Justice Cannot Rely on Technology Alone

In every democracy, power must answer to purpose. India’s judiciary—one of our most vital constitutional pillars—carries immense responsibility while facing rising public expectations. Its authority is unquestioned; its moral standing is expected to be unblemished and deep. Yet the systems and structures around it now strain under the weight of a modern republic.

Digital tools continue to reshape court processes, but the pace at which cases move, and the clarity with which justice is delivered, depend on much more than new platforms or devices.

Justice must not only be done—it must be seen to move with integrity, discipline and purpose. India’s courts have embraced technological reform with seriousness, yet digital progress cannot bear the burden of a system still shaped by inherited mindsets, rigid attitudes and colonial-era conventions. Tools may widen access, but the credibility and pace of justice rest on the conduct and culture of the institutions that wield them. Administrative reform, therefore, becomes essential—not as interference, but as the means through which a constitutional pillar remains accountable to the nation it serves.

Procedural drift has long worn the disguise of convention. Delays have become familiar scenery, tolerated because they are old, not because they are acceptable. Adjournments slip easily into routine, and the absence of scrutiny allows inefficiencies to operate unchallenged. India today is not the India of the 1980s. Citizens expect institutions that match the velocity of their own lives.

A democracy cannot succeed when a pillar central to constitutional balance continues to rely on outdated administrative habits. Judicial independence must remain unassailable, and that very independence requires modern systems, contemporary practices and a culture that reflects the pace of a confident republic.

Checks, Not Criticism, Needed
Calls for improvement do not diminish judicial authority; they reinforce the conditions that allow that authority to thrive. The public trust invested in the judiciary is vast, and the institution carries its constitutional role with dignity. Judges work under significant pressure, grappling with growing caseloads and limited administrative support. Registries manage rising volumes while navigating long-standing procedural constraints. Lawyers operate within a complex environment shaped by both professional duty and commercial pressures.

These complexities do not signal institutional weakness. They reveal an ecosystem being asked to deliver far more than it was ever designed to handle. Strengthening the justice system is an act of respect—not opposition. Institutions that shape the rights, reputations and futures of citizens deserve robust infrastructure, clear administrative expectations and modern workflow systems.

Technology & Institutions
Virtual hearings, e-filing platforms, digital case repositories and AI-assisted research have already enhanced accessibility and resilience within the courts. Yet the speed of justice continues to be determined by habits rather than hardware.

 A court that receives filings online still loses time when scheduling is inconsistent. A registry equipped with advanced software gains little when administrative training lags behind. Hearings held on video platforms remain slow when adjournments continue without firm guardrails.

Digital adoption must be seen as one movement within a larger institutional orchestra. Discipline in hearings, consistency in scheduling, clarity in responsibilities and coherence across the value chain determine whether digital progress translates into public trust. When process and technology advance in tandem, justice becomes visible. When they diverge, even the most advanced platform remains unrealised potential.

Must Move as One
Courts rely on an entire ecosystem of professionals—clerks, registrars, administrative staff, system operators, case managers and lawyers. Justice falters when any link in this chain weakens, and it accelerates when the chain moves as one.

Court staff face demanding workloads without the modern tools or training needed to manage rising complexity. Lawyers contend with incentive structures that sometimes make adjournments easier than preparedness. Procedural layers accumulated over decades create friction even in straightforward matters. Small inconsistencies—whether in file movement, scheduling or compliance—slow the system far more than technology can speed it up.

This value chain stretches far beyond the courtroom and requires a culture free of informal influence, procedural opacity and the quiet frictions that everyone recognises but rarely confronts. Judicial authority is immense—so immense that most citizens, and many professionals, hesitate to question delays that extend across years and sometimes decades. When the disposal of a matter begins to resemble a favour rather than a right, justice risks drifting from democratic principle to discretionary benevolence.

Around this system, entrenched legal networks—powerful practitioners, dynastic chambers and closely interlocked circles of influence—shape access and opportunity. These realities do not diminish the judiciary; they illuminate the scale of reform needed across the ecosystem to ensure that justice retains not only moral gravitas but also modern standards of accountability.

Administrative Reform
India’s judiciary needs administrative reform with the seriousness of a national mission. This reform must target culture, structure and consequences—not merely convenience.

First, there must be performance metrics for judges and registries. How many cases were disposed? What timelines were maintained? What reasons exist for undue delay? These metrics must be published, audited and acted upon.

Second, inductions, promotions and training must be aligned with values of transparency, discipline and service. Judges cannot only be repositories of legal knowledge; they must also be competent administrators.

Third, the registry must be strengthened as a professional service arm of the judiciary, not a clerical labyrinth where files are held hostage to obscure internal processes.

Fourth, adjournments must be treated as exceptions, not entitlements. Incentives must shift decisively in favour of resolution rather than drift.

Fifth, the legal profession must be re-examined—its entry barriers, its monopoly structures, and its ethical governance. No meaningful judicial reform can occur if the legal bar itself remains resistant to change.

Sixth, transparency dashboards must be public: pending cases by judge, reasons for delay, average disposal time, and administrative compliance.

Seventh, the judiciary must recognise that modern democracies do not permit institutional aloofness. Public scrutiny is not a threat to independence; it is the lifeblood of it.

We possess a legal system, but can we yet claim to have a justice system? That distinction is earned only when the delivery of justice is time-bound, affordable and anchored in transparency. A system that citizens can access without fear, delay or disproportionate cost is the one that truly honours the promise of justice in a modern democracy.

The judiciary remains a constitutional sentinel—trusted, revered and irreplaceable. It anchors rights, interprets freedoms and balances power. Strengthening its administrative machinery honours that role. 

Citizens now seek clarity, predictability and fairness in the pace at which justice moves. A modern republic demands institutions that reflect its aspirations. A justice system aligned with modern administrative discipline reinforces both the dignity of the courts and the confidence of the nation.