New Delhi (ABC Live): The Supreme Court’s circular dated 20 March 2026 looks brief and technical. Yet it raises a much larger issue. The circular says that, after the directions issued in Central Bank of India v. Bijendra Kumar Jha & Others on 27 February 2026, a statutory appeal cannot be entertained unless it includes a certified copy of the impugned judgment. It also says that henceforth all such statutory appeals must carry a certified copy for further processing. The circular links this requirement to Order XIX Rules 3(2) and 40 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

At first glance, this may seem like a routine filing rule. However, the circular raises a deeper institutional question. Can a court system that has invested heavily in digitisation, e-filing, online publication of judgments, and AI-based reforms still insist that an official digital judgment is not enough for filing a statutory appeal? That is the real issue behind this circular.

What the Circular Does

The circular does more than restate a filing preference. It makes the certified copy a basic filing condition for statutory appeals. In simple terms, the Registry will not process such an appeal unless the appellant files a certified copy of the impugned judgment.

This change strengthens scrutiny at the filing stage. At the same time, it raises the burden on litigants. That burden becomes heavier when limitation is close and the lower court or tribunal has not yet issued the certified copy.

Why the Court May Have Issued It

The Court may have issued the circular for clear administrative reasons.

First, a certified copy gives the Court a document it can trust without doubt. It helps confirm that the impugned judgment is complete, correct, and formally issued.

Second, the rule creates a uniform filing standard. It reduces disputes over missing pages, unofficial copies, or incomplete annexures. It also helps the Registry follow one clear practice in all statutory appeals.

So, if we look at the circular only from an administrative angle, the logic is easy to see.

Where the Problem Starts

The main problem does not lie in the value of a certified copy. Certified copies matter. The real problem lies in making the certified copy an absolute filing condition in every statutory appeal.

In real court practice, copy branches often delay certified copies. Many litigants receive the judgment through the official website first. They may start drafting the appeal at once. They may also face a strict limitation period. Yet they may still fail at the filing counter because the certified copy is not ready.

That result turns a procedural safeguard into a procedural barrier.

Digital Justice vs Certified Copy Formalism

This is the strongest criticism of the circular.

Over the last several years, the judiciary has promoted digitisation as a major reform. Courts now support e-filing, scanned records, online orders, digital cause lists, and wider online access. These reforms aimed to make justice faster, easier, and more open. However, this circular suggests that an official digital judgment still does not enjoy enough trust for filing a statutory appeal.

That creates a real contradiction.

A litigant may read the judgment online. The litigant may download it from an official judicial website. The litigant may prepare the appeal from that copy and cite it in legal work. Even then, the system may still say that the same document is not good enough for filing.

This is not a small technical issue. It goes to the heart of digital justice. If official judicial websites provide information but not procedural trust, then digitisation remains incomplete. The system gives digital access, but it keeps paper-based trust.

In that sense, the circular keeps certified copy formalism alive in a court system that presents itself as digital and AI-ready. Public money funds these systems so litigants and lawyers may gain real procedural benefit. Otherwise, digitisation becomes a display reform, not a working reform.

A Troubling Signal About Official Judicial Websites

The circular also sends a troubling signal.

When the system insists on a certified copy even after an official website has uploaded the judgment, it suggests that the judiciary does not fully trust its own digital record at the filing stage. That weakens confidence in official judicial websites.

A justice system cannot ask litigants to use digital platforms and then refuse to trust official digital documents for real procedural use.

Access to Justice Concerns

This problem becomes sharper in statutory appeals. Such appeals arise from statute and often carry strict limitation periods. If the issuing forum delays the certified copy, the litigant may suffer even without any fault.

This concern is practical, not theoretical.

A litigant may face:

• an expiring limitation period,
• an official online copy of the judgment,
• proof that the certified copy was already applied for,
• and yet no ability to cross the Registry stage.

That outcome seems too harsh, especially when no one disputes the text or source of the online judgment.

Registry Power Should Not Override Judicial Fairness

The circular uses strict language. It says that a statutory appeal cannot be entertained without a certified copy and that such appeals must include that copy for further processing.

If the Registry applies this rule mechanically, the Registry may become stricter than the Court itself would be in an urgent case. Courts usually leave room for fairness when a litigant shows diligence, urgency, or genuine inability to comply at once. Administrative enforcement should not close that space completely.

So, the real risk may lie less in the text itself and more in the way officials apply it.

What a Better Approach Could Have Been

The Court had a better middle path.

It could have made certified copies the general rule. At the same time, it could have allowed provisional filing on the basis of official digital copies in urgent or limitation-sensitive cases. The appellant could then file the certified copy later.

That model would protect authenticity without harming access. It would also fit better with digital reform, actual court practice, and the basic idea that procedure should help justice rather than block it.

Why This Matters Beyond One Circular

This circular is not only about one filing rule. It reflects a larger question in the Indian judicial system. Does digital reform mean real procedural change, or does it only improve the outer appearance of the system?

A modern court cannot remain digitally visible but procedurally paper-bound forever. At some point, official digital records must gain enough institutional trust to perform real legal work, at least at the first stage, especially when the litigant acts diligently and no one disputes authenticity.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s circular of 20 March 2026 may be defended as a rule that promotes accuracy and orderly filing. It clearly says that, in light of the cited case directions and the Supreme Court Rules, a statutory appeal must include a certified copy of the impugned judgment for further processing.

Yet the deeper problem remains. In an age of digitisation, online access, and AI-based court reform, a rigid refusal to trust official digital judgments at the filing stage reveals a structural contradiction. The system modernises the surface of justice, but it keeps paper-era distrust at the core of appellate procedure.

That is why this circular deserves close criticism. It may strengthen documentary certainty. However, unless officials apply it with flexibility, it may also weaken digital justice and turn procedure into a gatekeeping device against timely appellate access.

Critical Note

The circular may improve record certainty. However, it also reveals a deeper contradiction. The judiciary promotes digitisation and online access, yet it still seems unwilling to place full procedural trust in its own official digital records. If official uploaded judgments are not enough even for filing, then judicial digitisation risks becoming symbolic rather than truly transformative.

Also, Read ABC Live Reports:

Explained: Are Indian Courts’ Digital Records Really OCR-Ready?