e-Filing in district and High Courts — process and RTI

Electronic filing moved from pilot to infrastructure. The e-Filing 3.0 system rolled out by the e-Committee now covers district courts across states and the High Courts on it, and several High Courts — Orissa among them — have framed their own e-filing rules alongside. The count above is not marketing: it is the number the Government released with the eCourts project's progress reporting.

1. Register on the portal as an advocate or a party-in-person — registration is free
2. Select the court establishment — state, district or High Court, then the court complex
3. Upload pleadings and annexures as PDFs within the portal's size limits, in the structure the establishment's practice direction requires
4. Pay court fees through the portal's payment options — e-stamp and electronic payment where the state has enabled them
5. Submit — the portal issues an acknowledgement and a diary or case number at once
6. Track the application through the portal, and once numbered, follow the case on the eCourts case-status services

Listing follows the court's own cause-list process — an instant diary number is not a hearing date.

• Rejections are mostly formatting, fee or annexure defects — the defect memo says which; correct and re-file
• Fee disputes — ask the establishment for the fee schedule in writing; court fees are state law, and an RTI gets the schedule, not a discount
• Portal faults — screenshot the failure, email the portal's support, and if a limitation deadline is near, file physically the same day; limitation does not wait on a server
• No listing after filing — that is an administrative delay, and it is documentable

Judicial records — the case file, orders, judgments — come through the court's copying branch. What RTI reaches is the administrative layer: the e-filing rollout itself, vacancies, infrastructure, listing administration.

1. Status of my e-filed case no. _____ as on date, and the date of scrutiny.
2. Reasons for non-listing in the past 30 days.
3. The number of similar cases pending scrutiny, and the average scrutiny time, in the past 12 months.
4. The procedure and fee for certified copies and inspection.
5. Name and designation of the court's Public Information Officer and appellate authority.

Auto-fill the PIO and your case: Open the AI RTI Drafter

• PDF hygiene first — searchable PDFs, right-side-up, within the size cap, with annexures paginated and indexed; most rejections are this paragraph
• Check the practice direction for the establishment — some require stamped or indexed formats the portal will not enforce for you
• Keep the diary number somewhere durable — it is the only reference until the case number issues
• Screenshot every submission stage — the acknowledgment and any defect memo are your record if the portal's history and your memory ever disagree
• Limitation is not the portal's problem — when a deadline is near and the system misbehaves, file at the counter the same day

In some establishments and case types, effectively yes — treasury, commercial and high-value matters in several states; elsewhere it remains optional alongside the counter.

The court fee is the same as physical filing; the portal adds only the payment-channel charges the state passes on, if any.

Yes — each state fixes its own court-fee schedule. Ask the establishment for its schedule, or file an RTI for it.

Re-file after correcting the defects. An appeal belongs to the judicial process, not the filing counter.

• Orissa High Court — case status and the 2024 e-filing rules
• Gujarat High Court — case status and the RTI portal
• Uttarakhand High Court — case status and the eRTI portal
• All eCourts and judicial guides
• The RTI Playbook book

• filing.ecourts.gov.in — the e-Committee's e-filing portal
• Press Information Bureau — eCourts progress: 5,187 court establishments enabled, 92.08 lakh cases e-filed till 30.09.2025

Last reviewed: 26 August 2026. Portal and coverage figures verified against the live portal and the Government's eCourts progress release; the old page's 16,000-plus courts figure was unsourced and has been replaced.