24x7 Kerala ON Court: A Scalable Model for Clearing India’s Judicial Backlog
Introduction: India’s First 24x7 Digital Court
India’s justice system has long struggled with a massive judicial backlog, much of which arises from repetitive and high-volume cases. In November 2024, Kerala’s Kollam district launched the country’s first 24x7 Open and Networked (ON) Court, inaugurated by the current Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai.
Designed as a digital-first judicial institution, the ON Court aims to simplify access to justice, speed up case disposal, improve communication between stakeholders, and create a model that can be replicated across India.
One year later, the pilot project shows promising outcomes in efficiency, transparency, and user satisfaction.
Origins of the ON Court Model
Internal Judicial Brainstorming
The idea originated within the Supreme Court of India and the Kerala High Court’s internal brainstorming sessions on modernising justice delivery. The goal was not merely digitisation but a complete restructuring of how courts function.
The court collaborated with:
-
PUCAR, a non-profit working on dispute resolution, as the knowledge partner for user research and technology design.
-
Agami, a legal reform organisation, as a major contributor.
This ecosystem of judicial leadership and civil-society innovation produced the ON Court model.
Jurisdiction and Case Category
Exclusive Focus on Section 138 NI Act Cases
The ON Court in Kollam currently deals exclusively with:
Cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Key reasons for selecting this category:
-
Cheque bounce cases constitute nearly 10% of district court litigation in India.
-
These cases are high-volume but low-complexity.
-
Research showed that such cases often remain stuck at the pre-trial stage for months or even years due to difficulties in securing the accused’s presence.
The ON Court accepts filings from nine police stations in Kollam district.
Digital Transformation of Judicial Proceedings
24x7 Filing and Paperless Process
The ON Court operates entirely online with the following features:
-
Case filing available 24x7 without physical paperwork.
-
Digital access to case documents for litigants and lawyers.
-
Real-time progress tracking through an online portal.
This eliminates dependency on physical court timings and clerical processes.
Electronic Summons and Digital Communication
Traditional postal summons, often responsible for months of delay, are replaced by:
-
SMS notifications
-
Email summons
-
Instant alerts to the accused
-
Automatic alerts to police stations
Lawyers receive proactive case updates on their mobile phones, drastically reducing unnecessary adjournments.
Performance and Case Disposal Data
Statistical Overview (As of November 20, 2025)
-
Total cases filed: 861
-
Total disposed: 168
-
Pending cases: 672
-
Pending cases awaiting appearance of accused: 350+
Most importantly:
-
Average disposal time in ON Court: 140 days (less than 10 hearings)
-
Average disposal time in traditional courts: 1–6 years
This indicates a drastic reduction in pendency and significant procedural efficiency.
User Experience and Stakeholder Feedback
Lawyers’ Perspective
Lawyers like Beena M, who filed multiple cheque bounce matters for a major private bank, highlighted:
-
Immediate issuance of summons when documents are in order
-
Removal of paperwork
-
Faster settlements due to reduced procedural friction
-
Shorter timelines and fewer adjournments
The digital trail enhances client-lawyer communication and cuts down physical visits.
Litigants’ Perspective
Litigants such as Genghis Khan, a financial institution manager in Kollam, found the system highly effective:
-
Digital summons create fear of enforcement among repeat offenders
-
Police receive alerts simultaneously
-
Some chronic fraudsters settled matters quickly due to stronger enforcement signals
-
Quick settlements reduce financial and legal risks
One of Khan’s cases involving a repeat fraudster was settled rapidly—something unlikely in a traditional courtroom.
System Designers’ Perspective
According to Supriya Sankaran of PUCAR:
-
The ON Court overturned the belief that judicial systems are resistant to change
-
Lawyers, clerks, litigants, and judges all recognised pain points and were eager for reform
-
The collaborative process demonstrated that digitisation can be done effectively without undermining procedural fairness
-
The project is still evolving with plans to improve the digital infrastructure further
Plans for Expansion
An official from the Kerala High Court’s IT division confirmed that:
-
A similar ON Court for cheque dishonour cases is proposed for Thrissur district
-
It is under active consideration
-
ON Courts help courts adhere to the six-month maximum disposal timeline
-
Traditional courts take 5–6 years for similar cases
This highlights the scalability and necessity of the model.
Statutes, Constitutional Provisions, and Judicial Precedents
Relevant Statutory Framework
-
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
-
Section 138: Criminal liability for cheque dishonour
-
Section 139: Presumption in favour of the holder
-
Section 142: Cognizance of offences
-
-
Information Technology Act, 2000
-
Legitimises electronic records and electronic communication used in ON Courts.
-
-
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
-
Sections 61–69: Summons procedure (now adapted digitally in ON Courts)
-
Section 482: Inherent powers of High Courts to create judicial innovations
-
Constitutional Provisions
-
Article 21: Right to life includes the right to speedy justice
-
Article 39A: Equal access to justice and free legal aid
-
Article 14: Equality before law; digital courts ensure non-discriminatory access
-
Article 227: High Court’s supervisory powers over subordinate courts
-
Article 233–237: Judicial service organisation, enabling administrative reforms
-
Article 245–246: Legislative competence to establish digital courts
Judicial Precedents Supporting Speedy Justice and Technology Adoption
-
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)
-
Right to speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21.
-
-
Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan (2016)
-
Access to justice is a fundamental part of the rule of law.
-
-
State of Maharashtra v. Praful Desai (2003)
-
Supreme Court approved video-conferencing as valid evidence procedure.
-
-
Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam (2017)
-
Video conferencing encouraged to reduce delay in matrimonial cases.
-
-
Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. v. Kanchan Mehta (2017)
-
Cheque bounce cases should be dealt with using mediation and summary procedures for speedy disposal.
-
These precedents collectively support the legitimacy and constitutional foundation of Kerala’s ON Court model.
Conclusion: A Roadmap for India’s Digital Judiciary
The 24x7 ON Court in Kerala represents a transformative shift in India’s justice delivery system. In just one year, it has:
-
Reduced delays
-
Increased transparency
-
Enhanced user satisfaction
-
Improved summons execution
-
Reduced judicial backlog
-
Demonstrated scalability
The model aligns with constitutional mandates on access to justice and the judiciary’s repeated emphasis on technology-driven reforms.
If expanded nationwide, ON Courts could become a cornerstone of India’s judicial transformation, significantly reducing pendency and creating a more efficient, citizen-friendly justice system.

Comments
Post a Comment