Digital justice and social inequality: civil E-litigation and institutional adaptation in Jordan

1 Introduction

Rapid advances in technology have transformed government organization and delivery of public services. In response to the pandemic caused by COVID-19 Jordan has greatly expanded its digital justice initiatives but literature suggests institutional readiness for these innovations varies among governorates. Lack of disaggregated court level official statistics also prevents quantitative comparison of adoption rates (Šínová and Hamulakova, 2023).

Digital court procedures are commonly described as e-litigation. E-litigation refers to the digitalization of judicial processes through electronic filing, online document submission, remote hearings, and digital communication with parties to legal proceedings. Current research has also looked at the human rights implications of e-litigation as well as equality of access to justice and the protection of privacy within digital courts (Guari et al. 2026; Khan and Ahmed 2024). E-Litigation has a potential to enhance access, increase efficiency and transparency in legal processes (Al Adwan 2019; Al-Naimat et al. 2021; Engstrom 2021) and to introduce new forms of practice such as remote hearing and electronically storing, managing and processing of evidence (Sourdin et al. 2020).

Access to justice is still considered as an essential right in the area of constitutional issues within the context of the Jordanian Legal Framework. The constitutional provision for this issue has been established in Article 101 (1), which states “Courts are open to all” and thus providing a constitutional basis for equality in access to justice.

Digital justice systems in many jurisdictions are at an early stage of development, and only a few examples can be identified where they are being implemented with success as part of national state-led digital transformation and institutional development (Kattel and Mergel, 2019; Susskind, 2019; Šínová and Hamuľáková, 2023). These examples illustrate how e-justice is not just about technology but also about changing legislative norms, procedural safeguards, and the way courts are organized. Susskind, 2019 defines the shift that is occurring regarding justice, as “Justice-as-a-Service” instead of Justice-as-Courtroom whereby both doctrine and institutions will have to adapt.

Jordan has made significant efforts toward digitalizing civil litigation. Regulation No. 95 of 2018 and related amendments to the Civil Procedure Law of 1988 officially recognized digital judicial procedures, e-filing, electronic notification by SMS, remote hearings, electronic document exchange (Al-Qudah, 2020; Jarrah, 2021). Jordan has also implemented electronic case management systems as well as online payment options in courts located in major cities (Al-Naimat et al., 2021).

Despite all these developments, however, the e-litigation framework in Jordan remains fragmented both in theory and practice. First, there is a contradiction between the Civil Procedure Code and the relevant regulations. Although the former considers electronic notice an ancillary means of communication, Regulation No. 95 of 2018 makes it a principal way of notifying parties, thus causing interpretation problems (Al-Fawa’ir and Al-Sarayreh, 2023; Engstrom, 2021). In addition, the lack of a clear definition of digital evidence and the procedures for giving virtual testimonies and online submissions is another source of confusion for courts (Sourdin et al., 2020).

Additional operational factors also create difficulties in the process of implementation. According to the limited available literature, the urban courts in Jordan, especially in Amman, have access to a comparatively developed digital infrastructure and staff members who are competent in using technology. On the other hand, the rural courts may experience greater constraints in connectivity and institutional capacity (Al Adwan, 2019; Rocha et al., 2026). Nevertheless, official disaggregated statistics were unavailable, and these observations should not be interpreted as establishing a statistically verified urban–rural difference in e-litigation adoption. Variances in digital skills among the parties involved also pose problems in the implementation process (Al-Qudah, 2019; Sourdin et al., 2020). Similar issues can be noted in other regions, including Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia (Susskind, 2019; UNDP, 2021).

The implications of these dynamics present significant problems regarding equal treatment under the law, procedural equity, and fair access to the legal system. Although digital transformation can improve efficiency, it may also amplify existing structural inequalities, particularly among vulnerable groups such as: low-income individuals, refugees, senior citizens, and those who are digitally illiterate (Al-Kilani, 2021). The present study does not directly measure digital literacy or its effects among Jordanian litigants; digital exclusion is therefore examined as a potential procedural-justice concern rather than an empirically quantified finding. Therefore, judicial modernization must have an inclusive basis that includes reliability and procedural equity (Ahmed et al., 2021).

Against this backdrop, this study addresses the following research questions: From a methodological perspective, the study employs a doctrinal approach, which will be underpinned by socio-legal theories. The study examines legislative provisions, court rulings, and the lessons learned from other jurisdictions in relation to the subject matter.

• To what extent do Jordanian courts apply electronic litigation procedures, particularly electronic notification, in a consistent manner?
• What doctrinal inconsistencies exist between the Civil Procedure Code and Regulation No. 95 of 2018, and how do they affect procedural coherence?
• What legal and institutional reforms are required to establish a coherent, effective, and equitable e-litigation framework in Jordan?

