‘’When Judicial Conviction Meets Technology’’.

S. Basavaraj, Senior Advocate. Member, Karnataka State Bar Council.

The Indian criminal justice system stands at a transformative crossroads. For decades, pendency of cases, logistical delays and procedural bottlenecks especially in the service of summons and execution of warrants have hindered the timely delivery of justice. But a recent judicial push marks a significant shift: technology is no longer a mere administrative tool; it has become an instrument of justice.

The Madras High Court’s recent initiative under the pilot project—undertaken as part of directions from the Supreme Court Committee—demonstrates how digital frameworks can reshape traditional processes without compromising constitutional fairness or procedural rigor.

Courts and police machinery have historically grappled with common operational hurdles:

Thousands of summons remain undelivered due to inadequate address verification, outdated contact details, or lack of tracking.

Warrants—particularly in minor cases—have remained pending for years, often clogging the system more than serving its purpose.

Accused persons abroad could not be effectively reached due to complex and slow diplomatic channels.

The disconnect between courtroom software and policing systems weakened accountability and allowed procedural gaps to widen.

The result was predictable: justice delayed, and sometimes denied.

The Turning Point: Technology Steps In

The High Court recognised that statutes—especially the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023—already enable digital transformation through provisions allowing:

E-summons, E-warrants, Electronic acknowledgements, Digital documentation and Remote hearings and electronic trial processes

Leveraging these statutory possibilities, the Court directed the system to adopt digital service as a serious and primary tool, not an optional afterthought.

The integration of systems like: CIS (Case Information System), NSTEP (National Service and Tracking of Electronic Processes) and CCTNS and ICJS (Integrated Criminal Justice System) has now created an accountable, trackable and transparent chain—from issuance to execution.

Service Beyond Borders: Global Cooperation, Now Digitised

For accused persons residing outside India, earlier methods relied solely on diplomatic post—a painfully slow mechanism.

The new approach acknowledges:

Standardised timelines (e.g., 12-week scheduling window), Mandatory use of approved government channels, Digital proposals for secure online transmission of summons and warrants abroad – which ensures that international procedural service is no longer uncertain or indefinite, but measurable, trackable, and legally supported.

The digital shift maintains judicial safeguards:

Where personal service is possible, it remains preferable.

Where electronic service is used, verification requirements—like authenticated mobile numbers, verified email addresses and time-stamped digital acknowledgments—prevent misuse.

Courts retain discretion to revert to traditional modes when fairness demands it.

Thus, efficiency has not overtaken due process—it strengthens it.

A Systemic Ripple: More Than Just Faster Summons

The technological shift has yielded multiple systemic benefits:

Thousands of older petty cases were disposed of swiftly.

Court time has been released to focus on serious crimes, constitutional matters and vulnerable victims.

Police workflows have become structured and digitally auditable.

Transparency and accountability have increased across institutions.

Importantly, citizens benefit the most: the justice system becomes faster, less confusing and more accessible.

The Future: Not Automation, but Augmentation

Technology does not replace judicial discretion—it augments it.

Just as e-filing, video conferencing, and digital evidence standards evolved during the pandemic, the current shift proves that the judiciary can modernise while preserving procedural integrity.

How it was achieved.

The Hon'ble High Court registered a suo motu petition to implement the pilot project directed by the Supreme Court Committee to reduce criminal case pendency by clearing long-pending and low-value criminal matters. While running that pilot the Court discovered a massive backlog of unsent summons and unexecuted warrants and therefore examined the law and practice on service of summons and execution of warrants — including e-service, inter-state/foreign service, and operational problems between Courts and Police IT systems. The Court then issued detailed legal observations and operational directions.

The Dedicated Bench processed a large number of cases in a short time under the pilot: roughly 20,985 cases were transmitted and 13,625 disposed during the project, showing tangible reduction in pendency. The exercise also revealed thousands of summons and warrants pending service. The status report showed 21,618 summons and 11,983 warrants pending.

The pilot introduced a hybrid workflow - digital transmission, magistrates sitting locally with the dedicated bench, video recordings of consent, use of NSTEP/CIS integration, which sped up disposal and produced collateral benefits e.g., returning property, settling compensation, fewer wasted trials.

Legal and procedural analysis.

The Court compared Cr.P.C. provisions and the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, focusing on sections permitting electronic issuance and service of summons and warrants (BNSS Sections 63–71; Section 530 on electronic mode for trials/proceedings). It emphasised that BNSS expressly contemplates e-summons/e-warrants and trials by electronic means.

The State (Tamil Nadu) framed Tamil Nadu Criminal Procedure Rules, 2025 to define terms such as authenticated e-mail, authenticated mobile number, e-summons, serving officer and to prescribe Rule 5 (procedure for serving physical and e-summons). The Court examined these Rules and treated them as enabling implementations for e-service.

The Court relied on precedent and practical construction to hold that the additional or alternative modes in statute (words like “desires” / “ordinarily”) are permissive — Courts may adopt the electronic/alternative modes where justified; the object is to effect notice, not ritual compliance for its own sake. The judgment cites earlier case law (Ghulam Mohammad v Rasoolan) to say courts are not helpless if the exact statutory method is impracticable.

Main directions / orders.

Generate e-summons and e-warrants as far as practicable. Courts must use CIS → NJDG → NSTEP → e-Summons workflow so the SHO dashboard reflects the process. This reduces delay and allows monitoring.

Maintain registers of authenticated contact details. Courts/Police must maintain authenticated e-mail, authenticated mobile and other details; if those are on record, e-service may be used and (in defined circumstances) will be deemed due service. Rule 5 lays down how to obtain proof/acknowledgement (reply e-mail/SMS/ack link, screenshots, signature/photo upload).

Where practicable, prefer personal service; otherwise e-delivery. If personal delivery is practicable SHO assigns delivery officer to print duplicate, obtain signature/photo and upload; if not practicable, SHO may e-deliver to authenticated accounts and document delivery. Mere delivery (if not acknowledged) may still be deemed service in some defined situations.

Private complaints: Courts should accept authenticated e-contact details from complainant (along with process fee/envelope) and may serve e-summons after verifying proximity in time and proof that the contact belongs to accused — if doubt exists, revert to physical modes.

Integration & tracking: Tamil Nadu Police must speed up CCTNS v2 development and integrate with ICJS/NSTEP so status (images, signatures) syncs with CIS and Courts can fetch service status.

Outside India — service on persons residing abroad.

The Court reproduced and relied on consolidated MHA / MEA guidelines (mutual legal assistance channels) and Form (guidance) — requests for service abroad must follow the Central Government procedure (Under Secretary, Internal Security-II, MHA) with full particulars (address, status, next hearing, material facts, translation, costs, court contact etc.).

Timing: Where accused is abroad, Courts should preferably fix the next hearing at the 12th week to allow for the minimum time (translation/contact/execution) noted by MHA (Court must consider the practical delay so process is not wasted).

Proposal for a digital portal: The Court asked the State to propose a portal (digital module / on-line Form 4.6) to MHA so requests can be transmitted digitally with step-by-step processing and authentication checks; Central Government to consider adding features in its developing portal. Tamil Nadu to submit proposal within 3 weeks.

Practical/administrative collateral directions

Produce simple handbooks (Tamil) and a short procedural manual for SHOs and junior police personnel explaining step-by-step processes (e-summons, printing, signatures, uploading, Form 4.6).

Clear backlog of service of summons, and for pilot-project learnings to be institutionalised by Courts and Police: regular monitoring, dashboards, and joint supervision.

Policy reasoning

Objective: speed up disposal of petty/old criminal cases; reduce court time wasted on matters that block the dockets of trial courts; deliver quicker relief to complainants and accused (where warranted) and focus judicial resources on serious offences. The pilot demonstrated the hybrid approach works and that much pendency arises from procedural friction (unsent summons/untracked warrants).

Technology as enabler: BNSS and State Rules expressly allow e-modes and the NSTEP/CIS integration affords tracking and accountability which will reduce disputes between Courts and Police on whether service/warrant handover occurred. The Court emphasised that the statutory terms giving optional modes should be interpreted pragmatically to achieve notice/domestic service rather than defeat processes on technicalities.

Practical impact & likely consequences

For practitioners: expect Courts to increasingly generate e-summons/e-warrants and to expect Police to upload proof of service (photo, signature). Where an accused has an authenticated email/mobile on record, Courts may treat e-delivery as valid service (subject to proximity-in-time proof where contested).

For litigants: in private complaints, complainants should provide verified contact details if they want e-service; accused must keep authenticated contact records current or risk being treated as served.

For international service: hearings involving accused abroad will be scheduled with realistic timelines (Court suggested 12 weeks) and Central/State Governments are asked to create more digital assistance for speedy mutual legal assistance.

Limitations

E-service is not an absolute substitute for personal service; the Rules still prefer personal service where practicable and require proof (signature/photos). Electronic service will be treated as valid only where definitions (authenticated e-mail/mobile) and proximate proof exist. If there is doubt, Courts must revert to traditional modes.

Technical integration & manpower constraints: the Court acknowledged bugs, delays in uploading orders, and the need to improve CCTNS v2 and related interfaces; so implementation will depend on IT fixes and training/handbook distribution.

Conclusion

Justice must be effective, timely, and meaningful. The marriage of judicial purpose with technological capability represents more than a procedural upgrade—it signifies a cultural transformation. In this era, the bench is not only a custodian of law but also a driver of innovation. And with this shift, India takes a definitive step towards a justice system where technology accelerates fairness rather than compromises it—where the law remains humane, but the process becomes smarter.