Need to frame norms for using less paper, more e-docs: Court

A Delhi court has suggested framing of guidelines to minimise use of papers in judicial work to save the environment and instead use electronic form of documents.
The court said with the rapid advancement of technology, lawyers and litigants should aim at using lesser paper and can bring necessary documents in the hearing in the form of CDs or pen drives.
"The time has also come when there has to be certain guidelines, instructions and rules wherein parties approaching the court may be directed to bring only relevant documents.
"This country is already facing lot of environment problems. However, the parties have a tendency of filing the documents in bulk, most of the time irrelevant, which not only waste the precious time of court but also affect adversely on nature," Additional Sessions Judge Dinesh Kumar Sharma said.

The court's observation came while dismissing a review petition in a cheque bounce case filed by Andhra Pradesh-based VMC Systems Ltd against a trial court order disallowing a question put by defence counsel during cross examination.
It rejected the petition with a cost of Rs five lakh slapped on the firm which was directed to deposit it with Delhi Legal Services Authority.

"I consider that the present revision petition filed by the petitioner (firm) is an abuse of the process of the court and it has been filed only to delay the proceeding and harass the complainant," the judge said.

The court also warned the firm's counsel not to enter into verbosity and file unnecessarily bulky documents.
It added that the right to challenge cannot be agitated with a mala fide intention to harass the other party.
"The courts in India are already drawing lot of criticism for huge pendency. The dockets are overflowing and some mischievous litigants take the benefit of the paucity of time with the court and therefore, file frivolous petitions, challenging the orders of the court, only to ensure the delay in proceedings and to gain the time to the detriment of the opposite party," the court said.