Holding

The Court upheld the mandatory e‑filing requirement for DRTs/DRATs, rejecting the petition, but ordered remedial measures to address stakeholder grievances.

Summary

The MP High Court Bar Association filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging the amendment to the Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs) Electronic Filing Rules, 2020, which made e‑filing of pleadings mandatory in all cases from 31 January 2023. The petition argued that the rule was introduced without adequate stakeholder consultation and that lack of internet connectivity in remote areas, as well as the digital gender divide, warranted exceptions for senior citizens, female practitioners and litigants. The Court examined the phased rollout of e‑filing, the training programmes, help‑desks, and the statistical data showing substantial voluntary e‑filing even before the mandatory phase. It held that the gradual implementation and the benefits of transparency, efficiency and 24×7 access justified the mandatory regime, and that the grievances could be addressed through representations and remedial measures rather than by striking down the rule. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, but the Court directed the Bar Associations to submit specific representations, mandated monthly reporting by DRT/DRAT officials, and ordered the setting up of e‑sewa kendras and a monitoring team by NIC to address technical issues and the digital divide.

Issues considered

Whether the amendment making e‑filing mandatory in DRTs/DRATs violates constitutional or procedural rights of litigants and lawyers.
Whether the government failed to conduct sufficient stakeholder consultation before imposing mandatory e‑filing.
Whether exceptions to mandatory e‑filing should be granted for senior citizens, female practitioners, and litigants in remote areas.
Whether the infrastructure and support mechanisms provided are adequate to ensure access to justice.

Legislation cited

Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993s. 36

Subjects

e-filingDebt Recovery TribunalDebt Recovery Appellate TribunalElectronic Filing Rulesdigital divideaccess to justicemandatory filingBar AssociationNational Informatics Centree-sewa kendras

Judgment

[2023] 7 S.C.R. 347 347

M P HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 155 of 2023)
MARCH 29, 2023 B
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI,
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND
J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Debt Recovery Tribunals and Debt Recovery Appellate
C
Tribunals Electronic filing Rules, 2020 – e-filing of pleadings –
Department of Financial Services introduced e-filing Rules in 2020,
where e-filing was made optional – Later on, by a notification dt.
22.07.2021, e-filing was made compulsory where the pecuniary
value of the subject matter in dispute was in excess of Rs 100 crores
– On 31.01.2023, e-filing was made mandatory in all cases D
irrespective of the value of the subject matter – Appellant filed writ
petition u/Art.32 to challenge the provisions of amended Rule 3 of
the E-filing Rules and for a direction to the DRTs and DRATs to
continue with hybrid filing of pleadings and applications before
them and further contented that, the rules are implemented without
E
sufficient deliberations with stakeholder – Held: Material placed
on the record indicates that the introduction of e-filing by the
Department of Financial Services was facilitated in gradual stages
– Sufficient time was given to all stakeholders to adjust to the new
regime and stakeholder’s training has been carried out – E-filing
provides transparency and efficiency in the administration of justice F
– E-filing provides for 24x7 access to the court system and facilitates
the convenience of lawyers as well as litigants – In view of the
grievances, directions issued: Bar Associations to submit
representations to the Department of Financial Services regarding
specific difficulties encountered in the process of e-filing; The
G
Chairpersons of the DRATs and the Presiding Officers of the DRTs
directed to submit monthly reports to the Department of Financial
Services, highlighting the experience with e-filing and suggesting
any necessary upgrades; National Informatics Centre (NIC) to
constitute a team to monitor the progress of e-filing and address
any difficulties on real time basis; The e-filing module to be upgraded H
347
348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 7 S.C.R.

A with periodical developments; Help desks recommended, e-
sewakendras (e-service centers) to be set up at all centres of the
DRTs or DRATs to facilitate e-filing and provide a one step solution
for all the e-services.
Disposing of the petition, the Court
B
HELD:1. The process has been gradual. Sufficient time was
given to all stakeholders to adjust to the new regime. A
stakeholder’s training has been carried out. The counter affidavit
indicates the specific dates on which training programmes have
been conducted. E-filing provides transparency and efficiency in
C 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
D
Courts in a phased manner and that it eventually becomes
mandatory. [Paras 11, 12][352-G-H; 353-A]
2. This Court was of the view that the grievance which has
been portrayed in this proceeding can be addressed at two levels.
Firstly, this Court would permit the Bar Associations representing
E
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 representations should focus on concrete suggestions which
have to be implemented to facilitate to e-filing. In other words,
F this court clarified that by permitting an opportunity to file
representations, this Court was not questioning the need for
mandatory adoption of e-filing. The purpose is to ensure that any
glitches that may arise are attended to effectively. Simultaneously,
this Court also directed all the Chairpersons of the DRATs and
the Presiding Officers of the DRTs to submit reports to the
G
Department of Financial Services on a monthly basis initially for
a period of six months, pointing out the experience with e-filing
and suggesting, if any upgradation of the facilities or the software
is necessary. The National Informatics Centre, which has put into

H
M P HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA & 349
ORS

place the e-filing facilities for the DRTs/DRATs, has also been A
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
B
must be upgraded with periodical developments. The second
aspect which needs to be borne in mind relates to the help desks
which have been set up at the DRTs/DRATs. [Paras 14, 15,
16][353-D-H; 354-A]
3. This Court recommended to the Union Government that
C
in addition to setting up held desks, it would be appropriate if e-
sewakendras are set up at all the centres of the DRTs or, as the
case may be, DRATs to facilitate e-filing of cases and provide a
one-step solution which encompasses all the e-services at the
DRTs/DRATs. The e-sewakendras should have adequate
equipment in the form of computers and scanners, together with D
robust internet connectivity so as to facilitate the process of e-
filing. In this context, a Standard Operating Proceduremust be
prepared by the Department of Financial Services in consultation
with NIC, setting out the facilities at every e-sewakendras. This
would be in line with the mission of the e-Committee of the
E
Supreme Court of India for providing e-sewakendrasat court
establishments across the country. The setting up of e-
sewakendras would provide access to justice to lawyers and
litigants. The Department of Financial Services would be at liberty
to review the set up periodically and to take appropriate decisions
in that regard. [Para 18][354-C-E] F
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
155 of 2023.
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
Siddharth R. Gupta, Mrs. Sunita Gupta, Ms. Sakshi Banga, G
Mrigank Prabhakar, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Shyam Gopal, Samarvir Singh, Mrs. Praveena Gautam, Prahlad
Singh, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Advs. for the
Respondents.
H
350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 7 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI
1. Thirty-nine Debt Recovery Tribunals1 and five Debt Recovery
Appellate Tribunals2 have been constituted under the Recovery of Debts
and Bankruptcy Act 19933.
B
2. The Department of Financial Services in the Union Ministry of
Finance issued a notification on 23 January 2020 by which the Debt
Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals
(DRATs) Electronic Filing Rules 20204 were notified. Originally, the e-
filing of pleadings and applications was made optional. On 22 July 2021,
C a notification was issued by which the e-filing of cases involving a value
of Rs 100 crores and above was made mandatory. At a conference of
the Chairpersons of DRATs and the Presiding Officers of DRTs on 9
June 2022, it was recommended that e-filing should be made mandatory,
irrespective of the amount involved in the proceedings.
D 3. On 31 January 2023, a notification was issued by the Union
government in exercise of powers under Section 36 of the 1993 Act for
amending the Electronic Filing Rules so as to make e-filing of pleadings
by applicants mandatory. Any other form of filing, it is provided, shall not
be taken on the record.
E 4. These proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution have
been instituted to challenge the provisions of amended Rule 3 of the E-
filing Rules and for a direction to the DRTs and DRATs across the country
to continue with hybrid filing of pleadings and applications before them.
5. Notice was issued in these proceedings on 24 February 2023.
F
6. Pursuant to the order issuing notice, a counter affidavit has
been filed by an officer in the Department of Financial Services of the
Union Ministry of Finance. Besides setting out the sequence leading up
to the amendment to the E-filing Rules, the affidavit states that prior to
the issuance of the notification dated 31 January 2023, an analysis was
G carried out of the filing of cases before the DRTs. It was observed that
in respect of cases where the value is less than Rs 100 crores, the

