Order Date: August 20, 2023
Order Name: USHA GARG VS. UNION OF INDIA
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 000313 – / 2024
The Supreme Court observed that requiring advocates to submit both digital and physical copies of their appeals or applications at the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) clashes with the purpose of e-filing.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, were reviewing a petition that called for improved e-filing systems at the NCDRC and State Commissions.
Justice AP Sahi, the NCDRC President, participated virtually and explained that there are delays due to ongoing data migration from an old portal, e-Dakhila, to a new one, e-Jagriti.
The petitioner’s counsel pointed out that physical filing is still required even after e-filing at the NCDRC, and many state commissions are not strictly following e-filing procedures.
Agreeing with the petitioner, CJI Chandrachud noted that the current system places unnecessary burdens on advocates and urged the NCDRC to address the issue promptly.
CJI Chandrachud questioned, “Once advocates are filing online, why do we expect them to file physical copies?” Justice Sahi responded that because the data has not fully migrated to the new system, physical copies are still necessary. He added that resolving this issue would require additional staff and extra expenditure.
CJI Chandrachud remarked, “If the Court requires physical copies, the burden is on the Court to discharge.” He emphasized that while moving towards a digital world, imposing extra paper filing burdens on lawyers defeats the purpose of digital filing, which the Supreme Court itself dispensed with two years ago.
The Court accepted Justice Sahi’s assertion that the e-filing platform issues would be resolved by September 15. Meanwhile, the Court instructed the NCDRC President to coordinate with the Secretary of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs.
In May 2023, the Supreme Court had also criticized the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) for mandating physical filings alongside e-filings. The Court stressed the need for the judiciary to modernize and adapt to technology, and suggested training for judges uncomfortable with e-files instead of maintaining outdated practices.
Takeaway: This judgment emphasizes the need for the judicial system to fully embrace digital processes to reduce the burden on legal practitioners and enhance efficiency.
