Do We Need Digital Courts for the Digital Generation

Abstract

The twenty-first century has been marked by a digital revolution that has converted the way individualities, institutions, and governments interact. Courts, as the guardians of justice, ca n’t remain untouched by this transformation.

The digital generation comprising millennials and Gen-Z seeks availability, effectiveness, and translucency in every aspect of life, including legal requital. This composition explores the need for digital courts in the contemporary period with a focus on access to justice, the emergence of mongrel courts, online dispute resolution( ODR), and the growing influence of legal technology. Through an analysis of statutory fabrics, judicial pronouncements, relative perspectives, and recent reforms, this composition examines the challenges and openings in digitising the justice system. It argues that while digital courts are essential for icing timely and indifferent access to justice, they must be accompanied by robust structure, data security measures, and inclusivity to avoid heightening the digital peak. The paper concludes with suggestions for a phased, inclusive, and technologically sound integration of digital courts into the Indian justice system and beyond.

1. Introduction

Courts have historically represented solemnity, authority, and tradition. Yet, the epidemic accelerated the need for courts to transcend physical boundaries and acclimatize to digital fabrics. The question — do we need digital courts for the digital generation is not simply technological but deeply indigenous, entwining the right to pierce justice under Ar.21^[1] of the Indian Constitution. The digital generation demands quickness and convenience, frequently frustrated by the traditional system’s backlog, procedural complications, and detainments. This article examines the intersection of law and technology, with particular emphasis on access to justice, hybrid courts, ODR(Online Dispute Resolution), and legal tech. It argues that digital courts are not just desirable but indispensable in a society where the rule of law must keep pace with rapid socio-technological change.

2. Research Methodology

This article adopts a doctrinal and analytical research methodology. Primary sources include Indigenous vittles, statutory enactments, and judicial pronouncements, while secondary sources include scholarly papers, government reports, and transnational relative fabrics. The analysis is both normative and critical, examining being practised while suggesting a way forward.

3. Definition and Meaning

The conception of digital courts represents a significant metamorphosis in the administration of justice, moving beyond traditional slipup and mortar courtrooms into a technology- enabled ecosystem. At its core, a digital court is n’t simply a court that uses computers, but one where the entire judicial process from filing to adjudication and delivery of judgment is managed electronically. This includes e-filing of suppliances, digital case operation systems, online sounds through videotape conferencing, and the digitization of judgments and records for future reference.

It’s material to distinguish between e-Courts, Online disagreement Resolution( ODR) mechanisms, and full digital courts. E-Courts are conventional courts that use digital tools to grease certain processes, similar as e-filing, e-summons, and online cause lists, while still performing within the frame of physical sounds. ODR, on the other hand, represents a broader diapason of indispensable disagreement resolution, where parties resolve conflicts outside of traditional courtrooms using technology- enabled platforms, frequently with the aid of intercessors or judges. In discrepancy, a digital court is envisaged as a holistic system where all stages of adjudication — from institution of the case to enforcement of the decision — are conducted electronically, thereby minimizing physical reliance on paper grounded or in- person procedures

4. Historical Development

The evolution of the judiciary, towards digital courts in India and abroad has been gradual, shaped by technological advancements and judicial reforms. In India, the early stages of computerisation of the bar began in the 1990s,  fastening substantially on digitizing case records and beget lists.

A structured reform was introduced through the E-Courts Mission Mode Project,^[2]  enforced in phases by the Government of India in collaboration with the Supreme Court’s e-Committee.