1
“DRTs”
2
“DRATs”
3
“10993 Act”
H 4
“2020 Rules”
M P HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA & 351
ORS [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

percentage of e-filed cases was approximately 25.89% in the case of A
Original Applications 5 and 20.84% in the case of Securitization
Applications6. This was when e-filing for cases involving a value of less
than Rs 100 crores was not mandatory prior to 31 January 2023. As
regards cases involving an amount of Rs 100 crores and above, the
percentage of e-filed cases was 15.87% in the case of OAs and 23.81%
B
in SAs. On the basis of the above data, it has been submitted that even
smaller borrowers were filing their cases through e-filing even when it
was not mandatory. The percentage of e-filed cases to the total filed
cases where the suit amount was Rs 50 lakhs or below was 27.46% of
OAs filed and 20.63% of SAs filed. The affidavit indicates that mandatory
e-filing, besides facilitating compliance with timelines, facilitates 24x7 C
filing by litigants even from remote places with the help of the internet.
The total number of e-filed applications across all DRTs in the country
during the period between 1 February 2023 and 2 March 2023 was
10,415.
7. The counter affidavit states that help desks for facilitating D
stakeholders for hassle free e-filing of cases have been set up at DRTs
and DRATs where currently, 90 staff members are working as Technical
Assistants and Data Entry Operators for facilitating e-filing. They are
stated to be assisting internal and external stakeholders in the resolution
of functional and technical difficulties. Besides this, it has been stated
that a help desk option is available on the e-filing website of DRTs and E
DRATs where users can log their requests/grievances to be addressed
on priority. A three-tier grievance redressal mechanism has, therefore,
been provided. The counter affidavit has indicated that comprehensive
training programmes were conducted by the Department of Financial
Services in coordination with the DRTs/DRATs for making litigants and F
members of Bar Associations acquainted with the e-filing procedure.
Multiple rounds of training sessions were conducted by the Technical
Associates deployed in the DRTs/DRATs. The e-filing software has
been created and is maintained by the National Informatics Centre by
adopting open source technology.
G
8. In support of the petition, it has been urged by Mr Siddharth R
Gupta, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that the amendment
to the 2020 Rules making e-filing compulsory in all cases irrespective of
5
“OAs”
6
“SAs” H
352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 7 S.C.R.

A value with effect from 31 January 2023 was without holding deliberations
with all stakeholders. Counsel submitted that the DRTs are constituted
in far flung areas where internet connectivity may not be adequately
available. Hence, it was submitted that an exception should be provided
for:
B (i) Just and sufficient cause;
(ii) Senior citizens; and
(iii) Female practitioners and clients.
9. Counsel further submitted that in the event of a software glitch
C occurring, some alternative modalities should be followed.
10. On the other hand, it has been urged by Mr Shyam Gopal,
counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India, that, as the counter
affidavit would indicate, the introduction of mandatory e-filing was not
abrupt or hasty. On the contrary, it was preceded by consultations and
D training programmes which were conducted for the members of the
Bar. Moreover, it is urged that implementation was made on a gradual
basis in three stages. As regards the availability of infrastructure, it has
been submitted that help desks have been provided at all DRTs/DRATs
to attend to any glitches or requests for assistance.
11. The material which has been placed on the record indicates
E
that the introduction of e-filing by the Department of Financial Services
was facilitated in gradual stages. Initially, with the introduction of the e-
filing Rules in 2020, e-filing was made optional at the first stage. In the
second stage, e-filing was made compulsory by a notification dated 22
July 2022 where the pecuniary value of the subject matter in dispute
F was in excess of Rs 100 crores. The introduction of mandatory e-filing
in all cases irrespective of the value of the subject matter was introduced
at the third stage on 31 January 2023. This indicates that the process has
been gradual. Sufficient time was given to all stakeholders to adjust to
the new regime. A stakeholder’s training has been carried out. The
counter affidavit indicates the specific dates on which training
G
programmes have been conducted.
12. 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,
H
M P HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA & 353
ORS [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

it would be too late in the day to postulate that e-filing should not be A
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.
13. At the same time, the Court cannot be unmindful of the fact
that there is a digital divide in the country and not all citizens have access B
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 submission of Mr Siddharth R Gupta is
borne out by realities at the grass roots in the legal profession. Not all
lawyers may have access to the facilities required. Their needs can and C
should be addressed by providing facilities in court establishments.
14. We are of the view that 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 D
Department of Financial Services if any specific difficulties are
encountered in the process of e-filing. The representations should focus
on concrete suggestions which have to be implemented to facilitate to e-
filing. In other words, we clarify that by permitting an opportunity to file
representations, we are not questioning the need for mandatory adoption E
of e-filing. The purpose is to ensure that any glitches that may arise are
attended to effectively. Simultaneously, we would also direct all the
Chairpersons of the DRATs and the Presiding Officers of the DRTs to
submit reports to the Department of Financial Services on a monthly
basis initially for a period of six months, pointing out the experience with
e-filing and suggesting, if any upgradation of the facilities or the software F
is necessary.
15. The National Informatics Centre7, 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 G
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.