This paper is organized into seven main sections. Section 2 provides a review of the existing literature. Section 3 highlights the methodology employed in the research. Sections 4 and 5 present the findings and analysis of the research respectively.

2 Literature review

2.1 Conceptualizing civil E-litigation

Civil e-litigation refers to the digitalization of civil proceedings from case initiation through the enforcement of the final judgment. It replaces or supplements paper-based filing, hearings, evidence submission, and communication among judges, court staff, litigants, and legal representatives with digital procedures (Ahmed et al., 2021). Digital litigation systems also establish new procedural settings, including virtual courtrooms, online hearings, and platform-based evidence submission, which reshape interactions among legal actors throughout the litigation process (Engstrom, 2021).

These systems' adoption can be justified through the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), a model that holds that the perceived usefulness and ease of use are determinants of the users’ adoption of technology (Davis, 1989). Despite the contributions made by TAM, the theory's applicability in judicial settings remains constrained by the fact that legal systems adopt a compulsory approach where people do not have a choice of whether to participate or not. In addition, TAM is based on the assumption of voluntariness among users, while litigants and judicial actors are bound to follow obligatory processes, making TAM less applicable in such situations.

Coercive pressure (i.e., institutional isomorphism) offers an additional framework for analysis. Coercive pressure is especially strong in Jordan's e-litigation environment because of both global digital governance initiatives and the COVID-19 pandemic which was a system-wide coercive shock that accelerated electronic judiciary development. Compared to other types of pressure, normative pressure appears to be relatively low, since formalized judicial training and the establishment of professional standards for digital operation have yet to develop.

Procedural justice, according to Tyler, 2021, includes the following four main aspects: voice, neutrality, respect, and trustworthiness, which have an effect on the legitimacy and acceptance of digital judicial procedures.

Path dependence is a term that is used throughout the latter part of this research paper. It can be explained as the process through which institutional structures continue to follow previously laid down paths, despite the availability of better alternatives.

2.2 Legislative frameworks and digital integration

Jordan's e-litigation framework is mainly based on the Civil Procedure Code and Regulation No. 95 of 2018, which together form the legal basis for electronic court proceedings. Although electronic tools are being introduced in order to manage and communicate on cases digitally there continue to be discrepancies between the primary legislation and the regulatory framework (Engstrom, 2021). For instance, while Regulation No. 95 of 2018 is promoting the use of digital procedures, the Civil Procedure Code continues to focus upon traditional practices of service thereby leaving practitioners with uncertainty about what constitutes ‘doctrinally acceptable’ practice (Al-Qudah, 2020).

The Electronic Transactions Law No. 15 of 2015 is another key statute governing digital signatures and digital documents (Albnian et al., 2026). However, it is not adequately cross-referenced with the civil-procedure framework, leading to a fragmented digital legal structure (Albnian et al., 2025). Although the Electronic Transactions Law validates digital signatures, it is not applied consistently in civil proceedings for the authentication of evidence. Recent comparative research concerning Egypt and Jordan similarly indicates that digital evidence raises questions of authenticity, accessibility, and procedural equality, particularly where procedural regulation remains incomplete (Treef et al., 2026).

Moreover, Jordan's Personal Data Protection Law No. 24 of 2023 is relevant to the management, storage, processing, access, and confidentiality of digital court information. Its relevance to civil e-litigation concerns the lawful storage, processing, transmission, disclosure, and protection of personal and sensitive information contained in electronic case files. Judicial platforms must therefore reconcile data confidentiality and cybersecurity requirements with procedural disclosure, evidentiary access, and the parties’ right to examine the materials relied upon in litigation.

More integrated forms of digital justice exist in Estonia and Singapore. Also, similar legal frameworks exist in the United Arab Emirates as a result of legislative reform that has created a much clearer structure for electronic litigation. More broadly, UAE legal scholarship demonstrates that digital transformation requires established legal doctrines to adapt to technology-mediated settings (Khamaysa et al., 2025), while civil-procedure reforms have provided clearer rules for electronic litigation and digital communication (Kandeel, 2025).

The relative success of these systems is associated with more than the enactment of electronic-procedure rules. Estonia combines judicial platforms with an integrated national digital-identification infrastructure; Singapore benefits from centralized judicial administration and an integrated e-litigation platform; Germany embeds electronic service and authenticated communication within its procedural framework (German Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 130a, 173, and 298a); and the UAE coordinates electronic civil procedures with national digital-identity mechanisms. Jordan differs because its electronic procedures remain divided among primary legislation, Regulation No. 95 of 2018, and institutional practice, without an equivalent level of statutory and technical integration (Kandeel, 2025; Kattel and Mergel, 2019; Susskind, 2019; UNDP, 2021). These comparative analyses must be treated with caution because of many other differences between countries such as population size and government scale.

