Madras HC Asks DRAT Chair To Ensure Tamil Nadu DRTs Keep Uploading Full-Format, QR-Verified Orders Promptly

In brief

The question

1. Whether the respondents were required to ensure that DRT orders and proceedings were uploaded in a standardized, adequately authenticated format and in a time-bound manner.

The court held

The Court disposed of the writ petition, without costs.

It also directed

The Court requested the Chairperson of the DRAT, Chennai, to ensure that the DRTs continued uploading final judgments, interim orders and daily proceedings in a standardized format with the specified identifying and authentication features; uploaded them in a time-bound manner; and processed certified-copy applications expeditiously so that appellate remedies were not impeded.

01Facts

The petitioner sought a writ directing the Union of India to ensure that the Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) in Tamil Nadu uploaded daily proceedings, interim orders and final judgments to the e-DRT portal in a standard format and within a reasonable time.

pp. 2–4

He alleged that the published orders were truncated and lacked identifying and authentication features, causing difficulties for litigants and institutions relying on them; he also reported delays in obtaining certified copies.

pp. 2–4

The respondents stated that updated formats, including cause titles, court emblems, QR codes and signature templates, had been implemented or were operational across the relevant DRTs, and described the timelines for issuing certified copies.

pp. 4–5

The Court considered whether further directions were warranted in light of those measures and the applicable rules.

pp. 6–8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the respondents were required to ensure that DRT orders and proceedings were uploaded in a standardized, adequately authenticated format and in a time-bound manner.

pp. 2–3, 6–8

ii.2. Whether, given the respondents’ stated implementation of upgraded formats, further directions were necessary to secure continued compliance and timely access to orders and certified copies.

pp. 7–9

03Law Applied

Rules 14 and 16 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 require Tribunal orders to be in writing, signed and dated by the Presiding Officer, and require final orders to be communicated to the parties.

p. 6

Rule 5 of the Debts Recovery Tribunals and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunals Electronic Filing Rules, 2020 requires regular uploading of cause lists, daily orders and final orders to the common e-DRT portal.

p. 6

The Court also referred to the DRT Regulations, 2024, which require immediate online publication of judgments and daily orders upon pronouncement with digital authentication across all pages.

pp. 6–7

It further relied on the principles of access to justice, transparency under Article 21 of the Constitution, and effective e-governance.

p. 7

It further relied on the Chairperson of the DRAT, Chennai’s supervisory authority under Section 17-A of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.

p. 8

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 Section 17A

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that the petitioner’s original grievance concerning inconsistent digital publication was genuine.

p. 7

However, the respondents’ evidence that upgraded formats were operational across the Tamil Nadu DRTs substantially addressed the requested relief.

pp. 4–5, 7

Because the applicable rules required regular publication and the Court considered reliable, authenticated online orders important to access to justice and transparency, it disposed of the petition while requesting the DRAT Chairperson to ensure that the improved practice continued, that orders were uploaded in a time-bound manner, and that certified-copy applications were processed expeditiously.

pp. 7–9