• Phase I( 2007 – 2015) concentrated on  introductory computerisation of  quarter and inferior courts, including  tackle installation, case information software, and digitization of cause lists.  
• Phase II( 2015 – 2023) Expanded the compass to include e-filing,e-payment, National Judicial Data Grid( NJDG), and lesser integration of technology for case  shadowing and monitoring. 
• Phase III( 2023 onwards) presently underway, emphasizes a digital ecosystem of justice,  icing paperless courts, interoperability between systems, and the use of artificial intelligence for legal  exploration,  restatement, and case    

Extensively, multiple  authorities have experimented with digitization. The United Kingdom has piloted Online Courts, particularly in civil and small claims matters, where parties can submit documents and admit judgments online. Singapore’s Smart Courts action integrates AI, digital dashboards, and prophetic  tools for effective case  operation. China’s Internet Courts, established in Hangzhou( 2017), Beijing, and Guangzhou, have gone a step further by enabling  controversies involving e-commerce, intellectual property, and online deals to be resolved entirely online, indeed employing AI judges for procedural matters. These relative  tests give precious assignments for India in developing a robust model of digital courts.

5. Objectives of Digital Courts

•  Availability   

Digital courts aim to homogenize access to justice by enabling petitioners to approach courts without the need for physical presence. For  individuals in remote areas, digital  sounds reduce the burden of  trip, while e-filing systems  give inflexibility to submit  suppliances at any time. Availability also extends to persons with disabilities, for whom digital tools like screen  compendiums , recap, and language  restatement can  ensure inclusivity. 

• Translucency

Technology promotes  translucency by reducing  compass for  mortal discretion in routine processes. Digitized case  operation systems and platforms  similar as the National Judicial Data Grid allow petitioners and the public to cover case status, orders, and pendency rates. Open access to judgments and digital records minimizes  nebulosity and fosters responsibility within the judicial system.

• Competence

 The use of digital tools streamlines procedures and reduces procedural detainments that have historically  agonized the Indian system. Automated workflows, time- stamping of forms, and real- time updates  ensure  brisk disposal of cases. Video tape conferencing facilitates  hastily examination of  substantiations, especially those located abroad, while digital records  exclude duplication and loss of  lines. 

• Cost- effectiveness   

By reducing reliance on physical  structure, paper, and  trip, digital courts  mainly cut action costs. Petitioners save on charges associated with frequent court visits, while the bar benefits from lower  executive costs. In the long term, digital courts  give a sustainable and cost-effective model for handling India’s enormous case backlog.

          6.The Need for Digital Courts in the Digital Generation

The transfiguration of society in the 21st century has been defined by the rapid-fire penetration of technology into every aspect of human existence. From banking and commerce to education and healthcare, digital results have reshaped prospects of speed, effectiveness, and availability. Against this backdrop, the judiciary cannot remain sheathe from change. The case for digital courts is not only about technological rebuilding but also about responding to demographic shifts, addressing systemic backlogs, aligning with broader digital transformation, and expanding access to justice. 

• Changing Demographics

The rise of millennials and Gen-Z as the dominant demographic groups has created a new demand pattern for public services. These generations are the utmost tech- expertise in history, having grown up with the internet, smartphones, and digital platforms as their primary means of commerce. For them, speed, translucency, and convenience are n’t luxuries but introductory prospects. Just as they bank, shop, and learn online, they decreasingly anticipate the justice system to deliver the same position of availability and effectiveness. A justice system reliant on homemade forms, physical sounds, and paper- grounded processes appears out of sync with the requirements of a digital-first population. Digital courts, with features like e-filing, online sounds, and electronic delivery of judgments, offer a pathway to align judicial processes with the realities of the digital generation.

• Increasing Case Pendency

Maybe the most crucial reason for acquiring digital courts is the intimidating position of case pendency in India. As of 2025, further than 5 crore cases remain pending across different courts. This backlog undermines not only the effectiveness of the legal system but also the veritable principle of timely justice elevated in the Constitution. Traditional styles of case disposal are simply shy to meet the scale of the problem. Digital courts can help reduce detainments through better case operation systems, robotization of routine tasks, and remote sounds that save time and coffers. For case, digital form systems can reduce procedural detainments, while AI- supported tools can help in scheduling cases, relating backups, and indeed furnishing exploration backing to judges. By streamlining processes and reducing inefficiencies, digital courts can play a transformative part in diving pendency.

7. Legal Framework

• Constitutional Mandate for Access to Justice

Access to justice has been recognized as a fundamental right under Ar 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar^[3]emphasized speedy trial as part of the right to life. Digital courts, by reducing delays, directly advance this constitutional guarantee.

In Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan, (2016) ^[4]The Supreme Court explicitly recognized access to justice as a fundamental right, encompassing not just physical access to courts but also affordability, efficiency, and fairness. The case laid the constitutional foundation for exploring digital justice as part of access to justice.

• Legislative Provisions

The statutory framework in India provides strong support for the digitization of courts and judicial processes. The IT Act, 2000 ^[5]laid the foundation by giving legal recognition to electronic records and digital signs, thereby enabling the use of technology in official and legal functions. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 ^[6]further strengthened this shift by mandating electronic case management and digitization of procedures for efficiency in handling commercial grievances. Similarly, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023,^[7] through Sec 65B, permits the admissibility of electronic records as evidence, thus integrating digital proof into traditional evidentiary rules. Procedural laws have also evolved to accommodate digitization: the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ^[8]has been amended to allow e-filing of pleadings and electronic service of summons, while Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 has incorporated amendments and judicial directives that recognize the use of video conferencing for recording evidence and conducting hearings. Complementing these statutory measures, the E-Courts Mission Mode Project has been launched as a multi-phase initiative aimed at computerization of courts, digitization of records, and facilitation of e-filing, thereby promoting transparency, accessibility, and efficiency in the justice delivery system.

• International Frameworks

 The digitalization of commerce and justice has pushed policymakers worldwide to establish common  norms that make online systems  dependable, fair, and effective. At the global  position, the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce( 1996) plays a  crucial  part by giving electronic contracts, dispatches, and autographs the same legal weight as paper- grounded deals. This helps businesses and consumers trade confidently across borders. structure on this, the UNCITRAL Technical Notes on Online disagreement Resolution( 2016)  ^[9]give practical guidance on how online systems can resolve  controversies, particularly incross-border consumer and low- value cases where traditional court processes may be too slow or  precious.  At the indigenous  position, the Council of Europe Guidelines on Cyberjustice( 2016) ^[10]set out principles for using technology in justice systems. They stress that  invention must go hand in hand with availability,  translucency, and protection of abecedarian rights. These guidelines encourage governments to introduce digital tools  similar to electronic form, case  operation, and indeed AI-  supported support in ways that ameliorate  effectiveness without undermining fairness or trust in the justice system.  Comparing  public approaches highlights how countries are  rephrasing these  norms into practice. The United Kingdom has piloted online courts for small claims and consumer  controversies, aiming to make justice  briskly and less  expensive. The United States, without a single  public policy, has  relied on both private ODR platforms( like those used by eBay and PayPal) and state position court trials to expand access. Singapore has taken a government led approach, bedding ODR into both its court system and transnational arbitration frame, situating itself as a global  mecca for digital  disagreement resolution. China has gone further by establishing technical internet courts where the entire process — form,  sounds, and indeed judgment — is handled online,  frequently supported by blockchain and AI tools. Taken together, these developments show a global trend governments and institutions are aligning  transnational  norms with  public  inventions. While the approaches differ, some prioritize adjustment and  mortal rights, others  concentrate on  effectiveness and technological leadership all aim to  make digital legal systems that can support the realities of a  fleetly growing online frugality.

• Legal Hermeneutics

The Judicial System has shown openness towards digitization. In Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India,^[11] The Court allowed live-streaming of proceedings, recognizing transparency as a constitutional value. During the COVID-19 , the Apex Court invoked its powers under Art 142 of the constitution to facilitate virtual hearings across the country.^[12] These initiatives reveal an acknowledgment of the need to balance tradition with innovation.

In State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai, (2003) ^[13]The Court upheld the validity of recording evidence through video conferencing, thus legitimizing remote procedures. This case set an early precedent for digital hearings.