2.3 E-filing and digital document exchange

The electronic filing system introduced by Regulation No. 95 of 2018 is one of the first examples of how Jordanian courts are moving to modernize their procedures. The system has produced several benefits, including greater transparency, traceability, and efficiency of court filings (Al-Kilani, 2021; Rocha et al., 2026). However, there are several difficulties that the e-filing system continues to face, including technological problems related to system functionality and concerns about the reliability of submitted documents.

Jordanian courts lack a standardized procedure for addressing failed transmissions, resulting in variation in judicial responses to corrupted submissions. However, blockchain can be used to create an alternate method to track documents digitally by recording both the date that a document was submitted and its digital fingerprint. Therefore, through this method of tracking, a tamper-proof and permanent record is created; thus, creating strong non-repudiation and enhancing the strength of evidential support for a case.

2.4 Electronic notification: principles and challenges

Electronic notification is among the most contested aspects of e-litigation in Jordan. Regulation No. 95 of 2018 authorizes notification by SMS and email, yet uncertainty persists over how these methods interact with the traditional notification requirements under the Civil Procedure Law. This uncertainty has contributed to doctrinal inconsistency in both legal interpretation and practice (Al-Fawa’ir and Al-Sarayreh, 2023; Jarrah, 2021).

Under procedural justice theory, legal legitimacy depends on clear, predictable, and consistently applied procedural rules (Tyler, 2021). The central question about electronic notice is whether it can be based on presumption that the person received it when the system delivered it, or by proof of receipt demonstrated through use of the document, an acknowledgment etc. Because this choice will affect how fair the process is to all parties, and also how well the rights of litigants are protected, this is particularly important since there isn't a unified Jordanian court standard to evaluate the legitimacy of electronic notice (Engstrom, 2021; Zhang, 2024).

Various comparative methods are evolving. For example, in Germany, the Civil Procedure Code contains an “electronic presumed receipt” model of service. Service will be considered complete once the electronic mailbox of the opposing party has been accessed. In contrast, in the UAE, both the technical transmission of electronic documents via the e-justice portal, as well as acknowledgement from the receiving party, need to occur prior to issuing a default judgment.

2.5 Judicial practice and systemic readiness

Existing literature suggests readiness for e litigation varies among Jordanian jurisdictions. While some urban courts may have stronger infrastructure and more institutional readiness to adopt e-litigation, some rural courts may face higher technological, connectivity and training constraints (Al Adwan 2019; Al-Qudah 2019). However, adoption statistics at official court level are not available and evidence does not permit a statistically valid comparison between urban and rural courts. These differences represent a broader digital divide in which technology restricts people's ability to seek legal remedies. The judicial systems of Jordan are transitioning from their status as pure hybrids to use a combination of traditional methods and very limited forms of digitization. In addition to the technical barriers, the adoption of new technologies into the courts is also restricted by social norms. Several consultees were concerned about how electronic litigation would affect the level of procedural formality or limit a lawyer's ability to make professional judgments and thus they demonstrated possible resistance to technological change.

Some participants expressed positive views toward electronic litigation; however, other participants were less enthusiastic about e-litigation in their own judicial jurisdictions. These findings are based on only a handful of exploratory consultation sessions and thus do not provide evidence for how commonly held these views are among Jordanian legal practitioners, nor can they be generalized to all such practitioners. The findings are suggestive and have not been generalized using statistical inference. The examples presented in Table 1 illustrate differences across various aspects of comparative e-litigation systems such as legal frameworks, identification verification processes, notice provisions, and procedural results.

Table 1. Comparative analysis of E-litigation systems.

Developed from the comparative e-justice literature. The Estonia row draws on Kattel and Mergel, 2019 and UNDP, 2021; the Singapore row draws on Susskind, 2019 and UNDP, 2021; the UAE row draws on Kandeel, 2025; the Germany row draws on the German Code of Civil Procedure, particularly §§ 130a, 173, and 298a; and the Jordan row draws on Al-Naimat et al., 2021, Jarrah, 2021, and Al-Fawa’ir and Al-Sarayreh, 2023.

2.6 Gaps in literature

While a growing body of literature has emerged about e-litigation in Jordan, several areas for future research remain. First, there is an absence of empirical research related to user experiences, including accessibility, usability, and litigant satisfaction. Second, there is no literature that provides a longitudinal analysis of the transformation in the judiciary since the adoption of digitalization during the COVID-19 pandemic. Third, there is insufficient disaggregated data regarding the issue of digital injustice among genders, disabilities, and socioeconomic groups. Fourth, there has been no cost-benefit analysis that compares the costs associated with e-litigation, such as the costs of technology infrastructure, staff training, and maintenance with potential savings in judicial time, paper usage, and physical resources. Fifth, there is no research focused on cybersecurity issues related to data breaches, hacking, and tampering with digital evidence, although there is an increased global focus on these topics (Khan and Ahmed, 2024).

