LEGAL ISSUE: Whether mandatory e-filing of pleadings at Debt Recovery Tribunals and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals is justified, considering the digital divide in India.
CASE TYPE: Writ Petition (Civil) – Service Law, Technology Law, and Procedural Law
Case Name: M P High Court Bar Association vs. Union of India & Ors
Judgment Date: 29 March 2023
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 29 March 2023
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J, J B Pardiwala, J
Can technology enhance access to justice, or does it create new barriers? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case concerning the mandatory e-filing of pleadings at Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs). The Court considered the need for technological advancement in the judicial system while acknowledging the existing digital divide in the country.
The core issue was whether making e-filing mandatory for all cases at DRTs and DRATs, irrespective of the case value, was justified. The petitioner, M P High Court Bar Association, raised concerns about the lack of adequate internet access and technological resources, particularly for lawyers in remote areas. The Supreme Court, while upholding the mandatory e-filing, issued several directions to mitigate the challenges faced by lawyers and litigants due to the digital divide. The judgment was authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, with Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and J B Pardiwala concurring.
Case Background
The case originated from a challenge to the amended Rule 3 of the Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs) Electronic Filing Rules 2020, which made e-filing of pleadings mandatory. Initially, e-filing was optional under the 2020 Rules. Subsequently, on 22 July 2021, e-filing was made mandatory for cases involving a value of Rs 100 crores and above. Finally, on 31 January 2023, the Union government issued a notification making e-filing mandatory for all cases, irrespective of the amount involved. This amendment was challenged by the M P High Court Bar Association, who sought the continuation of hybrid filing (both physical and electronic) at the DRTs and DRATs.
The petitioner argued that the mandatory e-filing rule was implemented without adequate consultation with all stakeholders and that many lawyers, especially in remote areas, lacked the necessary internet access and technological resources. The petitioner also raised concerns about potential software glitches and the need for alternative modalities in such situations. The respondents, the Union of India, contended that the implementation of mandatory e-filing was gradual, preceded by consultations and training programs, and that help desks were established at all DRTs/DRATs to address any technical issues.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 23 January 2020 | Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs) Electronic Filing Rules 2020 were notified, making e-filing optional. |
| 22 July 2021 | E-filing was made mandatory for cases involving a value of Rs 100 crores and above. |
| 9 June 2022 | Conference of Chairpersons of DRATs and Presiding Officers of DRTs recommended that e-filing should be mandatory, irrespective of the amount involved. |
| 31 January 2023 | Notification issued by the Union government making e-filing of pleadings by applicants mandatory for all cases. |
| 24 February 2023 | Notice was issued in the proceedings challenging the mandatory e-filing rule. |
| 29 March 2023 | The Supreme Court issued its judgment. |
Arguments
The petitioner, represented by Mr. Siddharth R Gupta, argued that the amendment to the 2020 Rules making e-filing compulsory was done without proper consultation with all stakeholders. They contended that DRTs are located in remote areas with poor internet connectivity, making mandatory e-filing difficult for lawyers and litigants. The petitioner requested exceptions for:
- Just and sufficient cause
- Senior citizens
- Female practitioners and clients
The petitioner also argued that an alternative modality should be available in case of software glitches.
The respondent, represented by Mr. Shyam Gopal, argued that the mandatory e-filing was not abrupt but a gradual process, preceded by consultations and training programs for the members of the Bar. They also stated that help desks were provided at all DRTs/DRATs to address any technical issues.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Petitioner) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Mandatory e-filing implementation |
|
|
The innovativeness of the argument by the petitioner lies in highlighting the practical difficulties faced by lawyers and litigants, especially those in remote areas and from vulnerable groups, due to the digital divide.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a numbered list. However, the core issue addressed by the court was:
- Whether the mandatory e-filing of pleadings at DRTs and DRATs, irrespective of the value of the case, is justified, considering the digital divide and the need to ensure access to justice for all.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether mandatory e-filing is justified? | Upheld | E-filing promotes transparency, efficiency, and 24×7 access to the court system. |
| Digital Divide | Acknowledged | Noted that not all citizens have access to internet and technology. |
| Grievances of lawyers | Addressed | Directed Bar Associations to submit representations and DRTs/DRATs to submit monthly reports. |
| Need for help desks | Upheld and expanded | Recommended setting up e-sewa kendras at all DRTs/DRATs. |
| Gender divide | Addressed | Directed that representations/reports should be cognizant of digital exclusion on the basis of gender; However, no general exception to female practitioners and litigants was given. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite specific cases or books in the judgment. However, it did refer to the following:
- Section 36 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993: This section empowers the Union government to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act. The notification making e-filing mandatory was issued under this section.
- The Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs) Electronic Filing Rules 2020: These rules initially made e-filing optional, but were later amended to make it mandatory.
- Multiple Indicator Survey in India: NSS 78th Round (2020-2021), The National Sample Survey Office, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India (March 2023): This report highlighted the digital divide between men and women in India.
- National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5) 2019-2021, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India (March 2022): This survey provided data on the proportion of men and women who have ever used the internet.
- The Mobile Gender Gap Report 2022, GSMA (June 2022): This report found that the mobile internet gender gap has widened in South Asia.
| Authority | Type | How it was considered |
|---|---|---|
| Section 36 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 | Legal Provision | The Court acknowledged that the notification making e-filing mandatory was issued under this section. |
| The Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs) Electronic Filing Rules 2020 | Legal Provision | The Court discussed the amendments to these rules which made e-filing mandatory. |
| Multiple Indicator Survey in India: NSS 78th Round (2020-2021) | Report | The Court relied on this report to highlight the digital divide between men and women in India. |
| National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5) 2019-2021 | Survey | The Court used this survey’s data to show the proportion of men and women who have used the internet. |
| The Mobile Gender Gap Report 2022 | Report | The Court cited this report to demonstrate the widening mobile internet gender gap in South Asia. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court upheld the mandatory e-filing of pleadings at DRTs and DRATs, recognizing its benefits in terms of transparency and efficiency. However, the Court also acknowledged the digital divide and the practical difficulties faced by lawyers and litigants.
| Submission | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Mandatory e-filing is unjustified due to lack of consultation and poor internet connectivity | The Court acknowledged the concerns but upheld the mandatory e-filing, emphasizing the gradual implementation and training programs. |
| Need for exceptions for specific groups like senior citizens and female practitioners | The Court did not grant a general exception but directed that the representations/reports should be cognizant of digital exclusion on the basis of gender. |
| Need for alternative modalities in case of software glitches | The Court directed the setting up of help desks and e-sewa kendras to address such issues. |
The Court considered the following authorities:
- Section 36 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993: The Court acknowledged that the notification making e-filing mandatory was issued under this section, establishing the legal basis for the rule.
- The Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs) Electronic Filing Rules 2020: The Court discussed the amendments to these rules, noting the progression from optional to mandatory e-filing.
- Multiple Indicator Survey in India: NSS 78th Round (2020-2021): The Court used this report to highlight the digital divide between men and women, emphasizing the need for inclusive technological solutions.
- National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5) 2019-2021: The Court relied on the data from this survey to show the disparity in internet usage between men and women, underscoring the need to address the gendered aspects of the digital divide.
- The Mobile Gender Gap Report 2022: The Court cited this report to further emphasize the gender gap in mobile internet usage, reinforcing the need for gender-sensitive policies in technological adoption.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factors, including the need for technological advancement in the judiciary, the practical benefits of e-filing, and the need to address the digital divide. The Court emphasized that technology should be an enabler and facilitator, ensuring that no segment of the population is left behind.
