Supreme Court Laments Tribunal Writing Orders By Hand Despite E-Courts Project, Asks HC If Computer Wasn't Given

In a significant observation on judicial digitisation, the Supreme Court has expressed dismay that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal continued to write its orders by hand, despite the nationwide rollout of the e-Courts project.

A Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi noted that the entire order sheets of one MACT at Hyderabad were handwritten and in parts illegible. Notably, the award was passed in 2024.

“We are constrained to notice that on a perusal of the records sent by the Tribuna,we found that the entire order sheets were handwritten. This is despite the fact that the Government of India has spent thousands of crores of rupees in computerization of the Courts throughout the country. The e-Courts project was started way back in the year 2007 and we are running into third phase thereof. In that situation, we do not find any justification for the orders of the Tribunal to be handwritten, which otherwise are also not legible,” the Court said while deciding a claims appeal.

The Court further noted that it had to call for a typed copy of the orders because of the difficulty in deciphering the handwritten sheets.

The Bench also flagged the absence of identifying details on the order sheets. It observed that the names or UID numbers of the officers had not been mentioned where they had put their initials. In the absence of such particulars, it becomes difficult to identify which officer passed the order or who was posted in that court at a given time.

High Court Asked to Examine Digital Infrastructure

The Supreme Court asked the High Court to examine whether computers had in fact been provided to the Tribunal. If they had been provided, the High Court must ascertain why orders were not being typed. If not, the reasons for the failure to supply computers must be examined and immediate steps taken.

The Bench emphasised that the entire court system is moving towards paperless functioning, “from bottom to top”, and that Tribunals cannot remain outside the digital transformation.

In case, the computers have been provided to the Tribunals, the High Court shall examine and find out as to why the orders were not being typed on computers. In case the computers have not been provided, the reasons therefor need to be examined and immediate appropriate action is required to be taken. We cannot loose sight of the fact that the entire Court system is moving towards 'paperless Courts', which means from bottom to top.

A copy of the judgment has been directed to be sent to the Registrar General of the Telangana High Court for placing it before the Chief Justice. It is also to be circulated to other High Courts for appropriate corrective measures, if required.

The observations came while allowing appeals filed by National Insurance Company Limited against the dismissal of its appeal by the Telangana High Court. The High Court had declined to examine the insurer's challenge to a compensation award of over Rs. 2.72 crore passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, relying solely on an undertaking furnished during execution proceedings.

Setting aside the High Court's orders and remitting the matter for fresh consideration on merits, the Supreme Court also directed the insurer to release Rs. 1 crore to the claimant pending adjudication.

Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 — Appeal against Award — Dismissal on ground of Undertaking — Legality of — High Court dismissed the Insurance Company's appeal merely because a local manager had given an undertaking to the Executing Court to satisfy the award - Held: An undertaking to comply with an award, often given under pressure of execution proceedings (such as attachment of office furniture), does not deprive the insurer of its statutory right to challenge the award on merits - The High Court, as the First Appellate Court, is duty-bound to consider the appeal on both law and facts, especially when patent errors in compensation calculation are alleged - Dismissed an appeal without touching the merits caused grave injustice.

Execution of Award — Procedure of Attachment — Fairness — The Tribunal issued warrants for the attachment of office furniture, fixtures, and computers of a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) shortly after the execution petition was filed - Held: Such a process paralyzes the working of the company – Noted that while awards must be satisfied, the Executing Court should adopt fair procedures, such as the attachment of bank accounts, rather than coercive attachment of essential office equipment without judicial mind.

Digitalization of Judiciary — e-Courts Project — Handwritten Orders — Supreme Court expressed concern over Tribunals continuing to use handwritten, illegible order sheets despite the national e-Courts project started in 2007 - High Courts directed to ensure computers provided are utilized and that officers' names and UID numbers are clearly mentioned on orders. [Relied on Parminder Singh v. Honey Goyal and Others, 2025 INSC 361: (2025) 9 SCC 539; Paras 10-18]

Case : National Insurance Company Ltd v. Rathlavath Chandulal and others 

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 149

Click here to read the judgment