Courts and uniformity in filings: How we can reduce administrative and environmental costs

Article 145 of the Constitution of India confers power upon the Supreme Court to “make rules for regulating generally the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court”. Similarly, under Article 225 of the Constitution of India, High Courts have the power to make rules for their general governance.

Exercising this power, the Supreme Court enacted the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, and the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The 2013 Rules provide for the use of paper and formatting requirements for filing any document in court. The implication of these Rules also extends to the use of any official correspondence within the court on both judicial and administrative sides.

Order XV of the 2013 Rules provides general rules regarding the use of paper by the parties in the court. Order XV, Rule 1 deals with the use of paper and also provides the formatting requirements to be used for filing petitions in court. It is pertinent to note that Rule 1 only enumerates general guidelines to keep in mind while filing any petition/appeal in the court. This Rule, read with Rule 1 of Order VIII, states that the use of paper must be a “standard petition paper, demy-foolscap size, or of the size of 29.7 cm×21 cm, or paper which is ordinarily used in the High Courts for the purpose,” and only one side of that paper can be used resulting in the prevalent use of "legal size paper" in the constitutional courts.

The significant consumption of paper in legal proceedings, exacerbated by the use of a specific type of paper in courts across the country, has resulted in severe environmental implications. Raising this issue, a few law students wrote a letter to then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi suggesting the adoption and usage of A4 paper with double-sided printing in courts and tribunals across the country. During this time, a PIL was also filed in the Supreme Court on the same issue.

The Supreme Court, through its circulars dated January 14, 2020 and March 05, 2020, clarified the situation and mandated the usage of A4 paper for administrative and judicial purposes. In addition to this, the Court specified certain basic formatting requirements, paper quality, paper size, margins, font style, font size, line spacing and other requirements. This decision was taken “to minimize consumption of paper & consequently relieving the environmental distress due to the excessive paper usage/to save the environment”.

In the years to follow, almost all High Courts felt the need for a similar method to be implemented. However, through the course of implementation, the aspect of uniformity vanished. This renders the entire legal system non-uniform and nullifies the efforts undertaken by the Supreme Court for the protection of the environment.

Through this article, the authors highlight the non-uniformity across the directions of the High Courts and the adverse consequences of such directives on the justice delivery system.

Non-uniformity in usage of A4 paper

Among the 25 High Courts, the Manipur High Court was the first to take cognizance of this issue by issuing a circular dated January 27, 2018, mandating the use of A4 size paper from March 1, 2018.

Following the circular of the Supreme Court various High Courts issued similar directions until July 14, 2023, the latest one by the Patna High Court.

The directions issued have significant differences and lack of uniformity in the rationalisation, acceptance and implementation of use of A4 size paper, thus affecting the standardisation in the judicial system.

1. Among the 25 High Courts, 22 found it necessary to address the adoption of A4 size paper. Specifically, 21 High Courts have issued directions mandating the use of A4 size paper. Listed in chronological order of issuance, these include the High Courts of Manipur, Calcutta, Madhya Pradesh, Tripura, Jharkhand, Sikkim, Kerala, Uttarakhand, Karnataka, Orissa, Delhi, Gauhati, Allahabad, Bombay, Himachal, Madras, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Meghalaya, Patna and Punjab & Haryana. Two High Courts are currently in the process of issuing such orders. The Chhattisgarh High Court disposed of a PIL on this issue, directing the registry to decide the petition within eight weeks. The Gujarat High Court heard and disposed of a similar petition with directions to consider the use of A4 size paper, but the circular is yet to be issued. The Rajasthan High Court has rejected the petition to enforce the mandatory usage of A4-sized paper and the Jammu & Kashmir High Court has not made any changes in this regard.

2. Within the subset of 21 High Courts that issued the direction for the compulsory usage of A4 size paper, only 13 High Courts have specifically mandated printing on both sides. These include the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh, Tripura, Jharkhand, Kerala, Uttarakhand, Gauhati, Bombay, Himachal, Madras, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Meghalaya and Patna. 6 High Courts have stipulated printing on one side only - those of Sikkim, Karnataka, Orissa, Delhi, Allahabad, Punjab & Haryana. The High Courts of Manipur and Calcutta have not provided any explicit printing directions. The data underlines the shortcomings in achieving the objective of paper conservation through the transition from legal paper to A4 size paper, coupled with printing on both sides. Here, the removal of either element will not serve the purpose of the Supreme Court circular. However, while issuing directions, some High Courts failed to acknowledge the said fact.

3. Moreover, out of 21 High Courts, only 12 - those of Madhya Pradesh, Tripura, Sikkim, Karnataka, Orissa, Delhi, Gauhati, Allahabad, Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya and Punjab & Haryana have extended the rules for the usage of A4 size paper to both the High Court and the district courts. The other 9 have specified A4 size paper for the High Court only.

4. 7 High Courts - those of Madhya Pradesh, Tripura, Jharkhand, Bombay, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Meghalaya - specifically mentioned the application of directions to the administrative side. Meanwhile, the remaining High Courts remained silent on this particular issue.

