'Casual Approach' Frustrating Paperless Courts: Rajasthan High Court Seeks Accountability For Delayed Upload Of Documents
The Rajasthan High Court has taken serious note of the lethargic and casual approach adopted by the stakeholders involved in digitization of the case files, leading to demonstrated delays in uploading of documents on the portal of the Paperless Module, causing great inconvenience to the Court and in-turn frustration of the objective of paperless courts. The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar...
The Rajasthan High Court has taken serious note of the lethargic and casual approach adopted by the stakeholders involved in digitization of the case files, leading to demonstrated delays in uploading of documents on the portal of the Paperless Module, causing great inconvenience to the Court and in-turn frustration of the objective of paperless courts.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand further observed that suitable amendments were needed in the Standing Order passed by the Registrar General on November 2, 2020, delineating roles and responsibilities of High Court staff for scanning of criminal cases. It held that the Standing Order could not be limited to criminal matters anymore.
“Much time has passed after issuance of the Standing Order dated 02.11.2020. This order needs suitable amendments as it is confined to criminal matters only and it is required to be applicable to all kinds of matters of this Court. The Standing Order dated 02.11.2020 should not be confined to criminal cases only, as presently we are undergoing to the new era of technology and in process of shifting to the paperless Court functioning in all kinds of matters pending in Civil/Criminal/Writ/Miscellaneous cases.”
The Court further observed that introduction of Paperless Module in the Court is a revolutionary step towards achieving speedy, transparent and accessible justice. Paperless functioning is not merely a technical upgradation, but a “paradigm shift in the justice delivery system” that saves time, reduces Registry's burden, minimized loss of records and ensured 24X7 accessibility.
The Court was hearing a petition through Paperless Module 2.0, in which it was found that the main petition was not uploaded on the portal and only the stay petition was uploaded. The Court had called for explanations from the concerned persons.
Resultantly, the concerned clerk and the firm assigned with the work of scanning and digitization of case files of the Court (M/s Enhira Software (Export) Limited) furnished their explanations, which were found to be unsatisfactory.
The Court held that almost every day, such casual approach was adopted by the persons responsible for uploading of various court documents on the paperless module, that caused difficulty to the courts working on paperless module.
“However, while taking a lenient view in the matter, this Court wants to place its displeasure on record in the manner in which the present matter has been dealt with by the concerned persons, who are responsible for uploading the scanned copies of petitions/ documents/ reply/ rejoinder/ applications/ additional affidavits. This Court expects from them that henceforth they will remain more careful in future while uploading each and every petitions/ documents/ reply/ rejoinder/ applications/ additional affidavits on the record immediately on its presentation by the respective counsels and the parties and no lapse/deficiency will be notices/found on their part while discharging their duties.”
The Court further took note of the Standing Order dated November 2, 2020, and opined that now the time had come to extend paperless functioning to all kinds of matters pending before the Court, and it was imperative to fix specific roles and responsibilities of each and every stakeholder to ensure that every document was scanned and uploaded on the same day.
It was held that unless accountability was fixed, the dream of paperless court shall remain only on papers.
Accordingly, the Registrar was directed to place the order before the Chief justice from the administrative side, for seeking approval to issue a comprehensive and amended Standing Order.
Title: Pramod Kumar v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 375