Handwritten Tribunal Orders Incompatible with e-Courts Framework: Supreme Court

In a significant and strongly worded observation in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rathlavath Chandulal & Ors. (2026 INSC 146), the Supreme Court of India expressed serious concern over handwritten tribunal orders, holding them incompatible with the objectives of the national e-Courts project. The Court underscored that despite massive public investment in court digitisation since 2007, the continued practice of handwritten orders, particularly illegible ones, undermines transparency, accountability, and judicial efficiency.

This observation forms part of a broader judgment remitting a motor accident compensation appeal back to the High Court for fresh adjudication on the merits. However, the Court’s remarks on digitisation carry wider systemic implications for judicial administration across India.

Background of the Case

The appeal arose from a motor accident compensation claim where the Tribunal awarded ₹2,72,03,416 to the claimant, despite the original claim being ₹1 crore. The Insurance Company challenged the award before the High Court, but the appeal was dismissed solely on the basis of an undertaking furnished during execution proceedings.

The Supreme Court found fault with:

• The High Court’s failure to adjudicate the appeal on merits;
• The coercive manner in which execution proceedings were pushed;
• The hurried attachment of office furniture and computers;
• And finally, serious procedural irregularities in tribunal record-keeping.

It is in this context that the Court made its crucial observations regarding handwritten order sheets.

Supreme Court’s Observations on Handwritten Orders

The Court made a pointed and unprecedented remark:

On perusal of the records sent by the Tribunal, we found that the entire order sheets were handwritten... which otherwise are also not legible. In fact, we had to call for a typed copy thereof.

The Court further observed:

• The Government of India has spent thousands of crores on the computerisation of courts.
• The e-Courts project was initiated in 2007 and is currently in its third phase.
• There was no justification for handwritten and illegible orders in this technological era.

Even more concerning was the absence of identifying details:

The names of officers or their UID numbers were not mentioned where they put their initials on the order sheets.

The Court held that such omissions make it difficult, if not impossible, to identify the officer responsible for passing particular judicial orders.

The e-Courts Project

The e-Courts Project was launched in 2007 with the aim of:

• Digitising court records
• Enabling online filing and tracking
• Improving transparency and public access
• Reducing delays
• Moving towards a paperless judiciary

India is currently in Phase III of this project, which emphasises:

• Complete digital case lifecycle management
• Interoperability between courts
• Virtual hearings
• AI-assisted case management
• Cloud-based record storage

Against this backdrop, handwritten tribunal orders appear not merely outdated but regressive.

Why Handwritten Orders Are Problematic

1. Illegibility and Access to Justice

Illegible orders impair:

• Appellate scrutiny
• Litigants’ understanding of outcomes
• Enforcement clarity
• Legal research and precedent tracking

In the present case, the Supreme Court had to call for a typed copy of the record due to illegibility, a striking indication of administrative inefficiency.

2. Accountability Deficit

The absence of:

• Officer names
• Unique identification numbers (UIDs)
• Digital signatures

creates a serious accountability vacuum. Without traceable authorship, judicial responsibility becomes diluted.

3. Appellate Review Complications

The Supreme Court noted that it had called for the original records for scrutiny. When records are handwritten and unclear, appellate courts are forced to spend additional time deciphering them, delaying justice.

4. Contradiction with “Paperless Courts” Vision

The Court observed:

We cannot lose sight of the fact that the entire Court system is moving towards ‘paperless Courts’, which means from bottom to top.

Thus, handwritten order sheets are inconsistent with a judiciary aspiring for digital transformation.

Directions Issued by the Supreme Court

Recognising the systemic implications, the Court issued the following directions:

The High Court must examine:

• Whether computers were provided to the Tribunal.
• If yes, why orders were not typed.
• If not, why infrastructure was not made available.

Immediate corrective action must be taken.

A copy of the judgment was directed to be sent:

• To the Registrar General of the concerned High Court.
• To Registrar Generals of other High Courts for circulation before Chief Justices.

This effectively nationalises the issue, making it a matter of systemic reform.

Technology and Judicial Legitimacy

The legitimacy of judicial institutions depends not merely on the correctness of outcomes, but also on:

• Procedural fairness,
• Transparency,
• Institutional reliability.

Handwritten and illegible orders:

• Reduce institutional credibility,
• Invite suspicion,
• Increase administrative inefficiencies.

Interlinking with Procedural Fairness in the Case

Interestingly, the criticism of handwritten orders was not isolated. It complemented broader concerns raised by the Court:

• Hasty execution proceedings,
• Coercive attachment of office infrastructure,
• Dismissal of appeal without merits consideration.

Thus, the administrative deficiency in record maintenance aligned with a larger pattern of procedural irregularity.

The Supreme Court restored balance by:

• Setting aside the High Court’s orders,
• Remitting the appeal for fresh hearing,
• Directing interim release of ₹1 crore to the claimant.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s observations in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rathlavath Chandulal & Ors. mark a decisive push toward institutional accountability and technological compliance within the judicial system. By declaring handwritten and illegible tribunal orders incompatible with the e-Courts framework, the Court has reinforced that digitisation is not a matter of discretion but a structural necessity for transparency, traceability, and efficient appellate review.

The ruling goes beyond the facts of the case and signals a nationwide expectation that all courts and tribunals align with the paperless, technology-driven vision of the judiciary. In doing so, the Court has strengthened both procedural fairness and public confidence in the administration of justice.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams