Bar Bodies Move Madras High Court Challenging Mandatory E-Filing In District Courts, Cite Lack Of Infrastructural Facilities

Remarking that a solution has to be found for the issue, the bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan adjourned the plea to January 19^th.

The bar bodies have challenged the notification issued by the Registrar General of the High Court, on September 24, 2025, introducing mandatory e-filing of cases in all types of cases in the District Judiciary through the e-filing portal developed by the E-Committee of the Supreme Court of India.

The petitioner association submitted that it had received grievances from various associations in the State and had submitted a representation to the Chief Justice of Madras on the administrative side following which the implementation of the system was postponed. However, the association submitted that the system was once again brought into implementation from 1^st December 2025 without addressing the grievances of the bar.

The petitioner association submitted that the mandatory e-filing system was being implemented in a short period without equipping the lawyers and without ensuring adequate infrastructural facilities. It was submitted that many advocates at district judiciary do not have proper access to proper computer, internet connectivity, or scanning facilities which would cause inconvenience in implementing the e-filing system. It was also submitted that the advocates have not been given proper training to adapt to the system.

Another issue that was highlighted with the mandatory e-filing system was that tedious procedure involved, which would cause delay in presenting urgent petitions in the court. it was also pointed out that since the system allows only documents till 20MB, there would be practical difficulties when cases involving large quantity of documents have to be filed.

The association also highlighted the challenges that the litigant would face , especially in family courts where all the cases had to be filed by party-in-person.

The association thus argued that the new system created an unjustified class of difference among advocates violating Article 14 of the Constitution. It was also submitted that the system also vilated Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution as it caused hindrance to the legal professionals for practicing their profession.

The petitioner association was represented by Senior Advocate S Prabakaran.

Case Title: Madras High Court Advocates Association v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Case No: WP 49871 of 2025