However,the courts have also identified shortcomings. In National Federation of the Blind v. UPSC,^[14] The Court stressed inclusivity, cautioning that digitization must not exclude marginalized groups such as the visually impaired.

8. Critical Analysis

• Access to Justice in the Digital Era

 Digital courts enhance access by prostrating geographical and fiscal walls. Petitioners in remote areas can file cases online, reducing trip costs and procedural hurdles. Yet, unstable access to digital structure may consolidate the justice peak, creating an incongruity where technology both enables and excludes.

• Hybrid Courts

The Middle Path mongrel courts, combining physical and virtual sounds, present a realistic result. They allow inflexibility: routine or procedural matters may be conducted online, while complex trials taking substantiation examination may remain in physical courts. The Delhi High Court’s mongrel model during the epidemic exemplifies this balanced approach.

• Online Dispute Resolution (ODR)

ODR platforms offer an efficient course of action to traditional litigation, particularly for commercial disputes and consumer damages. Platforms like Sama and CADRE in India illustrate how ODR can decongest courts and empower individuals. However, issues of enforceability, standardization, and confidentiality remain unresolved. The NITI Aayog Report (2020) recommended ODR for commercial and consumer disputes. However, enforceability and standardization remain challenges, especially under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996^[15].

➔ Legal Tech and the Profession

AI tools like SUVAAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software) for translation and SUVAS for transcription reflect how technology is entering judicial work. Predictive analytics, smart contracts, and blockchain-based evidence management promise efficiency. Yet, they raise concerns about algorithmic bias, privacy, and accountability. Ethical guidelines and statutory safeguards are critical.^[16]

9. Challenges to Digital Courts

Despite the  indigenous and legislative strides made in favour of digitising the judicial process, several significant challenges persist, calling for  conservative appraisal.

First, the digital peak remains a structural  handicap for large  parts of the population — especially in  pastoral or economically weaker regions — warrant  dependable internet access and the  needful digital  bias or digital  knowledge to meaningfully engage withe-filing, virtual  sounds, ore-service. This undermines access to justice in regions where  structure and socio- profitable conditions don’t support digital participation.

 Alternately, cybersecurity  enterprises are acute; with digital platforms storing sensitive judicial and  particular data,  pitfalls of unauthorized access, hacking, data breaches, or tampering with electronic  substantiation pose a real  trouble to both procedural fairness and public confidence. Without robust  norms of data protection, encryption, auditing, and secure  storage, the integrity of digitized systems remains vulnerable.

Third,  sequestration emerges as a  indigenous value under pressure. The Supreme Court in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union of India (2017) ^[17]held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Any digitization trouble that involves large- scale collection, storehouse or dispersion of particular judicial records, videotape recordings, or digital sounds must be harmonious with the principles of legitimacy, necessity, and proportionality as linked in Puttaswamy.

Fourth, there exists resistance within the legal fraternity. Numerous judges and attorneys may be reluctant to borrow digital processes due to artistic indolence, lack of training, fear of specialized failure, or enterprises about loss of traditional solemnity. Scholarly analyses indicate that procedural reforms are frequently undermined where there’s inadequate capacity structure or disinclination to depart from established morals.

Fifth, structure gaps continue to hinder perpetration. Poor power force, unreliable internet connectivity in remote courts, lack of performing tackle/ software, and shy specialized support in pastoral authorities oppressively limit the effectiveness of digital court results. Without invariant infrastructural norms, digitization pitfalls are patchy and inequitable.

Eventually, questions about the quality of justice arise. Digital courts might weaken the perceived solemnity of proceedings; substantiation evidence conducted via videotape conferencing may suffer issues of credibility,non-verbal cues,cross-examination limitations or specialized glitches.Moreover, the jurisprudence on admissibility of electronic evidence (particularly the requirement under Section 65B of the Evidence Act) emphasises stringent certification to ensure authenticity and reliability.

