Court Accessibility Technology Claims

1. Meaning

Court Accessibility Technology Claims concern legal claims, constitutional challenges and procedural applications arising from the use—or failure to use—technology necessary to make courts genuinely accessible to litigants, lawyers, witnesses and persons with disabilities.

The concept covers technological barriers involving:

• video-conferencing and hybrid hearings;
• e-filing;
• electronic service of documents;
• accessible court websites;
• digital cause lists;
• screen-reader compatibility;
• captions and transcription;
• sign-language interpretation;
• electronic evidence;
• online payment of court fees;
• digital legal-aid services;
• virtual access to court records;
• assistive technologies; and
• reliable internet and courtroom connectivity.

The Supreme Court of India has increasingly treated technology not merely as an administrative convenience but as a means of advancing access to justice. In Sarvesh Mathur v. Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the Court directed High Courts not to arbitrarily deny video-conferencing or hybrid access and required infrastructure, internet connectivity and uniform procedures.

2. Constitutional Foundation in India

Court-accessibility technology claims can principally be connected with:

Article 14 — Equality

A technologically inaccessible court system can disproportionately exclude persons with disabilities, persons living far from courts and persons lacking adequate digital resources.

Article 19

Access to information concerning judicial proceedings can implicate freedom of speech and expression.

Article 21 — Life and Personal Liberty

Access to a fair and effective judicial process is an important component of constitutional protection.

Article 39A — Equal Justice and Free Legal Aid

The State is constitutionally directed to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied because of economic or other disabilities.

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

The Act strengthens the legal requirement of accessibility and reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities.

The Supreme Court's accessibility initiative has specifically examined physical and functional barriers and recommended technology such as kiosks and QR-based navigation systems to improve access.

3. What Is a Court Accessibility Technology Claim?

A claim may arise where a person argues that:

1. a court denied reasonable technological access;
2. an online hearing was unavailable without adequate justification;
3. a person with a disability could not participate effectively;
4. an e-filing system was inaccessible;
5. court websites could not be used with assistive technology;
6. audio or video quality prevented meaningful participation;
7. captions or interpretation were unavailable;
8. a litigant was forced to travel unnecessarily when effective virtual participation was possible;
9. digital exclusion prevented filing or pursuing a case; or
10. technology was used in a manner that undermined equality or procedural fairness.

The key distinction is between technical availability and effective accessibility.

A court may technically provide a video link while still being inaccessible if, for example, the system lacks captions, sign-language interpretation, adequate audio, screen-reader compatibility or sufficient connectivity.

4. Major Forms of Court-Technology Accessibility

A. Video-Conferencing Accessibility

Virtual hearings can remove geographical barriers.

They can help:

• rural litigants;
• elderly persons;
• persons with mobility impairments;
• persons in custody;
• witnesses;
• persons living far from appellate courts; and
• lawyers appearing from remote locations.

The Supreme Court has recognized that technology can eliminate the need for citizens to travel long distances merely to secure a hearing.

B. Hybrid Hearings

A hybrid hearing allows some participants to appear physically and others electronically.

It is particularly useful because it avoids making technology an all-or-nothing choice.

A litigant may therefore request:

physical hearing OR virtual participation OR hybrid participation,

depending on circumstances.

In Sarvesh Mathur, the Supreme Court directed that High Courts should not deny access to video-conferencing or hybrid hearings to advocates or litigants wishing to use them, and rejected arbitrary restrictions such as age-based eligibility.

5. E-Filing Accessibility

Electronic filing should be accessible to persons using:

• screen readers;
• keyboard navigation;
• magnification software;
• voice-control systems;
• alternative input devices; and
• other assistive technologies.

An e-filing platform that requires exclusively visual interaction may effectively exclude visually impaired litigants.

Therefore, accessibility should be incorporated at the design stage, rather than treated as an accommodation after the system has been created.

