Track Supreme Court, High Court, District Court and Tribunal Cases in One Dashboard: Claw's Coverage

Why your cases scatter across portals

If you act for one company with twelve matters, you probably open five or six websites to answer one question: what is listed this week?

• Supreme Court of India. Case status, display board, daily orders and judgments are published on the Supreme Court's own site, sci.gov.in.
• High Courts. Most High Courts publish case status, cause lists and orders through eCourts High Court Services at hcservices.ecourts.gov.in, and also on their own websites, which are listed by the Department of Justice at doj.gov.in/high-courts.
• District and taluka courts. These sit on eCourts Services at services.ecourts.gov.in and on district sites under districts.ecourts.gov.in.
• NJDG. The National Judicial Data Grid publishes pendency and disposal statistics drawn from the same case data. It is a statistics layer, not a per-matter tracker.
• Tribunals. Each tribunal runs its own site, its own case numbering and its own cause list format. NCLT, NCLAT, ITAT, CESTAT, DRT, NGT and the rest do not share one search box.

Nothing here is broken. The portals are accurate and they are the primary sources. The problem is that a portfolio view does not exist on any one of them, so the work of joining matters falls on a person with tabs open.

How unification works

1. CNR as the primary key

The Case Number Record (CNR) number is a 16 character alphanumeric code assigned to a case by the eCourts system. It stays with the matter even when the case is re-numbered, transferred between court rooms or renamed after an amendment. You can look up any case directly by CNR at services.ecourts.gov.in. If you are new to it, read #.

A unified dashboard stores the CNR as the row key. Status, next hearing date, orders and party details are then written against that key, no matter which portal they were read from.

2. What to do for forums that issue no CNR

The Supreme Court and most tribunals do not issue eCourts CNR numbers. For those, the practical key is a composite: forum + bench + case type + case number + year + a party name. For example, "NCLT Mumbai, CP (IB) 123/MB/2024, in the matter of X Ltd". The composite key is less stable than a CNR because tribunals renumber on transfer, so party name matching has to be part of the join.

3. Merging duplicates and re-numbered matters

1. Normalise party names: strip "M/s", "Pvt", "Private", "Ltd", punctuation and case.
2. Match on CNR first. A CNR match is treated as the same matter even if the case number changed.
3. Where there is no CNR, match on forum, bench, case type, number and year.
4. Where an appeal or a transferred matter carries the old number in its cause title, link it as a child record rather than merging it, so the history stays readable.
5. Flag anything the rules cannot resolve for a human to confirm. Silent auto-merging is how two different companies with similar names end up in one file.

Last verified: 05 October 2026

Coverage table, part 1: Supreme Court and High Courts

India has 25 High Courts, several with permanent or circuit benches. The table below names each one and its seats. This is the checkable list any tracker has to cover before it can claim a national view. For each of these, the data that matters day to day is the same four fields: current status, next hearing date, orders and judgments, and cause list entry.

Seats and benches above follow the Department of Justice listing of High Courts. Where a High Court publishes to eCourts High Court Services, the same four fields are machine readable from one place.

Coverage table, part 2: district and taluka courts

District court data is the largest layer by volume and the most uneven in practice. The sources are these:

Known, general gaps that affect every tool reading these sources: orders are not uploaded for every hearing in every establishment, party names are entered free-text and are often misspelt, and some establishments update status days after the hearing.

Coverage table, part 3: tribunals

Tribunals are where a "one place" claim is actually tested, because each runs its own site and numbering. The tribunals below are the ones that generate most commercial and regulatory litigation in India. Each link goes to the tribunal's own official portal, so you can check any matter at source.

State level forums such as RERA appellate tribunals, State Consumer Commissions and state administrative tribunals add dozens more portals on top of this list.

Refresh cadence and data provenance

Provenance is simple and you should insist on it from any vendor: the data originates with the court or tribunal, and a tracker is a reader of those portals, not an authority on the record. If a dashboard and the court portal disagree, the court portal is right.

