Issue Regarding Use Of "A4 Size Paper On Both Sides" For Judicial Work Pending Before Full Court Of Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court on Friday was informed by its administrative side that while the Rules Committee has already resolved to use A4 size paper and printing on both sides for the purpose of judicial work, the matter is pending to be finally approved by the Full Court.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Yashwant Varma was informed by the counsel appearing for Registrar General of High Court that ten days' time is still required to take a final decision in the matter as the minutes are to be approved by full court.

The Court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Centre for Accountability and Systemic Change.

Advocate Virag Gupta appearing for the petitioner submitted that as many as 16 High Courts as well as the Supreme Court has adopted the practice of double sided printing and that the same may be adopted by Delhi High Court.

He also said that while the Union of India was directed to file its affidavit within 4 weeks in April, no response was filed by the Ministry of Law and Justice.

Gupta also referred to the prayers in the plea seeking a direction on High Court's registry and all subordinate courts in the city to mandatorily use double sided A4 pages for filing and also a direction on Ministry of Law and Justice to issue an advisory regarding using double sided A4 pages in all courts.

"We can take a decision in respect of the Delhi High Court, not in respect of other High Courts," the Bench orally remarked.

Accordingly, the Court posted the matter for hearing on October 11.

Earlier, the petitioner had argued that though the High Court directed the use of A4 size paper uniformly in all jurisdictions for all kind of pleadings contained in petitions, affidavits, applications or other documents etc, and all memorandum of appeals, orders and judgments in the High Court as well as in all District Courts of Delhi, the suggestion of both sides of paper be used has not been examined.

Case Title: Centre for Accountability and Systemic Change v. Registrar General & Anr.