E-Courts

As noted in the challenges section of our Methodology, there is significant non-standardisation across the data on the E-Courts website. This non-standardisation is especially prominent across the fields tagged as “Act” and “Section”. The Act field lists the various Acts invoked in a case while the Section field lists the particular provision of the Act invoked against the accused. Read about the issues we faced due to the non - standardisation of data here.
Based on our experience, we make the following recommendations:
- At the input stage Section/Act should not be a free text box;
- Instead, it should be available as a drop-down list.
The benefit of such a system is that where an Act/Section, or part of it, is declared unconstitutional and void the list can be easily updated. This would serve to alert the person at the input stage of the __ of the provision and can inform the appropriate authority to ensure that the charge under such a provision is dismissed.

We completely support the use of vernacular language in district courts as it serves to improve the access to justice to all, overcoming one of the key barriers of language.
However, we suggest a higher degree of standardisation in the translation of judicial material. One possible solution is to create an official list of Act and Sections along with their regional translation. This will help ensure the accuracy of translation as well as improve standardisation of data on the E-courts platform.

As noted in the challenges section of our Methodology, only 19.8% of the disposed of cases have a judgement uploaded in the case file, as available via the E-courts website.
The eCourts project is monitored and funded by the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India.
We recommend that the Ministry of Law and Justice frame guidelines directing all District Courts to ensure the digital case system is kept up to date Further, the District Judges must monitor the compliance of the courts under their jurisdiction.