The Digital Divide and Access to Justice in India: Rethinking Equality in the Age of Technology

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic marked an unprecedented shift in the functioning of the Indian judiciary. Within weeks of the nationwide lockdown in March 2020, courts across India transitioned from physical hearings to virtual platforms, reshaping how justice was delivered. For some, this digital transformation was a welcome change, reducing travel costs and enabling faster hearings. For others, however, the transition exposed a stark reality: access to justice in India is deeply shaped by the digital divide.

This article argues that while technology has opened new avenues for justice delivery, it has also reinforced inequalities in access. The judiciary’s embrace of digital platforms highlights the need to rethink Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution in the context of the digital age.

The Promise of Technology in Justice Delivery

The Indian judiciary is notoriously overburdened, with more than 50 million cases pending as of 2024.^1 Virtual hearings promised efficiency. Lawyers from remote towns could appear before High Courts without the burden of travel. Litigants could monitor their cases online through e-courts and mobile applications.

In Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India,^2 the Supreme Court recognized live-streaming of cases as part of the right to access justice under Article 21. The Court observed that transparency is “the cornerstone of justice delivery” and technology is a facilitator of such transparency.

For many urban lawyers and litigants, technology indeed democratized access. A junior lawyer in Bangalore could argue a matter in the Delhi High Court without incurring huge expenses. Similarly, public interest cases during the pandemic, such as the Migrant Workers’ Case,^3 were heard urgently through video conferencing, ensuring timely relief.

The Digital Divide: A Structural Barrier

However, this optimism overlooks the ground reality. The digital divide in India is acute—only about 38% of Indian households have internet access, with rural penetration even lower.^4 Power cuts, poor bandwidth, and lack of devices further compound the problem.

In National Federation of the Blind v. UPSC,^5 the Supreme Court emphasized that equality of access includes accessibility for marginalized groups, such as persons with disabilities. By extension, a justice system that presupposes internet access excludes vast sections of the population, particularly rural litigants, women, and economically weaker sections.

Moreover, not all lawyers are equally placed. Senior advocates in metropolitan cities may argue seamlessly through high-speed connections, while junior lawyers in smaller towns struggle to log in. In effect, technology risks reinforcing the elitism already present in the legal profession.

Constitutional Dimensions

Article 14 and the Right to Equality
The principle of equality before law under Article 14 demands that similarly placed individuals have equal access to justice. The digital divide, however, means that two litigants in identical legal situations may face vastly different outcomes depending on their digital access. This violates substantive equality, as the Supreme Court has held in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu,^6 where equality was interpreted as a dynamic concept preventing arbitrariness.

Article 21 and the Right to Access Justice
The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 has been expansively interpreted to include the right to access justice.^7 In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar,^8 the Court held that access to legal remedies is part of the fundamental right to life. If justice is accessible only to those with digital resources, the constitutional promise of Article 21 remains hollow.

Judicial Responses

Recognizing these challenges, the Supreme Court has adopted a hybrid model of hearings, allowing both physical and virtual appearances. In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India,^9 the Court acknowledged that the internet is integral to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a). While this case dealt with internet shutdowns in Jammu and Kashmir, its reasoning is equally relevant to the justice system: denial of internet access undermines fundamental rights.

High Courts, too, have voiced concerns. The Kerala High Court, in P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala,^10 observed that virtual hearings are not a substitute for physical hearings, particularly in cases requiring detailed evidence. The Court stressed the need for gradual adoption with safeguards to ensure no litigant is disadvantaged.

Comparative Perspectives

India’s challenges are not unique. In the United States, courts rapidly moved online during the pandemic, but concerns arose about unequal access for indigent litigants.^11 South Africa, meanwhile, experimented with mobile courts in rural areas to bridge the gap.^12 These examples suggest that technology is not inherently exclusionary but must be accompanied by systemic safeguards.

A Human-Centered Approach to Digital Justice

Technology must be a tool for empowerment, not exclusion. To humanize the digital justice system, three measures are critical:

1. Digital Infrastructure in Rural Courts
   The government must invest in robust infrastructure, ensuring reliable internet, power backup, and digital kiosks in district courts. This echoes the recommendations of the e-Committee of the Supreme Court, which emphasized inclusivity in its Phase III vision document.^13
2. Capacity Building for Lawyers and Litigants
   Training programs for junior lawyers, legal aid clinics, and marginalized litigants are essential. Just as NALSA v. Union of India^14 expanded the horizon of legal aid for transgender persons, the digital era demands inclusive capacity building.
3. Hybrid Hearings as a Norm, Not an Exception
   Courts must adopt hybrid hearings to ensure that no litigant is forced to choose between digital and physical access. This model preserves the efficiencies of technology while accommodating those without resources.

Conclusion

The Indian judiciary stands at a crossroads. The pandemic has shown that technology can be transformative, but also exclusionary. The digital divide is not merely a technological issue—it is a constitutional concern that strikes at the heart of Articles 14 and 21.

If justice is to remain a constitutional promise and not a digital privilege, the state and judiciary must adopt a human-centered approach. The future of justice in India lies not in choosing between physical and digital courts, but in ensuring that every citizen—regardless of geography, income, or digital access—can claim the courthouse as their own.

Footnote(S):

1. National Judicial Data Grid, “Statistics,” NJDG (2024), https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in.
2. Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India, (2018) 10 SCC 639.
3. In Re: Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 6 of 2020.
4. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Indian Telecom Services Performance Indicators (2023).
5. National Federation of the Blind v. Union Public Service Commission, (1993) 2 SCC 411.
6. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3.
7. Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan, (2016) 8 SCC 509.
8. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81.
9. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637.
10. P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala, 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 1234.
11. Richard Susskind, Online Courts and the Future of Justice (Oxford Univ. Press 2019).
12. International Commission of Jurists, Access to Justice in the Age of Technology: South African Experience (2021).
13. Supreme Court e-Committee, Draft Vision Document Phase III of the e-Courts Project (2021).
14. National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438.