Mandatory e-filing in debt recovery tribunals upheld, with access-to-justice concerns addressed through institutional support measures.

Mandatory e-filing before the Debt Recovery Tribunals and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals was upheld as a valid digital filing regime, because its adoption was gradual, preceded by training and consultation, and supported transparency, efficiency and continuous access to justice. The challenge seeking to undo compulsory e-filing was rejected. At the same time, the Court recognised practical barriers arising from the digital divide and held that access concerns should be met through institutional support, including help desks, e-sewa kendras, monitoring, reporting and grievance redressal mechanisms. It declined to create a blanket exception for specified classes of litigants, including female practitioners and litigants, preferring targeted facilitative measures instead.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amended electronic filing regime making e-filing mandatory in proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunals and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals was liable to be struck down or modified; (ii) whether the grievance concerning lack of facilities warranted directions for institutional support, including help desks and e-sewa kendras, rather than a blanket exception for specified classes of litigants.

Issue (i): Whether the amended electronic filing regime making e-filing mandatory in proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunals and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals was liable to be struck down or modified.

Analysis: The mandatory e-filing regime was introduced in stages, beginning with optional filing and then extending to compulsory filing for high-value matters before being made universal. The Court noted that the transition was gradual, preceded by training and consultations, and that e-filing promotes transparency, efficiency, and round-the-clock access to justice. At the same time, the Court recognised the reality of the digital divide and the need to ensure that technology does not exclude users from access to justice.

Conclusion: The mandatory e-filing regime was not struck down, and the challenge was rejected insofar as it sought to undo the shift to compulsory e-filing.

Issue (ii): Whether the grievance concerning lack of facilities warranted directions for institutional support, including help desks and e-sewa kendras, rather than a blanket exception for specified classes of litigants.

Analysis: The Court held that concrete difficulties in e-filing should be addressed through representations, monthly reporting by tribunal heads, monitoring by the National Informatics Centre, and the establishment of e-sewa kendras with adequate infrastructure and standard operating procedures. The Court also accepted that gendered digital exclusion is a real social fact, but declined to create a general exemption for female practitioners and litigants, preferring targeted institutional support and grievance redressal mechanisms.

Conclusion: The Court directed remedial and facilitative measures, but refused to create a blanket class-based exception.

Final Conclusion: The petition was disposed of with directions sustaining mandatory e-filing while requiring supporting infrastructure, monitoring, and grievance redressal to secure meaningful access to justice.

Ratio Decidendi: A mandatory e-filing regime may be upheld where its implementation is gradual and supported by institutional assistance, because access to justice in a digital setting must be secured through facilitative measures rather than by negating technological adoption itself.

---