6. Accessible Court Websites

Court websites should ideally provide:

• accessible HTML;
• searchable judgments;
• text alternatives for images;
• accessible PDFs;
• keyboard navigation;
• adequate contrast;
• descriptive headings;
• captions/transcripts;
• accessible cause lists;
• screen-reader compatibility;
• easy navigation; and
• accessible forms.

In a 2025 Supreme Court judgment concerning digital accessibility, the Court discussed the importance of accessibility standards, including WCAG 2.0 Level AA, and referred to the Government of India's Guidelines for Indian Government Websites.

7. Accessibility for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Persons

Technology should support:

• live captions;
• transcription;
• sign-language interpretation;
• text communication;
• accessible audio;
• visual alerts; and
• written versions of important oral directions.

A hearing conducted through poor-quality audio without an alternative communication method may technically be “virtual” but not legally meaningful for a deaf participant.

8. Accessibility for Blind and Visually Impaired Persons

Court technology should accommodate:

• screen readers;
• OCR;
• accessible electronic judgments;
• keyboard navigation;
• audio versions where appropriate;
• structured documents;
• accessible e-filing forms; and
• electronic document tagging.

The objective is independent participation, not merely physical or technological presence.

9. The Important Case: Rakesh Kumar Kalra

Rakesh Kumar Kalra (Deaf/Divyang) v. State Government of NCT of Delhi, 2023

This is particularly important for court-accessibility technology.

The Delhi High Court identified technological and infrastructural barriers faced by persons with disabilities in judicial proceedings. It observed that such barriers could prevent persons with hearing or visual impairments from participating effectively and could place them on an unequal footing with other litigants.

Principle

Accessibility is not simply a matter of physical entry into a courthouse.

A person must be able to understand, communicate and participate effectively in the judicial process.

Importance

This case provides a direct foundation for accessibility-technology claims.

10. Important Case Laws

1. State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai, (2003) 4 SCC 601

Principle

The Supreme Court recognized that video-conferencing can constitute legally meaningful presence and can be used for recording evidence.

The Court recognized that technological development permits a person to see, hear and communicate with another person at a distance in a manner capable of satisfying procedural requirements.

Relevance

This case establishes the foundational proposition that:

Physical presence is not always the only legally acceptable form of participation in judicial proceedings.

It laid important groundwork for modern virtual courts.

11. In Re: Guidelines for Court Functioning Through Video Conferencing During COVID-19 Pandemic, Suo Motu Writ (Civil) No. 5 of 2020

The Supreme Court authorized courts to adopt video-conferencing technology to maintain the administration of justice.

Importantly, the Court directed that facilities should be made available to litigants who lacked the means or access necessary to participate through video conferencing.

Relevance

This case directly supports the principle that:

Digital justice cannot become exclusive justice.

If courts move online, mechanisms must exist for persons who cannot independently access the required technology.

12. Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India, (2018) 10 SCC 639

Principle

The Supreme Court considered live-streaming of court proceedings in the context of open justice.

It recognized that technology can permit the public and litigants to obtain broader access to judicial proceedings.

Relevance

The case connects technology with:

• transparency;
• open justice;
• public access;
• accountability; and
• constitutional access to judicial proceedings.

It demonstrates that court technology is not limited to facilitating private participation—it can also expand public access to justice.

13. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2017) 9 SCC 766

Principle

The Supreme Court dealt with transparency and institutional access concerning the functioning of the judiciary, particularly through technology-enabled publication of information.

Relevance

The case supports the broader proposition that technology can improve:

• transparency;
• access to information;
• accountability; and
• equal access to judicial institutions.

It is relevant when accessibility claims concern not only physical hearings but also digital access to judicial information.

14. Rakesh Kumar Kalra (Deaf/Divyang) v. State Government of NCT of Delhi, 2023

As noted above, the case directly addressed technological and infrastructural barriers affecting persons with disabilities in judicial proceedings.

