Click the Play button to listen to article

The Bombay High Court has directed the Central Project Coordinator (CPC) to modify the court's digital system to prevent automatic changes to e-roznama entries without specific judicial orders. The Court observed that any alteration to an e-roznama must be supported by a reasoned court order forming part of the judicial record, observing that unexplained changes could amount to tampering with the court record.

Justice Gauri Godse was hearing an application seeking transfer of a mutual-consent divorce petition from the Civil Court at Kalyan to the Civil Court at Mangaon, Raigad. The applicant had alleged that the divorce petition was being unnecessarily kept pending. After the High Court called for a status report from the trial judge, the scheduled hearing date of October 16, 2026, was preponed to September 2, 2026, and the divorce decree was passed in the absence of the parties and their advocates.

Since the matter had been taken up and disposed of on September 2, the earlier date was automatically removed from the system and the e-roznama, without human intervention. The Court noted that the parties had been informed on August 17 that the next date was October 16, and an auto-generated message had also been sent to their registered mobile numbers.

The Court found that the online case status incorrectly showed the matter as having been disposed of after a full hearing, even though the parties and their advocates had not been heard. It also noted that the trial judge had preponed the matter and granted the divorce decree without following the proper procedure. It observed:

“… where parties apply for divorce by mutual consent, in the majority of cases, there are issues involved regarding maintenance, permanent alimony, custody and access of minor children. Hence, the matter cannot be disposed of by preponing the date without intimating the parties.”

The Court expressed surprise at the matter being preponed by the judge and disposed of without hearing the parties, observing:

“It is shocking that, despite the matter being disposed of in this manner, the case status on the official website shows that it was disposed of after full hearing to the parties.”

The Court further noted that the absence of a physical roznama, which is required to be maintained under the Civil Manual, had resulted in the e-roznama becoming the only record of proceedings. Deprecating such a practice, the Court held:

“A physical roznama is required to be maintained under the Civil Manual. In the absence of any amendment to the Civil Manual, maintaining a physical roznama cannot be dispensed with.”

Regarding alteration of e-roznama, the Court held that an e-roznama forms part of the court record, just like a physical roznama, and any alteration must be made pursuant to a court order recording reason.

“… if any entry is to be altered in the e-roznama, it must be by an order of the court recording reasons. Such an order also must be part of the court record. In the absence of passing any order recording reasons for the alteration in the e-roznama, it would amount to tampering with the court record,” the Court remarked.

The Court emphasized that it is necessary to take appropriate steps for reflecting the correct status of the matter in the case status on the website and maintain a correct e-roznama.

“The date given to the parties and advocates cannot be changed without notice to the parties or their advocates. If a date is preponed, the Judge must pass an order by recording reasons for preponement. Such an order must be part of the court record and must also be reflected in the e-roznama and on the website,” the Court held.

Accordingly, the Court directed the CPC to take steps to improve the system so that it does not permit automatic changes to e-roznama entries without specific court orders recorded in the system and accessible to parties and advocates. Until the system is improved, any automatic alteration must be accompanied by an order recording reasons, which must be made part of the court record and uploaded on the website.

Case Title: Akshata Anant Rane Alias Akshata Aditya Todankar v. Aditya Umesh Todankar [Misc. Civil Application No. 235 of 2026]

Full View
Tags: