In a significant development, the Madras High Court has decided to suspend its controversial notification that made electronic filing of cases compulsory in the district judiciary across Tamil Nadu. This decision comes amidst ongoing court boycotts and a series of protests by lawyers in the subordinate courts.
Court Puts Rule in Abeyance Following Petition
The High Court's registrar-general, S Alli, issued a fresh notification stating that the earlier order dated December 10, 2025, mandating e-filing, is now kept in abeyance until further orders. This move followed a petition filed by the Madras High Court Advocates Association (MHAA), which sought the immediate withdrawal of the compulsory e-filing-only rule.
The petition was heard by the first bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan. Representing the advocates' association, senior advocate S Prabakaran argued strongly for a hybrid mode of filing cases, allowing both physical and electronic submissions.
Advocates' Key Arguments Against the Rule
The lawyers' body presented several compelling reasons against the mandatory e-filing rule. They argued that the notification created an unnecessary division among advocates, separating those with technical knowledge from those without it. The association contended that this amounted to unreasonable discrimination, violating the fundamental Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
Prabakaran also cited Supreme Court judgments, stating that there cannot be a complete ban on physical filing of cases. He emphasized that courts cannot insist on only one mode of filing, as it restricts access to justice.
The association highlighted critical infrastructural challenges, pointing out that lawyers from suburban and rural areas, as well as those from economically weaker sections, often lack ready access to the necessary technology and reliable internet connectivity. In contrast, their counterparts in urban areas with stronger economic backgrounds can easily adapt to the e-filing system.
Bench Calls for Dialogue, Adjourns Hearing
In response to the arguments, the High Court bench observed that a resolution could be achieved through constructive dialogue. The bench advised the petitioner association to wait until the end of the Pongal holidays, assuring that all modes of communication to address the issue remain open.
"All modes of communication to address the issue are still open," the bench stated before adjourning the hearing to a date after the festive break. The court's stance suggests a willingness to find a middle ground that addresses the concerns of all stakeholders in the judicial process.
The advocates' association had also argued that the compulsory e-filing rule hindered and delayed the administration of justice. They claimed it adversely affected the rights of litigants under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution. Consequently, they urged the court to quash the notification as arbitrary and to permit manual filing alongside e-filing in subordinate courts.
The suspension of the rule provides temporary relief to the protesting lawyers and opens the door for further discussions on implementing a more inclusive and practical system for case filing in Tamil Nadu's judiciary.
