Kerala High Court warns against 'copy-paste' signatures in pleadings filed via e-filing

The Kerala High Court has cautioned advocates against the practice of electronically filing pleadings with signatures that are copied and pasted, holding that such practices violate the Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 [MAT Agro Products Pvt Ltd v The Manager, State Bank of India and ors]..Justice MA Abdul Hakhim observed that advocates and parties cannot scan and upload documents containing copy-pasted signatures. The Court added that each page of the filings must be physically signed by the litigants and their advocates before they are uploaded, if it is not possible to digitally sign them in accordance with the 2021 rules. "In view of the aforesaid Rules, the Advocates and the Parties are not entitled to scan and upload the Pleadings with signatures copied and pasted on it. All the Pleadings scanned and uploaded for filing shall be physically signed by the parties and their Advocates before scanning and uploading the same, in case the digital signature could not be affixed in accordance with Sub-Rule (1) or it could not be authenticated in accordance with Sub-Rules (2) & (3) of Rule 6 of the Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021," the Court said..The Court also directed advocates to ensure that during e-filings, the original signed documents must be preserved for verification whenever required by the Registry or the Court.The Court cautioned that procedural safeguards cannot be bypassed merely because filings are done electronically..The Court passed the order after noticing that a petition and affidavit submitted before it appeared to bear signatures and seals that had been copied and pasted instead of the pages being physically signed before they were scanned and uploaded. Referring to Rule 6 of the Electronic Filing Rules, the Court explained that electronic filings must either carry a valid digital signature, Aadhaar-based e-signature, OTP-based electronic verification or physical signatures affixed before scanning and uploading.To ensure strict compliance, the Court directed the Registry not to accept pleadings where signatures appeared to be copied and pasted.The Court added that in cases of any doubt on whether the signatures were copy-pasted, the filing may be accepted by the Registry only after the advocate or party demonstrates that the documents were physically signed by the parties and their advocates before scanning and uploading, by producing the original pleadings with the signatures."The Advocate or the Party who is filing the Pleadings shall keep the originals of the Pleadings signed by the parties and their Advocates for verification in case of any doubt entertained by the Registry or by this Court," the Court said..The observations came while the Court was considering a petition filed by MAT Agro Products Pvt Ltd seeking to quash the freezing of its Phonepe wallet linked to a State Bank of India account.According to the State Bank of India's counter affidavit, the account showed highly suspicious activity typical of a 'money mule account' used to channel illicit funds.The affidavit stated that between August 29 and September 1, 2025, the petitioner's account recorded more than 4.08 lakh credit transactions and 378 debit transactions involving over ₹17 crores in credits and debits, despite the company declaring an annual turnover of only ₹2 crores.During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel had filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the case.However, the Court declined to accept the request in view of the serious issues revealed in the counter-affidavit.Significantly, the Court also noted that despite earlier directions, the petitioner had failed to implead the local Station House Officer (SHO) as a party to its plea seeking the defreezing of its bank account. The said direction was issued recently to ensure that petitions to defreeze accounts linked to cyberfraud allegations are not filed by imposters..Advocates Jibin Joji, Merin Jose and Ruby K Roy appeared for the petitioner.Standing counsel P Gopal represented the State Bank of India.Advocate Thomas P Kuruvilla appeared for PhonePe..[Read Order]