Can litigant directly serve notice of case to opposing party via email? Kerala High Court answers

The Kerala High Court recently observed that while emails can be sent to serve respondents a notice of a case filed against them by a litigant, such emails must be sent through the Court's registry and not directly by the litigant or his/her counsel [Faseela v Station House Officer & anr].

Justice S Manu explained that under the High Court of Kerala Rules, notices sent through electronic mode should be issued by the Court Registry and not by parties themselves.

The High Court of Kerala Rules, 1971, do not contemplate a situation where litigants directly email the notice of a case to the respondents/ their legal opponents, the Court said.

The Court clarified that Rule 51(3) allows the Court to permit the issuance of notice through electronic mode (email), provided that the litigant petitioner furnishes a digital copy of the entire case papers and the respondents' email addresses to the Registry.

Only the Registry is empowered to issue notices by email, once this is done, it said.

"The notice as provided under Rule 51(3) is to be issued to the parties by the Registry on receipt of digital copy of the papers and e-mail addresses of the respondents from the petitioner/appellant. Sending electronic communications by the petitioners or appellants or their counsels to the respondents is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Rule 51(3). Such a mode of service of notice, directly by the parties or their counsel to the respondents is not envisaged under the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971. No rule in Chapter IV of the Rules dealing with service of notices permits service of notice on the respondents by electronic mode, directly by the petitioners/appellants, the Court's August 18 ruling stated.

The Court issued the clarification while hearing a writ petition filed by one, Faseela, concerning the operation of a bank account she held with the South Indian Bank. The Jaipur City (East) Police and the Bank were named the respondents in her petition.

Her counsel had submitted a memo stating that, in compliance with an earlier June 12 order of the Court for the issuance of notice, an email had been sent to the first respondent, namely the Station House Officer, of the Jaipur City (East) Police.

However, the Court found the email communication of notice to be improper service, since it had been sent directly by the petitioner/ her counsel to the respondent.

The Court noted that this was not an isolated incident.

"It is noticed that in several writ petitions similar memos have been filed stating that communication by e-mail was issued to the respondents by the counsel," it said.

The Court proceeded to explain that to constitute valid service of notice, the email should have been sent through the Registry.

Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to comply with the relevant rules and furnish the digital copies of the case papers along with the first respondent's email address within three days to the Registry, so that a valid service of notice may be done through the Registry.

"If any response is received by the Registry by e-mail from the 1st respondent, that shall be noted in the office notes and if any statement received by electronic mode, the same shall be placed before the Court," the Court added, before posting the case next on September 9.

Advocates TH Aravind, Manu Srinath, and Ruksana Sathar PA appeared for the petitioner.

Advocates Sunil Shanker, Vidya Gangadharan, and Thomas Glaison represented the South Indian Bank.

[Read Order]