2023 (4) TMI 757 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of provisions of amended Rule 3 of the E-filing Rules - seeking direction to the DRTs and DRATs across the country to continue with hybrid filing of pleadings and applications before them - HELD THAT - There can be no gainsaying the fact that e-filing provides transparency and efficiency in the administration of justice. E-filing provides for 24x7 access to the court system and, in fact, facilitates the convenience of lawyers as well as litigants. With the march of technology, it would be too late in the day to postulate that e-filing should not be adopted. As a matter of fact, the decision to take up e-filing must be replicated by other tribunals and courts in the country, including the High Courts in a phased manner and that it eventually becomes mandatory. The Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that 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. 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 grievance which has been portrayed in this proceeding can be addressed at two levels. Firstly, we would permit the Bar Associations representing the collective voice of the lawyers in the DRTs/DRATs to submit their representations to the Department of Financial Services if any specific difficulties are encountered in the process of e-filing. The National Informatics Centre (NIC), which has put into place the e-filing facilities for the DRTs/DRATs, has also been facilitating the same exercise in the judicial system. NIC is equipped with a robust team of officials. The Director General of NIC shall constitute a team to monitor the progress of e-filing in the DRTs/DRATs so that any difficulties which are encountered can be suitably addressed on a real time basis. The e-filing module must be upgraded with periodical developments. Help desks which have been set up at the DRTs/DRATs - HELD THAT - The representations by the Bar Associations on specific difficulties faced in the process of e-filing, and the reports prepared by the Chairpersons of the DRATs and the Presiding Officers of the DRTs should be cognizant of digital exclusion on the basis of gender, while submitting their respective representations/ reports. The help desks can consider providing a dedicated portal to address the grievances of female litigants - There is no reason to postulate that there is a gender divide in one s inherent ability to use technology. The exercise which has been directed to be carried out in the above terms should be completed within a period of three months from the date of this order. This would not preclude the Department of Financial Services from making such further arrangements as are found necessary to deal with an emergent situation in any of the DRTs/DRATs in various parts of the country. In a country as diverse like India, a one-size-fits approach cannot be adopted in all circumstances and situational modifications can be suitably adopted according to exigencies. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the constitutionality of amended Rule 3 of the E-filing Rules, the mandatory nature of e-filing before Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs), and the challenges faced by stakeholders in the e-filing process.

Constitutionality of Amended Rule 3 of E-filing Rules:
The petition challenged the provisions of the amended Rule 3 of the E-filing Rules and sought a direction for DRTs and DRATs to continue with hybrid filing of pleadings and applications. The introduction of mandatory e-filing was criticized for not holding deliberations with stakeholders and for potentially affecting those in areas with inadequate internet connectivity.

Mandatory E-filing before DRTs and DRATs:
The introduction of mandatory e-filing was gradual, with initial optional e-filing, followed by mandatory e-filing for cases over Rs 100 crores, and finally for all cases irrespective of value. The move towards e-filing aimed at enhancing transparency, efficiency, and 24x7 access to the court system.

Challenges Faced by Stakeholders:
Concerns were raised regarding the digital divide in the country, with not all citizens having access to the internet or necessary facilities for e-filing. The Court acknowledged the need to address these challenges and ensure that no segment of citizens is left behind in accessing justice through technology.

Direction and Recommendations:
The Court directed Bar Associations to submit representations to the Department of Financial Services for specific difficulties faced in e-filing, while also requiring reports from DRATs and DRTs on their experience with e-filing. Additionally, the Court recommended setting up e-sewa kendras at DRTs and DRATs to facilitate e-filing and provide access to justice.

Addressing Gender Divide in Technology Use:
The judgment highlighted the gender digital gap in India and recommended that representations and reports consider digital exclusion based on gender. Help desks were suggested to provide a dedicated portal for female litigants, but the Court rejected a general exception for female practitioners and litigants, emphasizing equal access to technology.

Conclusion:
The Court issued directions to address stakeholders' grievances, ensure access to justice through e-filing, and recommended measures to bridge the digital gap. The exercise directed to be completed within three months aimed at balancing technological advancements with inclusivity in the legal system.