 For instance, in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014)^[18]The Supreme Court held that secondary evidence by way of electronic record must satisfy all conditions under Section 65B including a certificate under Section 65B(4), failing which the evidence is inadmissible. Similarly, in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020)^[19]The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a Section 65B certificate is a condition precedent for admissibility of electronic records, although clarifying that when the original electronic document is produced, the certificate may not be required.

10. Recent Developments

The pandemic acted as a catalyst for digitization. The Supreme Court’s e-filing portal, virtual courtrooms, and AI-assisted transcription tools like SUVAAS and SUVAS mark significant strides. Government initiatives under Phase III of the e-Courts Project seek to introduce cloud-based infrastructure and digital case management.^[20]

Internationally, authorities like the United Kingdom have launched the “ Online Court ” for small claims, while China has established technical Internet Courts to deal withe-commerce controversies. These global trends give precious perceptivity for India.

11. Suggestions Way Forward
12. Bridging the Digital Divide structure development in pastoral areas is essential to help rejection.
13. Phased perpetration begins with mongrel models and gradually transitions to completely digital courts for select cases.
14. Data Security and sequestration legislate strict fabrics to cover sensitive judicial data from breaches.
15. Judicial Training Regular training for judges and attorneys in digital knowledge will smoothen the transition.
16. Inclusive Design ensures platforms are accessible to persons with disabilities and linguistically different populations.
17. Legislative Reforms legislate laws specifically governing digital sounds, online substantiation, and ODR enforcement.

Conclusion

Digital courts aren’t a futuristic aspiration but a indigenous necessity for icing access to justice in the digital age. They can reduce pendency, enhance translucency, and homogenize access. Yet, their success depends on inclusivity, technological soundness, and institutional commitment. The digital generation deserves a justice system that glasses their realities — nippy, effective, and transparent. The way forward lies not in replacing traditional courts but in evolving a mongrel, technology- driven ecosystem that safeguards both tradition and progress.

REFERENCE(S):

1. https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/HUSSAINARA-KHATOON-V-Home-Secretary-STATE-OF-BIHAR
2. EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE(CEPEJ)Guidelines on how to drive change towards Cyberjustice https://rm.coe.int/16807482de
3. Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India, e-Courts Mission Mode Project, available at https://ecourts.gov.in.
4. European Union, e-Justice Portal, available at https://e-justice.europa.eu.
5. Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India, (2018) 10 SCC 639.
6. National Federation of the Blind v. Union Public Service Commission, (1993) 2 SCC 411.
7. NITI Aayog, Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India (2020).
8. Richard Susskind, Tomorrow’s Lawyers: An Introduction to Your Future (2019).
9. Department of Justice, Government of India, e-Courts Project Phase III Vision Document (2021).
10. https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/ecommerce/modellaw/electronic_commerce

^[1] Article 21 of Indian Constitution

^[2] E-Courts Mission Mode Project

^[3] HUSSAINARA KHATOON V Home Secretary , STATE OF …

^[4] Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan, (2016) 8 SCC 509

^[5] Information Technology Act,2000

^[6] The Commercial Courts Act, 2015

^[7] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

^[8] The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

^[9] UNCITRAL Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution

^[10] EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE(CEPEJ)Guidelines on how to drive change towards Cyberjustice  https://rm.coe.int/16807482de

^[11] Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India, (2018) 10 SCC 639.

^[12] Re: Guidelines for Court Functioning through Video Conferencing, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 343

^[13] State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai, (2003) 4 SCC 601

^[14] National Federation of the Blind v. Union Public Service Commission, (1993) 2 SCC 411.

^[15] NITI Aayog, Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India (2020)

^[16] Richard Susskind, Tomorrow’s Lawyers: An Introduction to Your Future (2019).

^[17] Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union of India (2017) is (2017) 10 SCC 1, AIR 2017 SC 4161

^[18] Anvar PV v. PK Basheer & Ors (2014 10 SCC 473)

^[19] Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020)

^[20] Richard Susskind, Tomorrow’s Lawyers: An Introduction to Your Future (2019).