Reforming High Court Rules in India: Towards Simplicity, Speed, and Uniform Access to Justice

Reforming High Court Rules in India: Towards Simplicity, Speed, and Uniform Access to Justice

By:

Adv. Vijay Sardana

Introduction

This paper begins with my own experience of engaging with the Delhi High Court. In an effort to analyse its procedural framework, I employed advanced Artificial Intelligence tools. Strikingly, even AI—widely regarded for its ability to resolve highly complex problems—struggled to interpret the Court’s rules. The assessment that follows is therefore a combination of personal experience and AI-assisted analysis, intended to highlight and better understand the inherent complexities of High Court Rules in India, with Delhi as a case study.

1. Executive Summary

High Court Rules across India are detailed and comprehensive, but they are also highly technical, fragmented, and difficult to navigate—even for trained lawyers. While intended to streamline procedure and reduce delays, in practice they often increase cost and time, largely due to technical defects and rigid procedural requirements. This paper proposes reforms to simplify, consolidate, and digitize the Rules, making them user-friendly and effective in ensuring faster justice. Importantly, it argues for uniform reform across all High Courts in India to ensure consistency, predictability, and accessibility of justice nationwide.

2. Background

• Colonial legacy: Many rules date back to the pre-independence procedural frameworks.

• Current framework: Each High Court follows its own set of rules—Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules 2018, Delhi High Court Rules Volumes I & II, practice directions, office orders, e-filing regulations, etc.

• Fragmentation: Litigants and practitioners must cross-reference multiple documents, and there is no uniformity across states.

3. Assessment of Current Framework

• Complex language: Rules are written in archaic legalese.

• Registry-centric: Designed more to protect the Registry from errors than to assist litigants.

• Technical objections: Delays are often caused by formatting errors (margins, binding, indexing).

• Digital gap: E-filing provisions are bolt-ons, not integrated.

• Litigant-unfriendly: Difficult for self-represented parties.

• Non-uniformity: Every High Court has different procedural nuances, creating confusion for litigants and lawyers practising across states.

4. Comparative Models

• UK Civil Procedure Rules (CPR): Written in plain English, structured in numbered Parts with easy-to-follow Practice Directions.

• Singapore Rules of Court (2021): Redrafted for clarity and brevity, digital-first, and strictly enforces timelines.

• Australia Federal Court Rules: Annotated and accompanied by explanatory guides for litigants.

5. Key Problems in High Court Rules

1. Fragmentation across multiple sources within each court.

2. Overemphasis on form over substance.

3. Frequent amendments without consolidated updates. Other departments, including Regulators like SEBI and RBI, do that.

4. Weak enforcement of case management timelines.

5. Barriers for unrepresented litigants.

6. Lack of uniformity across different High Courts.

6. Recommendations for Reform

1. Plain-language redraft: Core rules in simple English; technical annexure for legal detail.

2. Consolidation: Single unified handbook for each High Court, updated annually.

3. Uniform framework across India: A model set of High Court Rules adopted nationwide with local modifications only where necessary.

4. Digital-first rules: Reframe filing and procedural requirements around e-filing.

5. Annexures with flowcharts and checklists: For each case type—writs, appeals, arbitration, commercial suits, probate, etc.

6. Registry reform: Objections only on substantive defects (e.g., missing signature, absent affidavit), not cosmetic issues.

7. Mandatory case management: With penalties for non-compliance.

8. Litigant guides: Publish citizen’s guide in Hindi/English with illustrations.

9. Training: Continuous education for clerks, junior lawyers, and litigants.

7. Sample Simplified Drafting

Current style: > “Every appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the order appealed from together with an index in chronological order of all documents relied upon therein.”

Proposed plain-language version: > “When filing an appeal, you must attach: > - Certified copy of the order you are challenging > - Court fee receipt > - Index of documents in date order”

8. Implementation Strategy

• Establish a drafting committee including judges, young lawyers, registry staff, and tech experts.

• Develop a Model High Court Rules framework at the national level.

• Pilot simplified rules in e-filing portals across selected High Courts.

• Annual consolidation of rules and amendments.

• Public consultation before finalization.

9. Conclusion

High Court Rules are essential for consistency and discipline in judicial functioning. However, their current complexity and lack of uniformity create barriers to justice delivery. Simplifying, consolidating, and digitizing these rules—while adopting a uniform national model with High Court-level adaptations—will: - Reduce registry objections - Lower cost of litigation - Improve access for ordinary citizens - Ensure consistency across states - Enhance the credibility and efficiency of the judiciary

The time is ripe for reform. By embracing clarity, uniformity, and technology, India’s High Courts can transform their rules from procedural hurdles into instruments of justice.

Annexure A: Filing Flowcharts

Civil Appeal

1. Draft appeal → 2. Attach certified copy of judgment/order → 3. Pay court fees → 4. File index of documents → 5. Submit through e-filing → 6. Registry check → 7. Case number allotted.

Writ Petition

1. Draft petition stating violation of rights → 2. Attach affidavit → 3. Annex relevant documents → 4. Court fees → 5. File via e-filing → 6. Scrutiny by registry → 7. Listing before court.

Arbitration Petition (Section 34)

1. Draft petition challenging award → 2. Attach certified copy of arbitral award → 3. Court fees → 4. Affidavit → 5. File via e-filing → 6. Scrutiny by registry → 7. Listing before court.

Annexure B: Compliance Checklists

For Civil Appeal - [ ] Certified copy of impugned order - [ ] Memorandum of appeal signed & verified - [ ] Court fees affixed - [ ] Index of documents - [ ] Vakalatnama signed by advocate & client - [ ] Affidavit of service (if required)

For Writ Petition - [ ] Petition in correct format - [ ] Grounds clearly set out - [ ] Supporting affidavit - [ ] Annexures properly indexed & paginated - [ ] Court fee affixed - [ ] Vakalatnama signed

For Arbitration Petition (Sec 34) - [ ] Certified copy of award - [ ] Grounds for challenge set out - [ ] Supporting affidavit - [ ] Court fee paid - [ ] Annexures indexed - [ ] Vakalatnama signed

Annexure C: Comparative Table of Procedural Rules

Feature	Indian High Courts (Current)	UK CPR	Singapore Rules (2021)	Australia Federal Court Rules
Language	Technical legalese	Plain English	Plain English	Annotated + plain guidance
Consolidation	Scattered across volumes, orders, and notifications	Single codified set	Single codified set	Single codified set + commentary
Digital orientation	E-filing add-ons	Integrated with online filing	Digital-first drafting	Digital-first focus
Case management	Limited enforcement	Strong judicial case management	Strict timelines	Active case management
User support	None for laypersons	Guides on the judiciary website	Explanatory notes + FAQs	Explanatory practice notes
Uniformity	Varies across states	Uniform national rules	Uniform national rules	Uniform national rules

Annexure D: Suggested Drafting Style Guidelines

• Use short sentences.

• Prefer lists/bullets over long paragraphs.

• State “must/shall” requirements clearly.

• Provide plain-language summaries before technical text.

• Include filing checklists as part of the rulebook.

This is part of Ease of Living under Viksit Bharat Mission.