India’s highest court has raised a pointed question that cuts to the heart of judicial modernisation: in an age of e-filing and digital case management, why are some tribunals still writing orders by hand?
While hearing an appeal, the Supreme Court of India expressed surprise that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Hyderabad had issued handwritten order sheets — some of them barely legible — as recently as 2024. The Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi noted that the move appeared out of step with the massive digitisation drive undertaken across the country’s courts.
The judges observed that the Union government has invested substantial public funds in computerising the judiciary under the e-Courts initiative, a project that began in 2007 and is now in its third phase. In that backdrop, they said, handwritten orders — especially those that are difficult to read — are difficult to justify.
The problem went beyond penmanship. The Court pointed out that the order sheets did not clearly mention the names or unique identification numbers of the officers who had initialled them. Without such details, identifying which officer passed a particular order — or who was posted in that court at a specific time — becomes an avoidable puzzle.
Because of the difficulty in deciphering the records, the Supreme Court had to call for typed copies before proceeding.
High Court Asked to Check the Basics
The Bench directed the Telangana High Court to examine whether computers had actually been supplied to the tribunal in question. If the infrastructure was available, the High Court must determine why typed orders were not being issued. If computers had not been provided, it must identify the reasons for the lapse and ensure corrective steps are taken without delay.
The message from the top court was unambiguous: the justice system is steadily moving towards paperless functioning, and that transition must extend “from bottom to top.” Tribunals, the Court signalled, cannot remain islands of analogue practice in a digital ocean.
A copy of the ruling has been directed to the Registrar General of the Telangana High Court for placing it before the Chief Justice, and it is also to be circulated among other High Courts for any corrective measures deemed necessary.
Appeal Restored, Partial Relief Granted
The observations came in a dispute involving National Insurance Company Limited, which had challenged a compensation award of over ₹2.72 crore granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Telangana High Court had earlier declined to examine the insurer’s challenge on merits, relying on an undertaking furnished during execution proceedings.
Setting aside that approach, the Supreme Court remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration. At the same time, it directed the insurer to release ₹1 crore to the claimant pending final adjudication.
The case, titled National Insurance Company Ltd v. Rathlavath Chandulal and others, thus became more than just a compensation dispute. It turned into a reminder that technology in courts is not a luxury add-on — it is now an expectation.