The Court observed that barriers affecting mobility, vision and hearing can prevent persons with disabilities from effectively participating in trials and can interfere with their ability to enforce their rights through judicial processes.

Core principle

Effective access to justice requires accessible participation, not merely formal admission to the courtroom.

15. Sarvesh Mathur v. Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana, 2023 INSC 891

This is perhaps the most important modern Indian authority for technology-based court accessibility.

The Supreme Court found significant differences among High Courts in their adoption of video-conferencing and hybrid hearings. It identified problems including:

• inadequate infrastructure;
• absence of uniform SOPs;
• limited actual use of available technology;
• inadequate internet connectivity;
• arbitrary restrictions; and
• lack of convenient access to virtual hearings. 

Directions

The Court required, among other things:

• access to VC/hybrid hearings;
• adequate funding;
• internet/Wi-Fi facilities;
• publication of hearing links;
• removal of arbitrary age restrictions;
• uniform SOPs; and
• technological training for judges and lawyers. 

Importance

This case strongly establishes that technology can be an instrument of constitutional access to justice.

16. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248

Although not a technology case, this landmark constitutional decision is relevant to the broader doctrine of fair, just and reasonable procedure under Article 21.

Relevance

Where technological procedures prevent meaningful participation in judicial proceedings, the question can arise whether the procedure remains:

• fair;
• reasonable;
• non-arbitrary; and
• consistent with constitutional liberty.

Thus, Maneka Gandhi provides a constitutional foundation for challenging technologically inaccessible procedures.

17. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637

Principle

The Supreme Court examined restrictions affecting access to the internet and recognized the importance of the internet in exercising constitutional freedoms.

Relevance to court accessibility

Modern courts increasingly depend upon:

• e-filing;
• online case information;
• virtual hearings;
• electronic communication; and
• digital legal resources.

Consequently, unreasonable technological restrictions may affect practical access to legal remedies.

The case therefore provides an important constitutional background for understanding internet access as a component of meaningful participation in modern public institutions.

18. Important Principles from the Cases

19. Elements of a Court Accessibility Technology Claim

A claimant would generally need to establish:

1. Legal entitlement or legitimate expectation

There must be a legal, constitutional or statutory basis for accessible participation.

2. Technological barrier

Examples include:

• inaccessible software;
• defective VC;
• unavailable captions;
• incompatible e-filing;
• inaccessible PDF;
• insufficient connectivity.

3. Meaningful disadvantage

The barrier must materially interfere with participation.

4. Discrimination or procedural unfairness

The claimant may demonstrate that similarly situated persons without the barrier were able to participate more effectively.

5. Failure to accommodate

Where reasonable accommodation was requested but refused without sufficient justification, the claim becomes stronger.

6. Prejudice

The claimant may show that the technological barrier affected:

• ability to present arguments;
• ability to understand evidence;
• ability to communicate;
• ability to file documents;
• ability to hear proceedings; or
• ability to obtain effective legal remedies.

20. Examples of Potential Claims

Example 1 — Blind litigant

A court requires all documents to be submitted through an e-filing system incompatible with screen readers.

Possible claim: failure to provide accessible digital filing.

Example 2 — Deaf litigant

A hybrid hearing is conducted entirely through poor-quality audio without captions or interpretation.

Possible claim: denial of effective participation and reasonable accommodation.

Example 3 — Remote litigant

A High Court refuses virtual participation without a rational reason even though the case can appropriately be heard through video conferencing.

Possible claim: arbitrary denial of technological access.

Sarvesh Mathur is particularly relevant here.

Example 4 — Digital divide

A court shifts substantially to virtual hearings but provides no facility for litigants who lack computers or reliable internet.

Possible claim: technological reform has created rather than removed barriers to access to justice.

The Supreme Court's 2020 video-conferencing directions expressly contemplated facilities for litigants who lacked the means to participate electronically.

21. Remedies

A court may potentially grant:

• reasonable accommodation;
• accessible documents;
• alternative filing mechanisms;
• captions;
• sign-language interpretation;
• screen-reader-compatible material;
• hybrid hearing;
• video-conference access;
• additional time;
• adjournment where technology has caused genuine prejudice;
• restoration of hearing opportunity;
• directions to improve court infrastructure;
• judicial review of discriminatory procedures; and
• appropriate compensation in suitable cases.

For institutional problems, courts may issue structural directions rather than merely resolving the individual dispute.

22. Court Technology and Persons with Disabilities

The concept of accessibility should follow the principle:

Technology must remove barriers, not merely digitize them.

For example:

Paper filing → inaccessible

Digital filing → potentially accessible

But:

inaccessible digital filing → digital exclusion

Therefore, digitization by itself does not guarantee accessibility.

The Supreme Court's own Accessibility Committee has emphasized both physical and functional accessibility and recommended technological tools such as kiosks and QR-based navigation.

23. Digital Divide and Equal Access

One of the greatest risks of court technology is the creation of a two-tier justice system:

Digitally capable litigant

• smartphone/computer;
• high-speed internet;
• technical knowledge;
• digital documents;
• ability to navigate portals.

Digitally excluded litigant

• poor connectivity;
• no suitable device;
• lack of digital literacy;
• disability;
• inaccessible software;
• inability to upload documents.

The constitutional objective should therefore be universal access, not merely technological modernization.

This principle is reflected in the judiciary's continuing efforts to bring e-Courts services, legal aid and digital dispute-resolution facilities to remote communities. In September 2026, the Supreme Court's eCommittee launched Mobile eSewa Vans intended to bridge the digital divide and provide services including digital filing and remote hearings in underserved areas.

24. Technology, Open Justice and Privacy

Technology creates a tension between:

Open justice

and

Privacy/confidentiality.

Live-streaming and recording may improve transparency, but unrestricted digital dissemination can expose:

• victims;
• children;
• medical information;
• financial information;
• personal addresses;
• confidential business information.

Therefore, accessible technology must be combined with:

• privacy safeguards;
• redaction;
• restricted access;
• anonymization;
• secure authentication; and
• appropriate recording policies.

25. Future Development: AI and Accessible Courts

Future accessibility may involve:

• AI-generated live captions;
• automatic transcription;
• translation;
• text-to-speech;
• speech-to-text;
• document summarization;
• accessible legal search;
• automated document tagging;
• real-time translation for litigants;
• navigation assistants; and
• intelligent e-filing support.

However, AI systems used by courts must themselves be accessible and reliable.

An AI-generated transcript containing serious errors could create a new procedural barrier rather than solve an existing one.

Human judicial supervision therefore remains essential.

26. Key Legal Principle

The emerging jurisprudence can be summarized as:

Access to a court means meaningful ability to participate in the judicial process, not merely theoretical permission to enter the courtroom.

Technology can be used to achieve that objective, but technological systems must themselves comply with:

• equality;
• accessibility;
• reasonable accommodation;
• procedural fairness;
• privacy;
• transparency; and
• due process.

27. Conclusion

Court Accessibility Technology Claims represent an increasingly important area of modern constitutional and procedural law.

Indian courts have moved from treating technology as merely an emergency substitute for physical hearings toward recognizing it as a continuing instrument for access to justice. Praful Desai established the legal validity of video-conferencing in judicial proceedings; In Re Video Conferencing expanded technological court functioning; Swapnil Tripathi connected technology with open justice; Rakesh Kumar Kalra highlighted technological barriers affecting persons with disabilities; and Sarvesh Mathur strongly affirmed the importance of accessible virtual and hybrid hearings.

The ultimate legal standard should therefore be:

Physical access + digital access + disability access + meaningful participation = genuine access to justice.

As courts become increasingly digital, a failure to provide accessible technology may itself become a constitutional, statutory and procedural access-to-justice violation, particularly where it prevents a person from effectively hearing, seeing, communicating, filing, presenting or understanding their case.