictional disputes.
Digital divide and other critical bottlenecks
Further, digitised retention and upload of orders and judgments enable swift communication with parties and seamless progression of appeals. “Removing geographical boundary constraints for case assignment would be transformative. Cases could then be allocated based on backlog levels and judicial capacity anywhere in the country, ensuring optimal utilisation of judicial resources and speeding up case resolution,” maintains Desai.
Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, former Chief Justice of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court feels that the Indian judiciary is not yet ready for adoption of technology because “many judges and legal professionals lack technical understanding of how AI works, making them vulnerable to misuse or overreliance on AI outputs,” he cautions. Further without adequate security tools in place, Magrey expresses concern that “integrating AI without proper encryption or checks or policies could lead to data breaches or leaks” as the jury deals with highly sensitive data and information.
Topmost among other challenges is lack of basic infrastructure such as unequal access to internet, devices, and digital literacy which differ from state to state particularly in rural areas. Courts in remote/rural areas may lack stable power, high-speed internet, or trained staff. Even with WAN connectivity established, maintaining consistency is tough.While e-Sewa Kendras aim to bridge this gap, some states are yet to implement them fully. The digital divide across litigants is also a stumbling block to optimum utilisation of the eCourts project. Even with e-Sewa Kendras, litigants who are illiterate, with no digital familiarity, or with limited access to devices/internet may get left behind.
Another major drawback is the legacy data and interoperability issues. Variations in case data quality, classification, and incomplete legacy records can limit AI analytics. Domain experts stress the importance of ensuring interoperability platforms across states and courts. “Add to that process misalignment and constant legal updates and you have a Herculean task on your hands,” says a senior jurist. Anshul Vikram Pandey, founder of Nyaay AI, a judicial platform for the Indian judiciary recalls, “When we went deep into the Indian judicial ecosystem, we realised that many of the hardest, most practical problems are not even on the radar of global legal AI platforms.
The Indian courts have very unique bottlenecks and solving them requires building systems bottom-up, not simply repackaging generic GenAI tools.”Going forward, legal eagles suggest that even after initial roll-out, hardware/software maintenance, upgrades, backups, costs etc. need budget and capacity. Also, cloud migration comes with ongoing costs. In addition, some court proceedings or documents may legally require physical presence, notarisation, or use of papers. “Overcoming these legal procedural constraints may require legislative / policy reforms,” Pandey says.