Non-standardization of formatting requirements

Another issue is the lack of uniformity in formatting requirements being followed across different High Courts. These include font style, font size, line spacing, number of words per line, number of lines per page, margins of the page, A4 size paper specifications, paper quality etc. Each High Court adheres to its own specially curated default system, a practice that persisted even before independence. This lack of uniformity poses significant challenges for the general public, litigators and those associated with the judicial system, who must contend with changing formatting requirements when entering different jurisdictions. This, in a way, impedes the cause of justice.

An analysis of the differences in formatting styles used by the 21 High Courts that issued directions regarding the use of A4 size paper is provided as follows:

1. 12 High Courts (Madhya Pradesh, Tripura Sikkim, Kerala, Karnataka, Orissa, Delhi, Gauhati, Allahabad, Bombay, Madras and Patna) have specified the minimum 75 GSM quality of A4 size paper; 3 High Courts (Uttarakhand, Himachal and Punjab & Haryana) have specified 80 GSM or above quality; the Calcutta High Court has specified A4 Bond Paper; and the remaining 5 High Courts have not specified anything in particular.

2. Some High Courts (Tripura, Kerala, Orissa, Delhi, Gauhati, Allahabad and Patna) have given a size specification of 29.7cm x 21cm (standard size of A4 paper) for the paper to be used in the court. Some High Courts, such as the Karnataka High Court suggested a different measure for specifications such as 30.5cm x 21.5 cm; and the rest remain silent on the particular aspect.

3. Every High Court follows a different font style and font size. The Calcutta High Court follows font size 12 of Bookman Oldstyle/Courier New. Karnataka High Court follows the Verdana font style, font size of the title - 14 and font size of the text -12. The Gauhati High Court follows Tahoma with a font size 14 for title and 12 for text. The Bombay High Court follows Times/Georgia font style and font size 14. The Orissa High Court and the Patna High Court follow Times New Roman font style and font size 14. The High Courts of Madhya Pradesh, Tripura and Delhi follow the Times New Roman font style and font size: 14 for title and 12 for text. The Uttarakhand High Court follows Times New Roman font style with font size 17 for headings and 15 for text. The Himachal Pradesh High Court follows Times New Roman and font size 18 and 16 for headings and text, respectively.

4. Each High Court's directions vary on line spacing requirements.

5. Moreover, all High Courts follow different margin sizes.

According to a general estimate, a single tree can produce around 16.67 reams of paper or 8,333.3 sheets. Another estimate suggests that it takes approximately 3 gallons (about 10 litres) of water to create a single sheet of paper. Therefore, to produce 16.67 reams or 8,333.3 sheets of paper from one tree, it would require roughly 83,330.30 litres of water. Considering each case involves at least two parties, a minimum of six sets of files would be required – two for the court, one for each party's counsel, and one for each party. Assuming an average filing of 50 pages per case, a minimum of 300 pages would be needed per case. This could amount to a significant number, possibly in the lakhs, if 1,000 cases are filed monthly in High Courts across the country. The use of double-sided prints in court filings could potentially save numerous trees in terms of fresh filings.

According to National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), in 2023, a total of 1,05,46,005 were filed in district and taluka courts and a total of 10,47,298 cases were filed in 25 High courts of India, amounting to 1,15,93,303 cases. Filings in these cases (assuming a minimum of 50 pages per case) with one-sided printing amount to 57,96,65,150 pages being used, leading to the cutting down of 69,562 trees. If double-sided priniting was used, approximately 34,781 trees and 2,89,83,00,730 litres of water could have been saved.

To bring about the change, a letter has also been sent to the Chief Justice of India and Secretary General of the Supreme Court Registry.

At the time of releasing its circulars, the Supreme Court expected that this move was “likely to save 2,800 trees from felling and conserve around one crore litres of water annually.” Approximately 3 crore paper sheets have been saved since the circulars were issued. While the Supreme Court strictly adheres to these directions, many High Courts and district courts nationwide seem to have misunderstood the purpose behind them, and the adherence to the directions is also flawed.

Besides, the lack of uniformity in the directions of various High Courts goes against the spirit of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which says that advocates can practice in any court in India, including the Supreme Court. The observed non-uniformity in filings before judicial fora negatively impacts litigators, the public at large and the cause of justice. It also adversely affects the proper functioning of the court administration.

The Supreme Court's efforts in e-filing, now in its third phase, have successfully digitised processes, achieving uniformity in e-filing procedures across High Courts. Recognizing this progress, a similar level of uniformity in offline practices, particularly in adopting A4 size paper with printing on both sides and uniform formatting requirements nationwide, is essential. This would not only ensure consistency, but also alleviate environmental and financial hardships for the public, ultimately contributing to the pursuit of justice and equity in the country.

Vikhyaat Maheshwari and Aashutosh Jagtap are Law Students of Dharmashastra National Law University, Jabalpur.