Examine how digitisation under the eCourts Mission Mode Project can address the problem of judicial pendency in India. What structural challenges remain?

Approved by the Union Cabinet in September 2023 as a Central Sector Scheme with a ₹7,210 crore outlay over four years, eCourts Phase-III seeks "digital, online and paperless courts" [2]. Digitisation can compress procedural delay, but pendency is rooted in structural deficits that technology alone cannot cure.

How digitisation addresses pendency

• Eliminates record-retrieval delay: Phase-III targets digitisation of legacy records; over 224 crore pages in High Courts and 354 crore pages in District & Subordinate Courts had been digitised by 30.09.2025, cutting adjournments caused by missing files [2].
• Reduces procedural steps: universal e-Filing and e-Payments, with 4,400 e-Sewa Kendras planned across court complexes, remove physical filing trips and defect-cure cycles [2].
• Saves hearing time: video conferencing for undertrials, jails and hospitals avoids failed productions and witness non-appearance — a major cause of criminal-case drift [2].
• Enables data-driven case management: the National Judicial Data Grid, built on eCourts data, lets Chief Justices track ageing cases and reallocate boards.
• Emerging technology: cloud repositories and AI/ML for scheduling, transcription and translation promise faster listing [2].
• Fiscal continuity: ₹1,200 crore for Phase-III in Union Budget 2026 sustains the rollout [1].

Structural challenges that remain

• Judge strength and vacancies: India's judge-population ratio remains low; software cannot dispose cases without judges.
• Physical infrastructure deficit: hence a parallel Centrally Sponsored Scheme with ₹810 crore in Budget 2026 for courtrooms and residential units — a Centre-state cost-shared effort dependent on state utilisation capacity [1].
• Non-fiscal causes: the Government notes disposal depends on case complexity, investigation quality, evidence and advocate conduct — not funding alone [1].
• Digital divide and capacity: uneven bandwidth and litigant/advocate digital literacy risk excluding rural users.
• Government as largest litigant; frequent adjournments persist despite the CPC cap.

Digitisation is a powerful enabler of Article 39A's promise of accessible justice and Article 21's guarantee of speedy trial, but it must be paired with timely judicial appointments, adequate courtrooms and litigation-policy reform. Sequenced with the e-Committee's institutional oversight [3], technology can convert judicial modernisation into genuine timeliness.