3 Methodology

Doctrinal legal analysis is well suited to assessing the coherence and application of the legal framework governing electronic civil litigation in Jordan. Socio-legal theories, including institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983), procedural justice (Tyler, 2021), and the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989), provide a framework for examining why courts and legal actors adopt or resist electronic procedures. The study adopts a primarily doctrinal and comparative research design. The exploratory consultations serve only as supplementary contextual evidence and do not form a representative empirical dataset. Inferential statistical analysis was therefore neither appropriate nor necessary.

This study examines judicial and regulatory developments from 2020 to 2023, a period selected to capture the transition to remote court proceedings during and after the COVID-19 crisis. This period allowed for the study of emergency measures and the subsequent institutionalization of the electronic litigation in Jordan.

3.1 Data sources and legal corpus

This study draws on both primary and secondary legal materials. Its primary sources include the Jordanian Code of Civil Procedure, Regulation No. 95 of 2018, and two Jordanian court judgments issued in 2022 and 2023 that directly address electronic notification.

A supplemental Qistas search was completed because the original search log could not be located; it utilized the “near match” feature and limited the results to civil court cases filed between 2020 and 2023. The searches for the Arabic equivalent of both “text messages sent via mobile phone”, and “electronic notifications” resulted in 29 Court of Cassation records and 38 first-instance appellate decisions respectively. Together these searches generated 67 raw search results. These records were not all coded or analyzed and included incidental references to electronic notification. Decisions were selected for detailed analysis when electronic or SMS notification raised a substantive procedural issue and the court examined the ownership, designation, or verification of the intended recipient's telephone number. Detailed coding did not occur if the record merely referenced electronic notification, without evaluating it for procedural validity.

The judicial corpus examined in this study was limited to two purposively selected decisions: Jordanian Court of Cassation Case No. 6700/2021, decided on 20 January 2022 (Jordanian Court of Cassation, 2022), and Madaba Court of First Instance, sitting in its appellate capacity, Case No. 480/2022, decided on 10 January 2023 (Madaba Court of First Instance in its Appellate Capacity, 2023). The decisions were chosen because they reflect contrasting approaches to the validity of SMS notifications and the verification of the intended recipient's telephone number. They form an illustrative purposive sample rather than a comprehensive account of Jordanian case law on electronic notification.

This purposive selection allowed an in-depth analysis of the relevant doctrinal contrast. However, it may introduce selection or confirmation bias as the selected cases may reflect contested or progressive interpretations of e-litigation in a disproportionate way. Thus, the results demonstrate changing legal patterns, but not the frequency or distribution of judicial approaches in Jordan.

The secondary data consisted of articles from scholarly journals, professional journals of law, government policy reports, and Master's theses that provide a comparative overview of trends toward judicial reform and impediments. All sources concerning Jordanian Laws were reviewed in Arabic. Any translation offered was done by the author to maintain consistency during comparative analysis.

3.2 Analytical framework and thematic coding

Qualitative thematic analysis was applied to legal materials, utilizing manual coding matrices that assisted in determining analytical themes. Four analytic themes provided a framework for structuring the analysis: Each of the two judicial decisions was examined according to the applicable doctrinal themes, as illustrated in Table 2. In order to increase analytical validity, codes were cross-checked against other judicial decision making and frameworks that have been utilized for comparison.

• Statutory Coherence (consistency of statutory law and regulatory law)
• Procedural Adequacy (due process safeguards in digital procedure)
• Technology Readiness (infrastructure; connection; institutional capacity)
• Judicial Interpretation (patterns of acceptance; patterns of resistance; doctrinal clarity)

Table 2. Coding structure for the doctrinal analysis of the judicial decisions.

The two rows illustrate the coding of the complete judicial corpus subjected to detailed doctrinal analysis. The coding categories were used as an organizational framework for doctrinal interpretation rather than as a quantitative content-analysis measure.

The coding framework allowed for a systematic examination of how judges made their rulings so that an understanding of common themes in the legal concepts could be obtained.

The coding was conducted by a single researcher, and no formal intercoder reliability assessment was performed. Although the use of one coder promoted consistency in applying the coding framework, it also increased the possibility of interpretive subjectivity. The coding matrix and complete details of the two analyzed decisions are presented in Tables 2, 3. The coding matrix was used as an organizational instrument for doctrinal interpretation rather than as an independently validated quantitative content-analysis measure. Accordingly, the absence of a second coder limits the independent reproducibility of the thematic classification.

Table 3. Judicial decisions included in the doctrinal corpus.

These two purposively selected decisions constitute the complete judicial corpus subjected to detailed doctrinal analysis. They illustrate contrasting approaches to recipient-identity verification but do not establish the prevalence of either approach throughout the Jordanian judiciary.

3.3 Exploratory consultations

A small group of exploratory consultation sessions were also undertaken with legal practitioners such as judges and court managers. The objective of the consultations was to obtain some context about the kinds of practical challenges that may arise when implementing e-litigation. The consultations were not intended to constitute a representative interview study or to produce independently generalizable empirical findings. All five consultations were informal and unrecorded, and no structured sampling framework or formal interview schedule was used. The consultation observations were not independently coded and were used solely to contextualize the doctrinal findings.

In order to reflect their exploratory nature, the consultations were limited in scope (n = 5). No claims of thematic saturation have been made due to the very small sample size and the absence of an articulated sampling strategy. Therefore, the consultations are considered to be illustrative insights which contextualize the findings of the doctrinal research. They were not used to calculate adoption rates, establish an urban–rural performance difference, or measure the prevalence of digital illiteracy.

3.4 Comparative jurisdictional framework

This study employs a comparative approach. The countries which will be examined in this comparative study are Estonia, Singapore, Germany and United Arab Emirates. Estonia was selected for the purpose of its use of an integrated system of digital identification and electronic government services. Singapore was selected due to its centralized electronic litigation management. In addition, Germany's use of electronic services and authentication of professional communications were also considered important. Finally, the UAE represents a model that combines civil procedure reform with identity mechanisms and offers regional relevance. Similar studies have used doctrinal analysis to compare how procedural autonomy and public-order requirements can be reconciled across civil law and Sharia-influenced jurisdictions by comparing the laws of Jordan and the UAE (Alghathian et al., 2026). The basis for such a comparison is presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Analytical dimensions for comparative E-litigation assessment.

Prepared by the author drawing on principles from UNDP, 2021 and UNIDROIT, 2004.

3.5 Methodological justification and theoretical anchoring

Doctrinal analysis when combined with socio-legal theory will allow for an interdisciplinary or multi-dimensional approach to assess the reforms being made to e-litigation. Socio-legal approaches explain that external pressures are a key driver for countries to adopt reforms due to broader trends of global digital governance. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) examines perceived usability and perceived system trust. Procedural Justice Theory explains the importance of fairness, transparency, and legitimacy in judicial processes. Taken together, these theoretical models provide a framework for analyzing the relationship between legal doctrine, institutional behavior, and technological limitations.

3.6 Ethical considerations

The doctrinal research component was based upon an analysis of publicly available legislation, public judgments, and other published material. There were five informal consultations that were unrecorded. No personal identifiers or sensitive information was collected. Only general contextual observations were made from these consultations; they were not considered to be a human-participant study or otherwise representative.

3.7 Limitations

There are limitations. Firstly, a lack of evidence precludes both user experience and operational performance from being evaluated. Secondly, purposive sampling creates risk of selection bias. The two-decision judicial corpus is illustrative in this study and does not represent the entire body of Jordanian judicial practice. Third, no intercoder reliability test was conducted, limiting the reproducibility of the thematic classification. The five exploratory consultations were too limited and non-representative to support claims of thematic saturation or empirical generalization. The comparative analysis has limitations due to structural distinctions amongst jurisdictions (legal culture, technology capacity). Additionally, no data were collected on litigants’ characteristics with respect to their digital literacy levels, disability accessibility needs, socioeconomic positions, or their overall experience of digital exclusion.

Despite these limitations, the research design provides a coherent theoretical and socio-legal framework for examining the relationship between law and digital transformation.

4 Results

4.1 Legal validity of electronic procedures

Electronic litigation is officially recognized by Jordan's legal system via Regulation No. 95 of 2018 and subsequent modifications to the Civil Procedure Code. Specifically, Article 5(2)(a) allows for electronic confirmation of a party's address for purposes of notice, Article 21(1) permits the creation of an electronic record of judicial proceedings, and Article 58(3) empowers parties with the ability to electronically transmit documents or other items of evidence or procedure (Ministry of Justice, Jordan, 2018). As such, these provisions create the statutory authority for e-filing in civil cases.

The judicial process reflects a gradual yet inconsistent shift toward technological adoption. Although courts increasingly accept electronic submissions when procedural requirements are satisfied, some still require litigants to provide hard copies after documents have already been filed electronically.

4.2 Judicial endorsement of E-notification

In Jordanian Court of Cassation Case No. 6700/2021, decided on 20 January 2022, the Court relied on Article 7 of Regulation No. 95 of 2018, which recognizes text messages sent through mobile telephones as an approved means of judicial notification and gives such notification the same legal effects as service conducted under the Civil Procedure Law. The Court held that the notification was valid because the recipient's lawyer did not challenge the validity or ownership of the telephone number.

In contrast, Madaba Court of First Instance in its Appellate Capacity Case No. 480/2022, decided on 10 January 2023, the Court determined that the use of electronic notifications constituted a procedural error, since no evidence existed that the telephone number in question belonged to the defendant institution or was assigned for that purpose. The defendant's explanation for its prior absence was considered reasonable; thus, it was granted permission to defend itself and present evidence.

The main differences of the judgments are found in their way that they handle the proof of identity of the addressee. The Court of Cassation accepts service at a telephone number that is uncontested by the defendant, while the Madaba Court requires positive proof for an institutionally intended recipient. Due to only analyzing two judgments, the difference demonstrates which different legal doctrines can be used, but it does not show whether one or both ways of handling this issue occur regularly within Jordan.

4.3 Technological and procedural integration

As well as the other forms of technology, Jordan has developed a number of different online products that are used by the legal community, to assist with judicial process. For example, some jurisdictions have adopted online e-filing systems; remote video hearing systems; and/or electronic payment methods (Al-Naimat et al., 2021). Each type of product will be applied differently in each area. The findings from existing research indicate that some urban courts are in a better position to utilize this type of judicial technology as compared to rural courts. Urban courts may possess an advantage over their rural counterparts with regard to both infrastructure, as well as the resources necessary for supporting technological advancements. Some rural courts may face constraints involving hardware, software, internet connectivity, and training. However, this proposition could not be quantitatively tested because official court-level implementation data were unavailable (Al Adwan, 2019; Rocha et al., 2026).

As stated by Al-Naimat et al., 2021, based on information from the Judicial Council, as of 2021, electronic filing systems were in operation in eight of the twelve governorates. The lack of more recent data from official sources limits any possible long-term comparison. The exploratory consultation process (n = 5) suggested that there continue to be operational difficulties with the e-filing systems, including reported system interruptions, limited internet access, and inadequate training opportunities, particularly outside major court locations. These findings have been generated within a specific context and therefore cannot be generalized. They do not establish that urban courts statistically outperform rural courts. In addition, no official data have yet become available regarding rates of adoption, notification-success rates or successful completion of training.

4.4 Legislative inconsistencies and reform gaps

The Civil Procedure Code is inconsistent in its structure with Regulation No. 95 of 2018. Regulation 95 has made the process of electronic proceedings central to all judicial proceedings. However, the Civil Procedure Code emphasizes traditional methods over electronic ones which create a confusion in doctrine (Civil Procedure Code, 1988; Ministry of Justice, Jordan, 2018).

This dualism appears in judicial practices. Some courts consider electronic submission sufficient enough while other courts have required additional physical documents which creates uncertainty with regard to procedure. Further consultation explorations (n = 5, non-representative only) suggest that some courts are continuing to require printed versions of electronically-submitted materials so that they may be verified by the court.

4.5 Judicial and institutional patterns in E-notification

The two analyzed decisions reveal contrasting judicial approaches to electronic notification and recipient-identity verification, as summarized in Table 3. The exploratory consultations separately provide contextual observations concerning institutional implementation.

The results also identified two types of fragmentation. A first type is related to the judicial aspect and was revealed by discrepancies in the way that courts recognize formally or functionally electronic notifications. A second type refers to the institutional aspect which relates to potential variations in training for judges/court clerks across jurisdictions. This highlights how obstacles to e-litigation go beyond legal recognition, but can be due to technical and structural issues. These institutional observations are exploratory and should not be treated as representative findings across all Jordanian courts.

4.6 System capacity and data limitations

Digital judicial platforms are used in a number of Jordanian jurisdictions but there is little publicly available information on their efficiency. There are no official figures on electronic filing, the success rate of notifications, training results or the number of cases processed digitally. As a result, the study was unable to estimate adoption rates, notification-success rates, or statistically substantiated urban-rural differences. Without this information, the findings are limited to doctrinal analysis and exploratory institutional observations.

5 Discussion

5.1 Institutionalizing digital equivalence

The findings illustrate that although formal acceptance for electronic litigation processes exist as part of a legal structure for the application of law in Jordan; there are differences among judicial contexts regarding the practice of electronic litigation. These variations in the usage of electronic litigation practices also indicate a conflict or gap between the legal requirements or mandates, and the practices that occur in the practical application of electronic litigation processes. This is demonstrated as a result of studying legal legitimacy in terms of procedural justice. Research regarding procedural justice has shown that the legitimacy of the law does not rely solely upon the existence of rules; it also relies heavily on the consistent, transparent, and predictable application of those rules (Tyler, 2021). Therefore, when courts provide different standards in their application of electronic procedures, this uncertainty may reduce confidence in the judiciary.

