Blockchain and Decentralized Digital File Management for Transparent and Inclusive Governance in India

Abstract

Governance in India faces persistent challenges of transparency, accountability, and accessibility across federal, state, and local levels. Traditional file and records management systems often suffer from inefficiencies, tampering risks, and limited inclusivity due to linguistic barriers. This research proposes a Digital File and Records Management System (DFRMS) that leverages blockchain (Hyperledger Fabric) and decentralized storage (IPFS) to redefine public administration transparency. The system integrates MeriPehchaan single sign-on for identity-bound access, automated redaction pipelines for privacy, and multilingual dashboards for inclusivity. Comparative analysis with Estonia, Georgia, and Dubai demonstrates global feasibility. The blueprint aligns with India’s IT Act, RTI Act, and Digital India Mission, offering a scalable, citizen-centric governance framework.

Introduction

The document explores the challenges and opportunities of digitizing governance records in India, proposing a blockchain-enabled Digital File and Records Management System (DFRMS) to improve transparency, security, and accessibility.

Key Issues Identified:

• Fragmented and outdated record-keeping: Predominance of paper files and isolated digital systems hinder efficiency, authenticity, and citizen trust.

• Challenges in current systems: Includes tampering risks, lack of interoperability, slow RTI responses, weak legal admissibility, and poor multilingual accessibility.

• Privacy vs. immutability conflict: Blockchain's immutability complicates compliance with India’s privacy laws, especially the 2023 Data Protection Act.

Global Lessons and Case Studies:

• Estonia: Integrity and interoperability through KSI blockchain and X-Road.

• Georgia: Trust-building via phased blockchain land registries.

• Dubai: KPI-driven digital adoption with a regulatory mandate.

• Enterprise examples (e.g., TradeLens, Morpheus): Technically sound but failed or limited due to governance or inclusivity issues.

Literature Insights:

• Foundational governance theories (e.g., Cadbury Report, Tricker) emphasize transparency and accountability.

• Blockchain innovations (Nakamoto, Buterin) provide tools for immutability and automation.

• Prior efforts rarely address India’s multilingual, federal, and citizen-centric governance needs.

Identified Research Gaps:

1. Lack of multilingual, inclusive citizen dashboards.

2. Unresolved privacy–immutability tension in blockchain systems.

3. Absence of court-admissible digital evidence formats.

4. Weak consortium governance frameworks in federated systems.

5. No mechanisms for vicinity-aware, privacy-respecting access.

Proposed Solution: DFRMS

A decentralized, privacy-aware system that integrates:

• Blockchain proofs for integrity.

• Decentralized IPFS storage.

• MeriPehchaan-linked identity and access control.

• Multilingual, RTI-compliant citizen dashboards.

• Exportable, court-grade digital proof bundles.

Methodology:

A five-facet coding framework was used to evaluate literature and global case studies on:

• Identity

• Integrity

• Interoperability

• Inclusivity

• Legal admissibility

Findings and Analysis:

• No single existing system satisfies all five facets.

• Best results come from combining multiple strategies (e.g., Estonia’s integrity, Dubai’s regulatory push, Georgia’s phased rollouts).

• Inclusivity and legal admissibility are consistently weak across existing systems.

Implications for India:

• DFRMS could bridge digital divides, enable verifiable RTI disclosures, and enforce role-based access across federal levels.

• Must balance technological innovation with legal compliance and linguistic inclusivity.

• Critical to resolve privacy-immutability conflict through encrypted off-chain storage and redaction mechanisms.

Risks & Future Directions:

• Consortium governance is a major risk, requiring robust incentive alignment among Union, State, and Local entities.

• Pilot implementations in land titles, municipal services, and welfare schemes recommended.

• Further research needed on incentive design, usability, citizen feedback, and real-world KPIs.

Conclusion

India’s governance demands systems that move beyond digitization to ensure transparency, accountability, and inclusivity. Existing records remain fragmented, delaying citizen access and undermining trust. International models highlight blockchain’s strengths in integrity and interoperability but also expose gaps in inclusivity and sustainable governance. A blockchain-enabled Digital File and Records Management System (DFRMS) tailored to India addresses these gaps by binding records to MeriPehchaan identities, anchoring provenance cryptographically, and publishing multilingual, redacted, verifiable records. With phased rollouts in high-value registries and KPI-driven monitoring, such a system offers a scalable reform pathway for achieving India’s Amrit Kaal Vision 2047.

References

[1] Government of India, The Information Technology Act, 2000. New Delhi: Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, 2000. [2] Government of India, The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. New Delhi: Ministry of Law and Justice, 2008. [3] Government of India, The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. New Delhi: Ministry of Law and Justice, 2023. [4] Government of India, Right to Information Act, 2005. New Delhi: Ministry of Law and Justice, 2005. [5] A. Cadbury, Report of the Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance. London, U.K.: Gee Publishing, Dec. 1992. ISBN 0-85258-913-1. [6] S. Nakamoto, “Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system,” White Paper, 2008. [Online]. Available: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf [7] Government of India, Second Administrative Reforms Commission, “Twelfth Report: Citizen-Centric Administration The Heart of Governance,” New Delhi, India, Feb. 2009. [8] V. Buterin, “A next-generation smart contract and decentralized application platform,” Ethereum White Paper, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://ethereum.org/en/whitepaper/ [9] R. G. Eccles, I. Ioannou, and G. Serafeim, “The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance,” *Management Science*, vol. 60, no. 11, pp. 2835–2857, Nov. 2014. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984 [10] M. Swan, *Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy*. Sebastopol, CA, USA: O’Reilly, 2015. [11] M. Vukoli?, “The quest for scalable blockchain fabric: Proof-of-work vs. BFT replication,” in *Proc. Int. Workshop on Open Problems in Network Security (iNetSec)*, Zurich, Switzerland, 2015, pp. 112–125. [12] M. Crosby, P. Pattanayak, S. Verma, and V. Kalyanaraman, “Blockchain technology: Beyond Bitcoin,” *Applied Innovation Review*, vol. 2, pp. 6–10, 2016. [13] A. Narayanan, J. Bonneau, E. Felten, A. Miller, and S. Goldfeder, *Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technologies*. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton Univ. Press, 2016. [14] D. Tapscott and A. Tapscott, *Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, and the World*. New York, NY, USA: Penguin, 2016. [15] W. Mougayar, *The Business Blockchain: Promise, Practice, and Application of the Next Internet Technology*. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2016. [16] Exonum/Bitfury, “Improving the security of a government land registry,” 2016. [Online]. Available: https://exonum.com/story-georgia [17] Z. Zheng, S. Xie, H. Dai, X. Chen, and H. Wang, “An overview of blockchain technology: Architecture, consensus, and future trends,” in *Proc. 2017 IEEE Int. Congress on Big Data (BigData Congress)*, 2017, pp. 557–564. [18] Digital Dubai, “Dubai Paperless Strategy,” 2018 (launch). [Online]. Available: https://www.digitaldubai.ae/initiatives/paperless [19] A. Zohar, “Bitcoin: Under the hood,” *Communications of the ACM*, vol. 62, no. 9, pp. 103–113, Sept. 2019. [20] R. I. Tricker, *Corporate Governance: Principles, Policies, and Practices*, 4th ed. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford Univ. Press, 2019. [21] N. Cai, R. Zeng, and X. Zhang, “Blockchain technology in financial services: A comprehensive review,” *Journal of Financial Services Research*, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 269–290, 2020. [22] J. Sedlmeir, H. U. Buhl, G. Fridgen, and R. Keller, “The energy consumption of blockchain technology: Beyond myth,” *Business & Information Systems Engineering*, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 599–608, Dec. 2020. [23] e-Estonia, “KSI blockchain provides truth over trust,” 2022. Online]. Available: https://e-estonia.com/ksi-blockchain-provides-truth-over-trust/ [24] IPFS Docs, “Case Study: Morpheus.Network,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://docs.ipfs.tech/case-studies/morpheus/ [25] Maersk, “Discontinuation of TradeLens,” Nov. 29, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.maersk.com/news [26] Government of India, “MeriPehchaan—National Single Sign-On (NSSO),” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.india.gov.in/website-meripehchaan-national-single-sign-nsso (Accessed: Sep. 2025).

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Dineshkumar Kumawat, Shruti Yadav. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.