Headnotes
While hearing a case through the Rajasthan High Court's Paperless Module 2.0, the Court found that only the stay petition, and not the main petition itself, had been uploaded to the portal. Explanations furnished by the concerned court clerk and by the digitisation vendor, M/s Enhira Software (Export) Limited, were found unsatisfactory. Describing this as symptomatic of a "lethargic and casual approach" to case digitisation that occurred almost daily and undermined the objective of paperless courts, the Court directed that the existing Standing Order of November 2, 2020 — currently limited largely to criminal matters — be comprehensively revised to cover civil, criminal, writ and miscellaneous matters alike, with defined roles and responsibilities for all stakeholders to ensure same-day scanning and uploading, and placed before the Chief Justice for approval.
Key Takeaways
- A court can use a single instance of an unuploaded document to flag a systemic digitisation problem, rather than treating it as an isolated lapse.
- Accountability for the paperless-courts initiative was treated as squarely dependent on defined roles and responsibilities for each stakeholder — the scanning vendor and court staff alike — not just on the existence of a digitisation policy.
- A administrative Standing Order confined to one category of cases (here, criminal matters) can be directed to be widened to cover all case types once gaps in its coverage surface in an unrelated matter.
Full Judgment Text
The Rajasthan High Court has taken serious note of a "lethargic and casual approach" to case digitisation after finding that a petition being heard through its Paperless Module 2.0 had not itself been uploaded to the court's portal, with only the accompanying stay petition available.
FACTS:
The matter came up through the Paperless Module 2.0, the High Court's digital case-filing and access system, which was found to be missing the main petition despite the stay petition having been uploaded. The concerned court clerk and the vendor engaged for scanning and digitisation of case files, M/s Enhira Software (Export) Limited, were called upon to explain the lapse; the Court found their explanations unsatisfactory.
COURT'S ANALYSIS:
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that such lapses were not isolated, observing that a "casual approach" of this kind was being adopted by those responsible for uploading court documents "almost every day," undermining the objective of paperless courts. The Court described the Paperless Module as representing "a paradigm shift in the justice delivery system," central to expediting justice delivery, reducing the risk of record loss, and enabling round-the-clock accessibility to case records — and held that "unless accountability was fixed, the dream of paperless court shall remain only on papers."
HOLDING:
The Court directed that the existing Standing Order of November 2, 2020, governing the Paperless Module — currently confined largely to criminal matters — be comprehensively revised to cover civil, criminal, writ and miscellaneous matters alike, fixing specific roles and responsibilities for all stakeholders to ensure same-day scanning and uploading of documents. The Registrar was directed to place the amended Standing Order before the Chief Justice for approval.
Source: LiveLaw, "'Casual Approach' Frustrating Paperless Courts: Rajasthan High Court Seeks Accountability For Delayed Upload Of Documents," September 10, 2026.
FACTS:
The matter came up through the Paperless Module 2.0, the High Court's digital case-filing and access system, which was found to be missing the main petition despite the stay petition having been uploaded. The concerned court clerk and the vendor engaged for scanning and digitisation of case files, M/s Enhira Software (Export) Limited, were called upon to explain the lapse; the Court found their explanations unsatisfactory.
COURT'S ANALYSIS:
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that such lapses were not isolated, observing that a "casual approach" of this kind was being adopted by those responsible for uploading court documents "almost every day," undermining the objective of paperless courts. The Court described the Paperless Module as representing "a paradigm shift in the justice delivery system," central to expediting justice delivery, reducing the risk of record loss, and enabling round-the-clock accessibility to case records — and held that "unless accountability was fixed, the dream of paperless court shall remain only on papers."
HOLDING:
The Court directed that the existing Standing Order of November 2, 2020, governing the Paperless Module — currently confined largely to criminal matters — be comprehensively revised to cover civil, criminal, writ and miscellaneous matters alike, fixing specific roles and responsibilities for all stakeholders to ensure same-day scanning and uploading of documents. The Registrar was directed to place the amended Standing Order before the Chief Justice for approval.
Source: LiveLaw, "'Casual Approach' Frustrating Paperless Courts: Rajasthan High Court Seeks Accountability For Delayed Upload Of Documents," September 10, 2026.
Cases Cited & References
- 1. 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 375