The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the data on e-filing percentages, which showed that even smaller borrowers were using e-filing even when it was not mandatory. This suggested that the transition to mandatory e-filing was feasible and could be beneficial for all stakeholders.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Efficiency and Transparency of E-filing | 40% |
| Addressing the Digital Divide | 30% |
| Gradual Implementation and Training | 20% |
| Data on E-filing Usage | 10% |
| Fact | Law |
|---|---|
| 40% | 60% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:
- E-filing provides transparency and efficiency in the administration of justice.
- E-filing provides 24×7 access to the court system.
- The implementation of e-filing was gradual.
- Help desks have been set up at all DRTs/DRATs.
- Training programs have been conducted for the members of the Bar.
- There is a digital divide in the country, and not all citizens have access to the internet or the facilities required for the effective use of technology.
The Court also considered the need to address the digital divide, particularly the gender divide, and directed the Bar Associations and DRTs/DRATs to be cognizant of these issues while submitting their representations and reports.
The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as allowing hybrid filing or granting exceptions to certain groups, but rejected them in favor of a balanced approach that ensures technological advancement while addressing the digital divide.
The final decision was reached by upholding mandatory e-filing while directing the establishment of e-sewa kendras, the submission of representations by Bar Associations, and the submission of monthly reports by DRTs/DRATs.
The Court quoted:
“There can be no gainsaying the fact that e -filing provides transparency and efficiency in the administration of justice. E -filing provides for 24×7 access to the court system and, in fact, facilitates the convenience of lawyers as well as litigants.”
“Technology is an enabler and a facilitator. Hence, no segment of the citizens should be left behind in the adoption of technology, least of all, in terms of access to justice.”
“The digital divide between men and women in India is a stark reality.”
There was a unanimous opinion in the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Mandatory e-filing at DRTs and DRATs is upheld to promote efficiency and transparency.
- The digital divide is a significant concern that must be addressed to ensure access to justice for all.
- E-sewa kendras should be set up at all DRTs/DRATs to facilitate e-filing and provide a one-stop solution for e-services.
- Bar Associations can submit representations on specific difficulties encountered in the e-filing process.
- DRTs/DRATs should submit monthly reports on their experience with e-filing.
- The digital exclusion on the basis of gender should be considered while submitting representations/reports.
- The National Informatics Centre (NIC) will monitor the progress of e-filing and upgrade the e-filing module periodically.
The judgment has significant implications for the future of technology adoption in the Indian judicial system. It sets a precedent for the gradual and inclusive adoption of technology, ensuring that no segment of the population is left behind.
Directions
The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- Bar Associations are permitted to submit representations to the Department of Financial Services regarding specific difficulties encountered in the e-filing process.
- Chairpersons of the DRATs and Presiding Officers of the DRTs are directed to submit monthly reports to the Department of Financial Services on their experience with e-filing.
- The National Informatics Centre (NIC) is directed to constitute a team to monitor the progress of e-filing and upgrade the e-filing module periodically.
- The Union Government is recommended to set up e-sewa kendras at all centers of the DRTs/DRATs to facilitate e-filing.
- The Department of Financial Services is directed to prepare a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in consultation with NIC, setting out the facilities at every e-sewa kendra.
- The representations/reports should be cognizant of digital exclusion on the basis of gender.
The Court directed that the above exercise should be completed within three months from the date of the order.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that while mandatory e-filing is essential for efficiency and transparency in the judicial system, it must be implemented in a manner that addresses the digital divide and ensures access to justice for all. The Supreme Court has not changed the previous position of law, but has given directions to ensure that the implementation of mandatory e-filing is inclusive and addresses the practical difficulties faced by lawyers and litigants.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in the M P High Court Bar Association vs. Union of India & Ors case upholds the mandatory e-filing of pleadings at DRTs and DRATs, recognizing the benefits of technology in the judicial system. At the same time, it acknowledges the digital divide and the need to ensure that technology serves as an enabler of justice for all. The Court’s directions to establish e-sewa kendras, seek representations from Bar Associations, and monitor the e-filing process are aimed at addressing the practical difficulties faced by lawyers and litigants. This judgment underscores the importance of inclusive technology adoption in the Indian legal system.