The lack of standardization for digital procedures in addition, hampers both access to justice, and also diminishes users’ trust in the reliability of electronic litigation systems (Khan and Ahmed, 2024). Moreover, the lack of a standardized way of measuring performance increases this uncertainty even further because the judicial systems do not have sufficient objective criteria to determine if electronic procedures are used equitably and appropriately (Rocha et al., 2026). Therefore, digital transformation requires more than the introduction of electronic procedures. Courts must apply those procedures consistently and with the same degree of legal certainty, regardless of the medium used.

5.2 Standardizing E-notification practice

Variations in judicial attitudes toward electronic notification reveal an underlying tension between procedural reform and evidentiary certainty. Some courts adopt a functional approach that prioritizes efficient communication, while others require strict proof of identity to preserve procedural reliability.

The main reason why some people feel that the new digital approach is not suitable for notices is that methods relying on electronic communication may be unreliable due to potential technical failures. The results however show that most of this unreliability occurs as a result of there being no standard process for verifying whether or not notice was received electronically. Digital technology can create a reliable method to provide timely and efficient service, but it must also protect the rights of parties in dispute through its processes, including providing assurance of both the delivery and receipt of information in areas where there are still many questions about what constitutes valid notice (Engstrom, 2021; Sourdin et al., 2020; Zhang, 2024).

A potential resolution lies in a proposed two-tier electronic notification system. The first tier would rely on presumed receipt for routine procedural notices, based on system delivery. Level two would include actual receipt, such as user confirmation, where the case includes issues with default judgment and dispositive orders.

In this way, both the protection of the parties and the efficiency are fairly well balanced. It also fits with a broader view of the trade-off that exists between efficiency and fairness when adopting technology, as described by Davis, 1989 who explains how perceived reliability affects institutional acceptance of new systems.

5.3 Potential urban–rural disparities and institutional readiness

The unequal access to electronic litigation may arise from certain structural components that are involved in the digital divide. While urban courts may benefit from stronger infrastructure, some rural courts may experience greater constraints in connectivity and personnel; however, this study does not provide quantitative evidence establishing the magnitude or prevalence of this difference.

The procedural justice theory endorses equal access to processes such as access to online processes as part of legitimacy (Tyler, 2021). Unequal access to digital processes within the justice system may lead to further fragmentation within the justice process, especially where digital transformation may lead to greater inequalities without supportive legal structures that ensure equitable access (Wala, 2022).

Cross-country comparisons require caution. Estonia's experience has been supported by an integrated digital-identification infrastructure and high levels of digital-service readiness, conditions that cannot be assumed to exist to the same extent in Jordan on the basis of the evidence reviewed in this study (UNDP, 2021). Also, the fact that the Singapore government is highly centralized makes it possible to implement any reforms quickly. However, this differs significantly from the Jordanian context.

5.4 Legal reform, doctrinal coherence, and path dependency

Inconsistencies between certain rules found in the Civil Procedure Code and those in Regulation No. 95 of 2018 can be considered one of the key issues addressed by the doctrine. Despite the Regulation's emphasis on using new technology, old legal rules are entrenched in primary law.

One of the best theories to explain such inconsistencies is path dependency. The initial choice made during the early development of a process determines its nature even after later reforms. Such an example is the preference for notifications in paper form according to Article 12 of the Civil Procedure Code.

This resistance is also strengthened by organizational isomorphic processes wherein conformity to digital innovation reforms runs parallel to administrative tradition, thereby bringing about only incremental changes rather than revolutionary ones (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).

Consequently, Jordan's use of hybrid procedural processes does not arise from mere inconsistencies in its legislation but stems from a lack of innovation in its processes based on past practices. The trend is in line with the current research literature concerning digital governance, where it has been shown that institutional capacity is key to digital transformation (Kattel and Mergel, 2019).

5.5 Fiscal constraints and institutional prioritization

Some of the costs associated with developing an effective e-litigation system include spending money on infrastructure, training staff, and providing cybersecurity. A possible counterargument to the development of an electronic litigation process is that there may be a number of indirect costs for litigants including cost to access the Internet, purchase technology, or learn computer skills.

On the other hand, a reduction in the transaction costs associated with the use of technology can lead to increased filings before courts; however, improved access to the legal system as a result of this would likely place an additional burden on judges. In order to prioritize investment within budget constraints, it is essential to focus on the goals of rural integration and capacity building to reduce disparities inherent to the structure. In addition to these priorities, when considering long-term sustainability, there are also the potential security risks and vulnerabilities of the systems that have been implemented (Susskind, 2019).

