PIL in Supreme Court seeks uniform court fees, judicial terms across India
Synopsis
A PIL in the Supreme Court has laid bare a surprising fragmentation at the heart of India's judiciary — criminal appeals go by four different abbreviations, court fees for identical matters vary by state, and the Bombay High Court's principal seat alone lists 330 case types without abbreviations. The petition argues this patchwork violates constitutional equality and demands a Law Commission-led overhaul involving every High Court in the country.
Key Takeaways
A PIL filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay in the Supreme Court seeks standardisation of judicial terminology, abbreviations, court fees, and case registration processes across all High Courts.
Criminal appeals are currently abbreviated differently — CRA , CR.A , CRAPL , and CRL.A — across different jurisdictions.
Court fees for the same matter differ by state: a Section 482 CrPC application costs ₹2.65 in Punjab and Haryana but ₹2.50 in Delhi.
The Bombay High Court's principal seat has 330 case types without abbreviations; its Nagpur and Aurangabad benches have 77 and 61 respectively.
The petition invokes Articles 14-15 of the Constitution, arguing fee and terminology disparities violate the Right to Equality.
A representation to the Law Commission on 5 September went unaddressed, prompting the Supreme Court petition.
A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking directions to the Law Commission of India to prepare a comprehensive report — in consultation with the apex court and all High Courts — to standardise judicial terminology, abbreviations, phrases, norms, court fee structures, and case registration processes across the country.
The petition was filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay under Article 32 of the Constitution. Alternatively, the plea sought the constitution of an expert committee or directions to the Union Law Ministry to prepare such a report and ensure uniformity in judicial procedures and nomenclature.
Who Has Been Arrayed as Respondents
The petition has named the Union government, the Secretary General of the Supreme Court, the Registrars General of all High Courts, and the Law Commission of India as respondents. The petitioner contends that significant variations in judicial terminology, case classifications, abbreviations, procedures, and court fees across High Courts cause inconvenience to litigants, advocates, and authorities — despite all courts operating under the same constitutional and legal framework.
'The terminology used by different High Courts for different types of cases is not uniform. This causes inconvenience not only to the general public but also to advocates and the authorities as well,' the petition stated.
The Terminology Tangle: Real-World Examples
The PIL cited specific examples to illustrate the problem. Criminal appeals, for instance, are abbreviated as CRA, CR.A, CRAPL, and CRL.A across different High Courts, while contempt appeals go by CONTA, CONTAPP, CPTA, and ConApp in different jurisdictions.
On writ petitions, the petition noted that the Delhi High Court maintains multiple categories, while the Gujarat High Court consolidates all such matters under a single category of 'WRIT PETITION (PIL)'. The Gauhati and Himachal Pradesh High Courts have several categories, while the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court follows its own classification system.
Company matter nomenclature also varies — COMPET in the Gauhati High Court, COMP in Gujarat, and COP in Himachal Pradesh. The petition further flagged that the Bombay High Court's principal seat has 330 case types with descriptions but without abbreviations, while its Nagpur and Aurangabad benches carry 77 and 61 such case types respectively — creating further confusion for advocates practising across those jurisdictions.
Unequal Court Fees: A Constitutional Concern
The petition raised concerns over disparate court fees for comparable legal proceedings. A criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 attracts a fee of ₹2.65 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, compared with ₹2.50 in the Delhi High Court. For first appeals in matrimonial cases, the fee stands at ₹19.50 in Punjab and Chandigarh but ₹24.50 in Haryana.
'Unequal Court Fees in different States discriminate among citizens based on their place of birth and residence,' the petition contended, adding that such differences also promote regionalism. The plea referenced state-specific amendments to the Court Fees Act, 1870 as evidence of the patchwork that has developed over time.
'Judicial equality is a matter of constitutional right, its differentiation based on the jurisdiction of courts violates the Right to Equality enshrined under Articles 14-15 of the Constitution,' the petition argued.
Prior Representation and What Comes Next
The petitioner stated that he had submitted a representation to the Chairman of the Law Commission on 5 September seeking uniformity in judicial terminology, abbreviations, norms, phrases, court fees, and case registration processes. However, claiming that no steps had been taken to address the issue, the plea argued the need for judicial standardisation remained unaddressed.
The petition ultimately sought a comprehensive exercise involving the Supreme Court and all High Courts to establish uniform standards for case classifications, judicial terminology, abbreviations, court fees, and registration procedures across India. How the apex court receives the PIL — and whether it issues notice to the respondents — will be a key indicator of how urgently the judiciary views the standardisation question.
Point of View
Not just an administrative inefficiency — a framing that gives the Supreme Court doctrinal grounds to intervene rather than merely recommend. The real question is whether the Law Commission, which has already received and apparently ignored a representation, will act with greater urgency under judicial direction than it did voluntarily.
NationPress
14 Oct 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the PIL filed in the Supreme Court seek?
The PIL, filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay under Article 32, seeks directions to the Law Commission of India to prepare a comprehensive report — in consultation with the Supreme Court and all High Courts — to standardise judicial terminology, abbreviations, court fees, and case registration processes across India. Alternatively, it seeks the constitution of an expert committee or directions to the Union Law Ministry for the same purpose.
Why is judicial terminology not uniform across Indian High Courts?
Each High Court has historically developed its own rules, case classifications, and abbreviations, resulting in a patchwork system. For example, criminal appeals are abbreviated as CRA, CR.A, CRAPL, or CRL.A depending on the jurisdiction, even though they refer to the same category of case. State-specific amendments to the Court Fees Act, 1870 have compounded the divergence in fee structures.
How do court fee disparities affect litigants?
Litigants pay different amounts for identical legal proceedings depending on the state. A criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 CrPC costs ₹2.65 in Punjab and Haryana but only ₹2.50 in Delhi; a matrimonial first appeal costs ₹19.50 in Punjab and Chandigarh but ₹24.50 in Haryana. The petition argues these differences discriminate among citizens based on their place of residence, violating Articles 14-15 of the Constitution.
Has the Law Commission already been approached on this issue?
Yes. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Chairman of the Law Commission on 5 September seeking uniformity in judicial terminology, abbreviations, norms, court fees, and case registration processes. Claiming that no action was taken, he subsequently filed the PIL in the Supreme Court.
What is the constitutional basis for this PIL?
The petition is filed under Article 32, which grants citizens the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. It argues that differential court fees and terminologies violate the Right to Equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution by treating citizens differently based on the jurisdiction in which they litigate.
