The supreme court in the case of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association v/s Union of India, W.P. No.155 of 2023 approved the mandatory e-filling in debt recovery tribunals and debt recovery appellate tribunals and suggested that other courts including the high courts and tribunals should adopt e- filling. The decision was passed by the three-judge bench comprised of the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala.
The petitioner had filed a plea challenging the notification of the ministry of finance which amended rule 3 of the debt recovery tribunals and debt recovery appellate tribunals electronic filing amendments rules. As per the amendment, it is now mandatory to file pleadings electronically before the debt recovery tribunals and appellate tribunals without any exception or limit. Earlier it was mandatory to file pleadings electronically before the tribunal only if the debt was Rs 100 crores or above.
The petitioner contended that the amendment to make e-filling compulsory without any exceptions was made without taking into consideration the petitioners. It was also argued that the change is too sudden, and the litigants were not given the time to adjust to it. Also, it was argued that many debt recovery tribunals are located in areas of low internet connectivity which will disable the litigants to comply with the mandatory e-filling. Thus, the petitioner demanded that senior citizens, female practitioners, and clients should be exempted from the compulsion of mandatory e-filling in justified cases and demanded that the female practitioners should be given an exception to the mandatory e-filing of pleadings by allowing them to file it in a hybrid mode.
On the other hand, the respondent countered the arguments of the petitioner by stating that the mandatory e-filling had complied with the timelines and facilitated 24/7 e-fillings by litigants from the remotest places. It was also stated by the respondent that help desks were provided in e-filling portals as well as were set up in all debt recovery tribunals and appellate tribunals with 90 members assisting with the e-filling. The respondent countered the argument of the petitioner that the change was sudden by arguing that e-filling was introduced in stages. The first stage was in 2020 when e-filling was only optional and later, in the second stage it was made compulsory only if the debt was Rs 100 corers and above. Thus, the mandatory e-filling without any limit was introduced in a third stage giving enough time to the practitioners and thus was not an abrupt move. The respondent also argued that the decision was taken after holding training programs and consulting the stakeholders.
The court took note of the respondent’s contention about three stage process and observed that the move was gradual, and the practitioners were given time to adjust.
The chief justice of India expressed his disapproval at the contention of the Petitioner to allow female practitioners to file pleadings in a hybrid mode and questioned why presume women are bad at technology. The court went ahead observing that e-filling brings transparency and efficiency in the administration of justice and provides 24/7 access and convenience to the lawyers and litigants. The court also said that the decision should also be replicated by other courts and tribunals including the high courts.
However, at the same time, the court cautioned that technology is an enabler and a facilitator, and no citizen should be left behind because of a lack of access to it. The court observed that the contentions are borne out of ground realities and hence no segment of citizens should be left behind. Not all lawyers may have the required facilities however they can be easily accessed.
Thus, the court permitted the petitioner to submit representation in case difficulties are faced and stated that such representations must focus on suggestions to make e-filing more accessible. The court directed the chairpersons of debt recovery tribunals and appellate tribunals to submit reports monthly initially for a period of 6 months to suggest any necessary upgrades. To monitor the progress of e-filing in debt recovery tribunals and appellate tribunals the court asked the DG of the national informatics centre to form a team for the same.
The court also asked the union government to set up an e-seva Kendras in addition to helping desk at debt recovery tribunals and appellate tribunals and directed that all e-seva Kendras should be equipped with adequate technical infrastructure like printers, scanners, and Internet facilities.
Finally, the court also suggested the financial services department prepare a standard operating procedure for e-seva Kendras in line with the mission of the e-committee of the Supreme Court and the same must be completed in 3 months.
Reference:
Sharma Padmakshi, “supreme court affirms mandatory e-filling in DRATs & DRATs, says other courts should replicate it’’,
Written by Amruta Pawar, semester 6th, college: University of Mumbai thane sub campus
0 Comments