Justice & Faulty eCourts System Analysis in India is the need of hour. The Government of India has spent huge funds on the e-Court facilities to streamline the judicial process and make justice more accessible to the common people. However, it is most unfortunate that this facility is not accessible to the citizens due to mismanagement and bureaucratic hurdles. Many citizens remain unaware of these services, while others face technical issues or language barriers when attempting to navigate the system. Moreover, lack of proper training for judicial officials and inadequate infrastructure further exacerbate the problem. To ensure that the e-Court system fulfills its intended purpose, comprehensive reforms are urgently needed. These should focus on improving user awareness, enhancing digital literacy, and ensuring smoother operation of the e-Court services across the nation.

The Digital Vanishing Act: Subverting Justice Through the Faulty eCourts System

The automated eCourts System aims to democratise legal transparency across India. Its core mandate brings court proceedings directly into the homes of ordinary litigants. For a marginalised citizen, this digital window offers an essential shield against institutional corruption, procedural delay, and the manipulation of records.

However, local court registries frequently fail to synchronize physical case files with the online database. Consequently, this structural failure ends up subverting justice by creating an artificial administrative vacuum. A clear example of this issue appeared in RTI Appeal No. 18/2026 from the District Court of Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh. In that matter, bureaucratic inertia within the eCourts System effectively ran a digital vanishing act on active criminal proceedings.

The Genesis: Omission of Evidence and the RTI Blockade

The crisis originally began at the local policing level within the Vindhyachal jurisdiction under Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) No. 104/2024 (State vs Manoj Kushwaha and Others). In this matter, the victim, Mahima Maurya, sustained a physical bone fracture. Furthermore, the Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital formally certified the injury. Under Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the police must forward all material evidence to the magistrate.

In spite of this clear legal mandate, the investigating officer omitted the crucial fracture report from the primary charge sheet. Later, the police department explicitly admitted this omission under a separate information disclosure (Ref: SPMZR/R/2026/60079). To counter this, the victim filed an online Right to Information (RTI) application (Reg. No. DNMZP/R/2026/60007). She specifically sought the exact page position of the medical report within the judicial file to see if the police hid the evidence from the magistrate.

Instead of showing administrative diligence, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) rejected the application out of hand. Specifically, the official hid behind a rigid interpretation of Rules 25 and 26 of the Allahabad High Court RTI Rules, 2006. The CPIO merely presumed that the case was pending. Therefore, the official directed the applicant to obtain certified copies under Rule 141 of the General Rules (Criminal), 1977. This response created a classic Catch-22. The public authority hid the court case number and venue, yet expected the victim to apply for certified copies using those hidden details. Thus, the initial blockade laid the groundwork for subverting justice.

The Appellate Intervention: Exposing the “Offline” File

Because the CPIO blocked her request, the victim approached the Court of the District Judge / First Appellate Authority, Mirzapur. The District Judge immediately recognized the absurdity of the situation. Accordingly, the judge summoned a physical status report from the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Mirzapur.

The CJM’s subsequent report dated 01.06.2026 pulled back the curtain on the file. The report confirmed that the case had indeed entered the judicial system. The registry had already allotted a proper index: Criminal Case No. 3304/2026 (State vs Manoj Kushwaha), under Sections 115(2) and 352 BNSS, in Court Number 9 before CJM Shri Rahul Kumar Singh. As a result, the District Judge partially allowed RTI Appeal No. 18/2026 via an order dated 01.06.2026. This crucial order broke the CPIO’s wall of silence, documented the case number, and declared a physical listing date of 03.07.2026.

How Technical Opacity is Subverting Justice in the eCourts System

Although the judicial order resolved the immediate RTI dispute, it unmasked a deeper structural rot within the local eCourts System. Armed with the newly disclosed Criminal Case No. 3304/2026, the applicant attempted to track her case status online.

Unfortunately, the public web portal returned a jarring “No Data Available” error message. Even worse, when the system generated the automated daily cause list for Court Number 9 on 03.07.2026, the case was completely missing from the digital board.

Evidently, this dynamic actively ends up subverting justice by splitting the case reality into two completely detached spheres:

• The Physical Reality: The case is active, numbered, and sitting inside the physical court archives.
• The Digital Reality: The case is utterly invisible to the outside world because it is missing from the public eCourts System.

Clearly, this is not a technical glitch or a server crash. Rather, it is a human failure driven by institutional inertia. The court registry’s ahlamd (dealing clerk) processed the physical paperwork but completely neglected to update the Case Information System (CIS) database. Keeping a file entirely “offline” for over a month after a formal case number is judicially declared is a dangerous practice that destroys the utility of the electronic portal.

The Consequences of an Incomplete eCourts System

When court registry staff treat data logging as an optional chore, they transform the internet portal into an instrument for subverting justice:

1. It Facilitates Evidence Suppression: When an individual suspects police manipulation, an offline file prevents proper scrutiny. Because the digital record does not exist, the victim cannot check if the clerk ever attached the missing fracture report.
2. It Denies Statutory Remedies: Because the registry fails to display the case online, an independent citizen or out-of-town lawyer cannot apply for certified copies under Rule 141 of the General Rules (Criminal), 1977. Thus, the eCourts System effectively blocks the exact remedy it recommends.
3. It Erodes Public Trust: Taxpayers fund the computerized portal to ensure judicial transparency. When the tracking utility continuously shows “No Data Available” for a verified case, it kills the citizen’s faith in the integrity of the judicial system.

Scaled Accountability: Mobilizing State and Central Oversight

Because the portal remained silent, the applicant chose to escalate the matter to higher authorities. She engaged both state and central executive monitoring cells to clean up this local failure.

First, on July 6, 2026, she lodged a formal representation through the Uttar Pradesh IGRS portal (Reg No: GOVUP/E/2026/0086463). This complaint went straight to Joint Secretary Shri Arvind Mohan at the Chief Minister Secretariat in Lucknow. Second, she registered a concurrent central grievance via CPGRAMS (Reg No: DEPOJ/E/2026/0004208) before Joint Secretary Shri G. Muthuraja at the Central Department of Justice in New Delhi.

By filing the issue under the specific category of “Complaint against Court Staffs,” the applicant has successfully put pressure on the local registry. Both executive branches will now route these tracking numbers directly to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court. Under the High Court’s administrative oversight, the local registry at Mirzapur must answer for this information block and sync Criminal Case No. 3304/2026 onto the public server immediately.

Conclusion: Digital Transparency is a Right, Not a Favor

Ultimately, the journey through RTI Appeal No. 18/2026 highlights a vital truth. Digital transparency is not an optional favor from court clerks. On the contrary, it forms a core extension of the litigant’s right to a fair trial. No registry should allow a case file to sit invisibly in an offline folder. To stop administrative opacity from subverting justice, structural accountability must keep pace with our digital aspirations within the eCourts System. We must hold registry staff directly accountable when their manual neglect turns a transparency portal into an informational desert. (Justice & Faulty eCourts System)

Based on the official documents provided, here are the structured contact details, registration IDs, email addresses, and mobile numbers of the concerned public authorities and the applicant:

1. Registration Numbers & Application IDs

• State Grievance ID (IGRS U.P.): GOVUP/E/2026/0086463
• Central Grievance ID (CPGRAMS): DEPOJ/E/2026/0004208
• RTI First Appeal Number: Appeal No. 18/2026 (District Court Mirzapur)
• Original RTI Registration Number: DNMZP/R/2026/60007
• Police RTI Cross-Reference Number: SPMZR/R/2026/60079
• Underlying Court Case Number: Criminal Case No. 3304/2026 (State vs Manoj Kushwaha, Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur)

2. Public Authority Contacts & Web Links (Justice & Faulty eCourts System)

Central Government Oversight (Justice & Faulty eCourts System)

• Concerned Officer: Shri G. Muthuraja (Joint Secretary, Department of Justice)
• Official Email Address: drj1-doj@gov.in
• Contact Number: 011-23070673
• Office Address: Jaisalmer House, Mansingh Road, New Delhi
• Official Web Portal: CPGRAMS Portal

State Government Oversight (Justice & Faulty eCourts System)

• Concerned Officer: Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary, Chief Minister Secretariat)
• Official Email Address: arvind.12574@gov.in
• Contact Number: 0522-2226350
• Office Address: Chief Minister Secretariat, Room No. 321, U.P. Secretariat, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh
• Official Web Portal: U.P. IGRS Jansunwai Portal

Subordinate Judicial Authority (Justice & Faulty eCourts System)

• Public Authority: District Court Mirzapur / Appellate Authority (Right to Information)
• Official Email Address: dcmir@allahabadhighcourt.in
• Trial Venue Court Room: Court Number 9, Shri Rahul Kumar Singh, Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Mirzapur
• Official Web Link: Mirzapur District Court Cause List Portal

3. Applicant / Complainant Profile Details (Justice & Faulty eCourts System)

• Name of Litigant: Mahima Maurya
• Residential Address: Village Gorsar Sarpati, Police Station Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh
• Registered Email Address: mahimamauryagonasar@gmail.com
• Contact Numbers: 9198010433 / 7355543503