5.6 Digital exclusion and social inequality

While the efficiency that comes with digitalization presents certain exclusion dangers to those members of disadvantaged communities who lack access to digital services, this concern is particularly relevant in Jordan due to multiple barriers affecting key groups, including: These groups are identified in the broader access-to-justice literature as potentially vulnerable to digital exclusion. The present study did not collect direct evidence from members of these groups and therefore does not establish the prevalence or effects of digital illiteracy among Jordanian litigants.

• Refugees and displaced persons who may experience barriers to accessing digital judicial services.
• Older persons who may experience difficulties in using digital judicial platforms.
• Persons with disabilities who may require accessible interfaces and assistive technologies.

Without specific inclusion techniques, electronic litigation will only help exacerbate the current inequality disparities by increasing access barriers for many people who lack adequate infrastructure and basic digital skills (Okeke, 2026). The procedural justice theory explains why this is critical to ensuring that legal processes are fair and therefore viewed as legitimate (Tyler, 2021), which means electronic justice needs to have a mechanism of providing access to courts and legal aid, otherwise exclusion from electronic justice is inevitable.

5.7 Synthesis of theoretical implications

The results of these studies demonstrate that the transformation to electronic litigation in Jordan represents a hybrid form of institutional development as a function of tension existing between the push from modernizing influences and the resistance from inertia. As such, it is clear that there exists significant challenges when developing a new paradigm for digital justice, it is not simply about technology or how the legal process interacts with its associated institutions and processes.

6 Conclusion

This study examined if Jordan's e-litigation framework has reached doctrinal consistency and functional integration. Jordan has had success with legal reform and judicial digitisation but these have been limited by structural and doctrinal fragmentation in the implementation of the framework. The research identified that inconsistencies between traditional and digital procedural rules produce uncertainty for judicial interpretation, the implementation of reforms and procedural predictability. Therefore, the main obstacles to achieve an effective (coherent and integrated) e-litigation framework are institutional and doctrinal, as opposed to being primarily technological.

This research contributes to our understanding by relating institutional isomorphism, procedural justice, and path dependency to understand why digitalization develops in civil justice systems. The integration of Doctrinal Analysis and Structured Legal Coding enables the development of a comparative approach to analyze similar processes of legal and digital transformation in civil law jurisdictions. Thus, digital justice can not only be seen as an administrative modernization process but also as a comprehensive transformation that requires legislative adaptation, the creation of new procedural rules and the development of institutions and technological infrastructure.

7 Recommendations

Legislative, institutional, and technological reforms are required to institutionalize electronic civil litigation in Jordan. Proposed legislative amendments should address Articles 7(b), 70(2), and 12 of the Civil Procedure Code by providing a clear basis for electronic notification, virtual hearings, and the verification of parties through digital-identification systems.

The rollout of this plan is to occur in a structured multistage timeline. In terms of the phases of the rollout: there will be legislative reform completed within six months; pilot programs implemented for 12 months within the 6–18 month timeframe; and national scale implementation by end of the 18-36 month timeframe with all three being dependent upon independent assessment of success. Pilot success may be assessed using proposed benchmarks, including an 80% e-notification acceptance rate, 95% system uptime, and at least 70% positive user feedback. These benchmarks should be validated during the feasibility and pilot phases before nationwide implementation.

All institutional roles should be defined. The legislative body needs to make the required changes; the Ministry of Justice will oversee all things financial and infrastructural (e.g., courts). The Higher Judicial Council will determine all procedure, oversee lawyer training, and evaluate performance of all lawyers. The Judicial Technology and Innovation Directorate is responsible for ensuring that everything runs smoothly and effectively in this regard; lawyers are certified by the Bar Association.

The financial cost of implementing the proposed reform should be determined through a formal feasibility study covering digital infrastructure, platform development, cybersecurity, maintenance, staff training, user-support services, and rural-court integration. The evaluation process should pay particular attention to various indicators such as the rate of acceptance of electronic notifications, total number of cases being handled through the digital process, percentage of rural locations embracing the digital process, average duration to handle a case, user satisfaction with the process, and the number of trained judicial personnel using the digital platform. An annual report of the performance of the project should be released by the Higher Judicial Council. During judicial evaluations, the implementation of the digital process must be included as one of the critical measures along with others as a benchmark of equal weight.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Narcisa Medranda—Morales, Universidad Politecnica Salesiana—Sede Quito, Ecuador

Reviewed by: Tariq Kameel, Al Ain University, United Arab Emirates

Roberto Sanchez-Montoya, Salesian Polytechnic University, Ecuador