Chief Justice of India Surya Kant recently captured the dramatic transformation of India’s judicial system through a simple but striking observation. Recalling the culture of traditional court practice, the CJI remarked that litigants once entered lawyers’ chambers asking, “File kahan hai?” a question symbolic of a justice system dominated by bulky paper records, physical movement of files, and endless procedural delays. Today, he noted, the same litigants increasingly ask, “Link bhej dijiye,” reflecting the rapid transition of Indian courts toward digitisation, e-filing, virtual access, and paperless functioning.
The remark, though conversational in tone, carries deep institutional significance. It reflects not merely technological change but a larger transformation in the philosophy of judicial administration. For decades, India’s legal system functioned through a paper-heavy structure where physical files formed the backbone of adjudication. Entire courtrooms were occupied by records tied in red cloth, lawyers travelled with trolleys filled with paperbooks, and judicial efficiency often depended upon whether files physically reached the courtroom in time.
Speaking on the theme of digital transformation and paperless judicial systems, CJI Surya Kant observed that technology has fundamentally altered the manner in which justice is accessed and administered. According to him, digitisation is not about abandoning legal traditions but about freeing judicial institutions from administrative limitations that historically slowed down access to justice. He emphasised that courts should spend less time managing paper and more time deciding disputes.
The Chief Justice’s remarks come at a crucial moment for the Indian judiciary, which is simultaneously experiencing expansion in institutional strength and transformation in operational methods. Only recently, the Union Government increased the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges through an ordinance, citing mounting pendency and increasing constitutional workload.
Interestingly, the growth of judicial digitisation mirrors the historical expansion of the Supreme Court itself. When the Constitution came into force in 1950, the Supreme Court consisted of the Chief Justice of India and seven puisne judges. At that time, litigation volume was comparatively limited, and the Court largely functioned as a final appellate and constitutional body. However, as India’s democracy deepened and constitutional governance expanded, the Court’s jurisdiction and workload grew exponentially.
The sanctioned strength was first increased through the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, raising the number from eight to eleven judges. Subsequent increases followed in 1960, 1977, 1986, 2009, 2019, and most recently in 2026. Yet despite repeated numerical expansion, pendency and procedural delay remained persistent structural challenges. The judiciary eventually realised that increasing the number of judges alone could not solve the crisis unless the system itself modernised technologically.
Critically analysed, the CJI’s statement symbolises the judiciary’s recognition that access to justice in the twenty-first century cannot remain dependent upon nineteenth-century administrative methods. India’s court system historically suffered from file mismanagement, delayed transmission of records, physical deterioration of documents, and logistical inefficiencies. In many instances, hearings were adjourned not because of legal complexity but because files could not be located or transferred in time.
The COVID-19 pandemic became the defining turning point in accelerating this institutional shift. CJI Surya Kant acknowledged that the pandemic forced Indian courts to adopt technological systems that otherwise might have taken decades to fully implement. During lockdowns, constitutional courts, High Courts, and subordinate courts rapidly transitioned to virtual hearings, electronic filings, and digital case management systems. Judges began hearing matters from their residences, lawyers argued through video conferencing platforms, and litigants attended proceedings remotely.
This transition was not seamless. Connectivity failures, unfamiliar technology, and resistance from sections of the Bar initially created serious practical difficulties. The Chief Justice humorously recalled incidents where even senior advocates unknowingly argued while remaining on “mute,” demonstrating how technology temporarily equalised the courtroom by exposing everyone regardless of seniority to the same digital learning curve.
Yet despite these early disruptions, virtual courts fundamentally changed public expectations regarding accessibility of justice. Today, litigants sitting in remote villages can access case status, orders, and hearing updates through mobile phones. E-filing systems permit lawyers to file petitions electronically without physically entering court premises. Digitally available records reduce dependence upon physical infrastructure and minimise opportunities for administrative delay.
