[01] Ratnesh Kumar Tiwari, School of Law, Justice, and Governance, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida, India. [02] Aman Singh, School of Law, Justice, and Governance, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida, India.

“Justice delayed is justice denied.” But the Indian judiciary is infested with recurrent. Judiciary plays a very important role to deliver justice in any country but if we talk about the judicial system in India then the condition of the judiciary is terrible because in India there are 25 High Courts and many district courts but due to the massive population, a high number of cases are pending in the Indian courts right from the lower court to the Apex court. Because if we see, the Indian court system then we find that all the work is done manually and there is the least use of technology in the court. If we talk about the data then there are three million cases are pending in Indian courts and also 26.3 million cases are pending in lower courts across the country and it is also the lack of the judges.“14.7 judges available to per million people” [1] so that’s why the number of cases increased day by day and it is a burden on our judicial system. And that’s why the cost and inefficiency dealing with the records has up slowly over time and it’s time to think about the technology to bring something new because if we see the efforts of the other agencies like police, jails, accused, witness, pieces of evidence, etc. to bring in the courtroom is very costly and too risky. So, in Indian judiciary is on the use of technology so that manage the case proceeding in the use of the electronic format and this gives a new invention or new idea to the Indian judiciary.

Judiciary, Information Technology, Artificial Intelligence, Video Conferencing

[01] Rishi Prakash, T. Mohanty, Ramji Gupta, and Vinay Jain, “ICT in Indian Court Challenges & Solution,” in International Journal of Internet Computing (IJIC), vol. 1, no. 2, 2011. [02] Rishi Prakash, T. Mohanty, Ramji Gupta & Vinay Jain (2011). ICT in Indian Court Challenges & Solution. International Journal of Internet Computing (IJIC), ISSN No: 2231 – 6965, Volume-1, Issue-2, 2011. [03] http://interscience.in/IJIC_Vol1Iss2/paper4.pdf. [04] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/out-of-43-lakh-cases-pending-in-high-courts-over-8-lakh-a-decade-old/articleshow/69974916.cms?from=. [05] Sen A (1988) Laxman Sahu vs State of Orissa. AIR 1988 SC 83. [06] Chauhan B (2011) State of M. P vs Ramesh And Anr. [07] Bhandari D (2010) Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab &Anr. [08] Upadhyay, M. H. 2015. “E-Courts in India and E-Judiciary in India,” International Multidisciplinary Research Journal (7637: 7), pp. 2–5. [09] www.financialexpress.com/india-news/big-push-for-digital-courts-in-india-here-is-what-modi-governmentis doing/1134289/ [10] Bravy, J.; Gary J. and Feather, K. C. (2001). The impact of electronic access on basic library services: one academic law library’s experience. Law Library Journal, 93 (2): 261, 267. [11] https://vikaspedia.in/e-governance/online-legal-services/how-do-i-do. [12] Quoted in, Justice R. B. Mehrotra, “Court Management”, J.T.R.I. Journal, First Year, Issue 3, July – September 1995. [13] https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2020/mar/16/judiciary-to-soon-get-digital-justice-platform-2117173.html. [14] Robinson, Nick, Judicial Architecture and Capacity (October 4, 2014). The Oxford Handbook of Indian Constitutional Law (Sujit Choudhry, Madhav Khosla & Pratap Mehta eds., 2016, Forthcoming). [15] Minutes of Meeting held on 21 July 2017 under Chairmanship of Dr G N Raju, Secretary, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law & Justice provided in response to the RTI F. No 7/15/2019. [16] Ardia, D. S., ‘Privacy and Court Records: Online Access and the Loss of Practical Obscurity’ (2017) U. Ill. L. Rev., 1385. [17] Salem Bar Association v. Union of India, (I) SCC 49, AIR 2003 SC 189 (2003). In 2011, Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi laid down major guidelines for management of cases in civil proceedings. [18] All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, 4 SCC 247 (2002). [19] The increase in the workload of the High Courts was observed by the High Courts’ Arrears Committee, 1949, as quoted in the fourteenth Law Commission Report.