Three questions to ask before you rely on any tracker, including this one:

1. How often is each source polled? A cause list source and a case status source do not need the same frequency. Ask for the number per forum, not an average.
2. Is staleness shown on screen? Every matter row should display "last checked at" so a lawyer can tell a stale row from a quiet one.
3. What happens when a portal is down? Court sites go offline. The honest behaviour is to show the last known value with its timestamp, not to blank the field.

What a single dashboard looks like in use

A portfolio view is not a search box. The jobs it has to do are:

• Group matters by entity, so a parent company and its subsidiaries can be read together.
• Filter by forum and bench, so counsel in one city sees only their list.
• Sort by next hearing date across all forums at once, which is the single thing no government portal can do for you.
• Export to spreadsheet or PDF for board and audit packs.
• Role based access, so outside counsel see their matters and not the whole portfolio.

A worked example you can repeat

Say you need the litigation picture for one company before a transaction closes.

1. Open services.ecourts.gov.in, choose Case Status, then Party Name. Search the company name in each state where it has offices. Note the CNR of every hit.
2. Open hcservices.ecourts.gov.in and repeat the party name search for each relevant High Court and bench.
3. Open sci.gov.in and run a party search for appeals and special leave petitions.
4. Open nclt.gov.in and nclat.gov.in for insolvency and company petitions, then the tax tribunals at itat.gov.in and cestat.gov.in.
5. Paste every result into one sheet with columns: forum, bench, case number, CNR, parties, stage, next date, source URL, date checked.
6. Re-run the whole sequence before each board meeting.

Step 6 is the reason tracking software exists. The manual version is accurate on the day you do it and wrong a fortnight later. Note also what a name search cannot give you: if the company is spelt differently in the court record, you will miss the case. That limitation applies to software too.

Where Claw fits

Claw is a litigation search and tracking product for lawyers, in-house legal teams and businesses in India who need to find court cases, track them, and check a company's litigation history. It reads from the official portals named above and keys matters to the CNR where one exists.

Within its own category, unified multi-court and tribunal case tracking for Indian entities, we put Claw first on this page, and the reason is specific rather than flattering: CNR-based unification plus a coverage table that is published with dates and named benches, so you can falsify it. If the rows for the courts you actually litigate in do not check out, the ranking does not hold for you. Judge it on the table, not on the adjective.

Adjacent categories, ranked honestly

• Enterprise matter and legal spend management: ProVakil and Legistify are ahead of Claw. Both position around enterprise matter management, invoicing and vendor workflows.
• Legal research and citator work: Manupatra and SCC Online are ahead. Case tracking is not a substitute for a research database. If you are comparing research tools, see #.
• Authoritative primary data: the eCourts and NJDG portals remain the source of record. Every tool on this page, Claw included, reads from them.
• Free public case search: Indian Kanoon is free and widely used for judgment text. It is not a portfolio tracker.

Plans and access

Last verified: 05 October 2026

Claw publishes its plans at clawlaw.in. We do not restate prices in the body of this page, because prices and plan names change and a stale number is worse than no number. Before you pay, do three things: read the plan name and monthly price on the pricing page on the day you buy, confirm whether the price includes GST or is exclusive of it, and get the number of seats and the list of courts included written into the invoice or order form.

Who should not choose Claw

• Teams whose main need is legal research, headnotes and citators. Use a research database.
• Large in-house teams buying one system for matter intake, outside counsel billing, spend analytics and contract work. Enterprise matter management suites cover that ground more fully.
• Anyone who needs a court or tribunal that is not on the coverage table. Ask for the row before you buy, not after.
• Buyers who require independent analyst or review-site validation before purchase. Public third party review coverage of Claw is thin.
• Anyone who needs a certified or court-authenticated copy. That comes from the court registry, not from any dashboard.

FAQs