Case Type

What is Case Type?

In judicial administration, “case type” is an internal classification label used to identify the basic nature of a case for registration, tracking, and reporting. It is not a substantive legal concept in itself, but an administrative category that reflects what kind of matter has been filed. Case type is the formal category assigned to a case in CIS/e‑Courts (for example, Sessions Case, Original Suit, Maintenance Case, Motor Accident Claim, Criminal Appeal, NI Act Complaint), which is used to distinguish broad kinds of proceedings (civil vs criminal, trial vs appeal, writ vs execution, etc.)

It functions as a key field in digital systems (Case Number, NJDG) so that all other data about a matter (case status, workload, timelines, privacy rules, scheduling, etc.) can be attached to the right “kind” of case.

Official Definition of Case Type

Case Type as defined in official government reports

NCMS Baseline report on Case Management System (2024)

The report envisages workflows and tools that are “streamlined based on the type of case,” including templatised orders in simpler matters and different levels of automation depending on complexity of the case type. Some of its recommendations related to case types include:

• The matrix used of performance management and court and case management should be properly aligned, which includes clearly defined parameters to measure case complexity, moving from generic case types to defining sub-types for complexity evaluation, and distinguishing between pendency, backlog, and arrears, drawing from international experiences.
• Data analytics and tools should be integrated with the case management system. This would involve standardisation and consistent categorisation of case types for better transparency.
• Due to the issues in assigning a weight to similar case types as is being done in the Case Flow Management Rules, it is suggested that the cases be categorised further into dispute types or sub-case types. This is because case types as currently used in CIS are not homogenous due to their overarching nature and differ widely in nature of evidence, number of witnesses, judicial time required, etc.

Digital Courts Vision & Roadmap: e-Courts Project Phase III

The vision document recommends the development of national codes for case types and legislation across all districts. This is to create back-end standardisation for diverse case classification systems across different High Courts, to enable the collation of comparable metadata at state and national levels. It also observed that developing a uniform standard (as opposed to standardisation) for the classification of a ‘case’ and case types will not only increase transparency of data but will also enhance interoperability of data across courts and with other entities such as police, prisons etc, subject to relevant legal processes and access controlled.

Research that engages with Case Types

Deciphering Judicial Data: DAKSH's Database

The research undertaken by DAKSH on judicial data examines case types as a classificatory mechanism within the Indian judicial system. At the core of the research is the recognition that case types are presently the primary (and often the only) method available to distinguish between civil and criminal cases within court datasets. However, the study demonstrates that this reliance is deeply problematic due to the absence of standardisation. Case types vary widely across states, courts, and even districts within the same state, both in nomenclature and abbreviation. Through empirical analysis of data from 152 districts, the research identifies 4,835 unique case types, showcasing the scale of fragmentation.

The research interrogates how variation in case types undermines accurate identification of case nature. For instance, identical or similar abbreviations may denote entirely different kinds of cases, civil or criminal, depending on punctuation or local usage. Conversely, the same case type may be written in multiple formats across courts, making automated or comparative analysis extremely difficult. This inconsistency complicates efforts to map cases accurately, particularly when case type labels such as “Miscellaneous Case” or “Original Suit” are overly broad and internally heterogeneous.

The research also highlights that case types are expected to convey subject-matter information, such as maintenance, probate, land acquisition, or negotiable instruments disputes. In practice, however, the same subject matter is often distributed across multiple case types, while single generic case types may include disputes arising under numerous statutes. This dilutes the analytical value of case types and prevents granular assessment of pendency, delay, and disposal trends across specific categories of disputes.

To address these limitations, the study situates case types within a broader analytical framework by supplementing them with Acts and sections data, while also acknowledging that these fields suffer from their own inconsistencies and gaps. The research further introduces an “other” category for cases that cannot be clearly classified as civil or criminal, reflecting the doctrinal and procedural ambiguity inherent in certain kinds of litigation, such as contempt matters or statute-specific cases.

The Possibilities of eCourts Data for Advancing Research on Law Implementation

The research examines how case types are produced, entered, and interpreted within the eCourts system. One key focus is the inconsistency in how case types are recorded across States and courts. The research documents significant variation in nomenclature, abbreviations, and coding practices, which makes it difficult to reliably identify the “exact type of case proceeding” either within a single State or in comparative, cross-State analysis

A recurring concern highlighted in the research is the ambiguity of metadata fields associated with case types, particularly when read alongside related fields such as “Under Act(s)” and “Under Section(s)”. In criminal cases, these fields are often jointly relied upon to infer the nature of the charges. However, the research points out that it is unclear whether these entries reflect the charges as filed in the chargesheet or the charges as framed by the court, creating uncertainty about what the recorded case type substantively represents.

The research also draws attention to erroneous or implausible combinations of case classifications, such as cases appearing to be simultaneously filed under unrelated statutes. In pending cases, where no judgment is available, there is no reliable method to verify whether such entries are clerical errors or reflect substantive aspects of the dispute. This limitation affects the use of case types for statutory-specific analysis.

Another strand of analysis concerns unclear, incomplete, or locally specific case-type entries. The research identifies multiple instances where case types are recorded using indecipherable abbreviations or shorthand expressions (for example, entries such as “C-7”, “C.t.”, “C.g.”, or “C2(cla)”), which lack any publicly available key or jurisdiction-specific legend. While such entries may have meaning within local court practice, their absence of standardisation renders them opaque to external researchers and limits their utility for large-scale or comparative studies.

Bringing the ‘E’ to Judicial Efficiency Implementing the e-Courts System in India

The research demonstrates that there is no uniform taxonomy governing how cases are categorised. For instance, High Courts differ significantly in the number of main case categories, the depth of sub-categorisation, and the format of coding—ranging from two-digit numeric codes to complex alpha-numeric systems running into hundreds of case types. District and subordinate courts generally adopt the classification systems of their respective High Courts, while also introducing court-specific additions or deletions based on local requirements. As a result, case types are shown to be highly decentralised and context-specific rather than nationally standardised.

A central concern identified in the research is nomenclatural inconsistency. Identical or substantively similar proceedings are often labelled differently across jurisdictions. Criminal miscellaneous matters, murder cases, and motor accident claims are cited as examples where the same legal subject is described using different abbreviations, statutory references, or procedural labels in different courts. This diversity in naming conventions complicates any attempt to aggregate, compare, or analyse case data across courts or States, even when the underlying legal issues are identical.

Although backend programming can partially integrate heterogeneous data, the absence of a single, harmonised list of case types limits meaningful disaggregation and analysis. The research underscores that resolving this issue requires extensive process reengineering of High Court rules governing case classification, registration, and procedure, a task made particularly complex by the constitutional independence of High Courts.