The judiciary’s digital transformation is also deeply connected to constitutional values. Access to justice under Article 21 cannot remain meaningful if judicial processes are inaccessible, prohibitively expensive, or geographically restrictive. Technology therefore increasingly functions not merely as an administrative convenience but as a constitutional instrument aimed at reducing barriers to justice delivery.
However, the digital transition also raises serious concerns requiring careful examination. India continues to face a significant digital divide marked by unequal internet access, technological literacy gaps, and infrastructural disparities between urban and rural regions. While metropolitan lawyers and corporate litigants may adapt easily to virtual systems, economically weaker litigants and practitioners from smaller towns often struggle with technological requirements.
Critics therefore caution that digitisation must not unintentionally create a new hierarchy within the justice system where technological access determines effective participation. The challenge before the judiciary lies in ensuring that digital courts remain inclusive rather than exclusionary.
Another significant issue concerns data security and judicial confidentiality. As court records, evidence, pleadings, and sensitive constitutional matters increasingly move onto digital platforms, concerns regarding cybersecurity, privacy breaches, and technological vulnerabilities become more serious. Judicial digitisation requires not merely software adoption but creation of robust institutional safeguards capable of protecting constitutional information infrastructure.
The Supreme Court’s technological shift additionally reflects a broader global trend toward digital governance. Courts across several democracies are increasingly adopting AI-assisted research tools, blockchain-backed record systems, virtual hearings, and online dispute resolution mechanisms. India’s judiciary, once considered procedurally conservative, is now attempting to position itself within this evolving global transformation.
Importantly, digitisation also changes the symbolic culture of the legal profession itself. Traditionally, legal practice in India carried a deeply physical character court files, handwritten notes, bulky compilations, and crowded courtrooms formed part of professional identity. The transition from paperbooks to digital links therefore represents not merely administrative reform but cultural transformation within the legal community.
At another level, the CJI’s remarks subtly reveal the judiciary’s effort to restore institutional efficiency amid mounting public frustration over delays. India remains burdened with crores of pending cases across all levels of courts. Judicial modernisation is therefore increasingly viewed as essential to preserving public confidence in constitutional governance.
Recent initiatives such as e-Courts projects, digital cause lists, live-streaming of constitutional hearings, online certified copies, virtual mentionings, and integrated judicial data systems indicate that the judiciary is attempting systemic rather than cosmetic reform. Reports also suggest that institutional plans involving large-scale investment in judicial infrastructure and digital integration are being actively considered.
The transition toward paperless courts additionally carries environmental significance. Reduction in paper consumption, physical storage requirements, and logistical transport of records aligns judicial reform with broader sustainability concerns. Given the enormous volume of litigation in India, digitisation could substantially reduce administrative waste and operational costs over time.
Nevertheless, technology alone cannot resolve all structural weaknesses of the Indian judicial system. Pendency also stems from procedural complexity, shortage of judges in lower courts, repeated adjournments, inadequate infrastructure, and excessive governmental litigation. Digitization may improve efficiency, but without parallel procedural reforms, its transformative potential could remain incomplete.
The historical evolution of the Supreme Court itself illustrates this reality. Over seven decades, the Court repeatedly expanded its numerical strength to cope with increasing litigation. Yet the contemporary judiciary increasingly recognizes that structural reform now requires more than simply appointing additional judges. Digital infrastructure, intelligent case management, electronic records, and real-time access to judicial information have become equally central to institutional survival.
Ultimately, CJI Surya Kant’s observation about the shift from “File kahan hai?” to “Link bhej dijiye” encapsulates a profound constitutional transformation within Indian justice delivery. It reflects the journey of the judiciary from a paper-bound institution constrained by physical movement of files to an increasingly technology-driven system seeking speed, accessibility, and transparency. Whether this transformation ultimately succeeds will depend not only upon technological adoption but upon the judiciary’s ability to ensure that digital justice remains inclusive, secure, and faithful to constitutional ideals of equal access and procedural fairness.