7
“NIC” H
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 7 S.C.R.

A 16. The second aspect which needs to be borne in mind relates to
the help desks which have been set up at the DRTs/DRATs.
17. Mr Shyam Gopal has adverted to a notice dated 22 February
2023 issued by the DRTs for Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and
Ernakulam and by the DRAT at Delhi indicating the arrangements which
B have been made for setting up help desks or, as the case may be, providing
technical assistance.
18. In this regard, we would recommend to the Union Government
that in addition to setting up held desks, it would be appropriate if e-sewa
kendras are set up at all the centres of the DRTs or, as the case may be,
C DRATs to facilitate e-filing of cases and provide a one-step solution
which encompasses all the e-services at the DRTs/DRATs. The e-sewa
kendras should have adequate equipment in the form of computers and
scanners, together with robust internet connectivity so as to facilitate
the process of e-filing. In this context, a Standard Operating Procedure 8
D must be prepared by the Department of Financial Services in consultation
with NIC, setting out the facilities at every e-sewa kendras. This would
be in line with the mission of the e-Committee of the Supreme Court of
India for providing e-sewa kendras at court establishments across the
country. The setting up of e-sewa kendras would provide access to justice
to lawyers and litigants. The Department of Financial Services would be
E at liberty to review the set up periodically and to take appropriate decisions
in that regard.
19. Most of the specific grievances which have been urged by
Mr Siddharth R Gupta stand assuaged in terms of the above directions.
F 20. The digital divide between men and women in India is a stark
reality:
i. The National Sample Survey Office carried out a Multiple
Indicator Survey covering the entire country in its
78th round. The report,9 inter alia, looked at the performance
G of persons between 15-29 years in performing 9 different
ICT skills. It concludes that the percentage of men who
8
“SOP”
9
Multiple Indicator Survey in India: NSS 78 th Round (2020-2021), The National Sample
Survey Office, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of
H India (March 2023)
M P HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA & 355
ORS [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

could successfully perform different ICT tasks is more than A
the percentage of women. For example, while 19.4% of
men of age 15 years and above could send emails with
attached files, only 11.5% of women of age 15 years and
above could perform the same task.
ii. The National Family Health Survey-5 data10 for the period B
between 2019 to 2021 measured the proportion of men and
women (15-49 years of age) who have ever used the
internet. The survey reveals that only one in three women
in India (33.3%) have ever used the internet, compared to
more than half of men (51.2%). The gender divide in rural C
India is more pronounced, with men (43.4%) being about
twice as likely as women (24.6%) to have used the internet.
iii. The GSMA Mobile Gender Gap Report 202211 found that
from 2020 to 2021, the mobile internet gender gap has
widened to 41% in South Asia. In India, men’s mobile D
internet use increased from 45% to 51% while women’s
mobile internet use remained flat at 30%.
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 E
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. However, we are not inclined to accept the submission that
there should be a general exception to female practitioners and litigants.
F
There is no reason to postulate that there is a gender divide in one’s
inherent ability to use technology.
21. For the above reasons, we have issued directions for attending
to the genuine grievances of the members of the Bar in regard to the
availability of facilities that would ensure that in the adoption of e-filing,
G
no segment of the citizens is unable to access justice. Properly
implemented, the above suggestions will meet the purpose.

10
National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5) 2019-2021, Ministry of Health & Family
Welfare, Government of India (March 2022)
11
Matthew Shanahan, The Mobile Gender Gap Report 2022, GSMA (June 2022) H
356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 7 S.C.R.

A 22. 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
B
approach cannot be adopted in all circumstances and situational
modifications can be suitably adopted according to exigencies.
23. The petition shall stand disposed of in the above terms.
24. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
C
Ankit Gyan Petition disposed of.
(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)

D

E

F

G

H