Rethinking Karnataka’s new summons delivery rules

The Karnataka government recently published in the Official Gazette new Rules for the service of summons/notices through email and courier for civil cases in district courts and the High Court.

Both sets of Rules are a response to the considerable delays caused by delays in the service of summons, notice or any other documents from courts by post or by hand. This piece examines the efficacy of these Rules against their stated objectives.

The necessity for sending notices and summons to defendants and respondents arises out of the principle of audi alteram partem, which requires that individuals and organisations have a fair chance to defend themselves. Thus, anyone approaching a court to solve their dispute must make a reasonable effort to inform the opposing party about the case. They also have to pay for the serving of such notices/summons through what is known as the process fee.

Delays in serving summons and notices significantly slow the disposal of civil cases. A study of courts in Bangalore Rural district by DAKSH and Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy in 2019 revealed that the notice/summons stage accounts for a quarter of the life cycle of a civil suit.

There are multiple reasons for these delays. For starters, in the district judiciary, the primary mode of service of summons is through process servers. Our discussions with process servers in Karnataka reveal that wrong or unidentifiable addresses, lack of public transport to reach remote areas, defendants/respondents who refuse to accept service and even threats to life in unsafe areas, make service challenging.

To track movements of process servers, who are often accused of corruption and laziness, the National Informatics Centre (NIC) developed an app called National Service and Tracking of Electronic Processes (NSTEP). However, NSTEP has created more problems. In remote areas, network connectivity issues prevent GPS tracking. The app also requires process servers to take pictures of respondents receiving summons, who may refuse due to privacy concerns.

The other commonly used method for process service is RPAD (Registered Post Acknowledgement Due). This process gets delayed when the address provided by the plaintiff/petitioner is wrong or the defendant/respondent evades service. Furthermore, during the working hours of postal workers, the defendant/respondent may not be available to receive the summons/notice.

The process of summons/notices definitely needs reform. The Rules related to email and service by courier are a step towards modernisation, but they are unnecessarily complex.

The intention behind permitting notices/summons to be served electronically was to simplify and hasten process serving. Yet, the framework for serving legal notices via email in India turns a potentially seamless process into a bureaucratic ordeal, replicating the red tape of traditional postal service.

Before sending an email notice, the plaintiff/petitioner must file an affidavit swearing that the recipient’s email address is correct and has been used for prior correspondence. This level of diligence is not required for process service by India Post. A party serving notice through email must also pay ₹30 in process fees. It is unclear why this fee is necessary because email does not involve costs associated with postal delivery. Delays in the payment of the process fee for delivery by India Post or process servers cause delays in case processing. Replicating this for service by email will lead to similar delays.

A Recommendation and Monitoring Committee (RMC) comprising the Registrar General, Registrar Computers, Registrar Judicial, Central Project Coordinator, and an officer from Karnataka’s Higher Judicial Services will oversee the process. A more straightforward process is to depute an official/group of officials with a single, widely-publicised email address, which should be used for sending all notices/summons.

Service by courier seems like an efficient alternative to RPAD, but the new Rules create an onerous process for courier agencies. The Rules delegate the responsibility of identifying courier agencies and their supervision to two committees. The first is the RMC, which is similar to the one established to oversee the email process. This Committee has to constitute a District Level Monitoring Committee for each district, consisting of the Principal District Judge or District Judge, an Additional District Judge and a Senior Civil Judge.

In addition to their judicial work, the members of these RMCs have to spend time on inviting applications from courier agencies, selecting and empaneling them, monitoring their service and even deciding the process fee. Courier selection relies on vague criteria like reputation, structure, organisation and capacity. Courier agencies have to provide delivery agents with equipment compatible with NTSEP or create similar software on their own dime, to track the delivery agents. Agencies also must deposit ₹5,00,00 during empanelment and face significant penalties for service disputes. They have to freeze their prices for three years. These rules would make the empanelment of courier agencies almost impossible. Similar onerous rules do not exist for India Post.

While it is crucial to explore new methods of serving summons, efforts need to be made to make the current processes more efficient. Physical modes of delivery of summons are still perceived as more serious and reliable due to the certainty of the recipient's identity.

For starters, summons/notice sent by RPAD and through the process servers should be delivered outside of regular working hours. If the plaintiff/petitioner has multiple addresses of the defendant/respondent, an attempt should be made to send summons/notice through RPAD or process servers to all of them simultaneously. However, if service by RPAD fails because the address is wrong, alternate modes should be immediately explored. The court can send summons/notices to the post office nearest to the defendant/respondent. The post office can then print the documents and deliver them, which will be faster than sending by RPAD.

Leah Varghese is a Research Manager and Atishya Kumar is a Senior Research Associate at DAKSH. Views are personal.