.jpg)
Introduction
The issue of cheque bounce is one of the most persistent issues confronting India’s criminal justice system. Although the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, explicitly provides for a procedure dealing with dishonoured cheques under Section 138, the sheer volume of pending cases has severely hindered the functioning of lower courts and delayed justice for many years.
As per the latest data submitted to the Supreme Court, over 43 lakh cheque bounce cases are currently pending across India. Some states—particularly, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal—have extraordinarily high pending cases, with over 6.4 lakh pending cases as of December 2024, reported by Rajasthan alone.
Given the severity of the challenges cheque bounce cases present, and in October 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued new technology-oriented guidelines to ensure the expeditious disposal of dishonoured cheques—using digital mechanisms such as WhatsApp, email, QR codes, and UPI links to modernise service, settlement and procedural efficacy.
This blog will discuss the recent guidelines in detail—explaining the background to the guidelines, context, anticipated impact and challenges.
1. Background: The Cheque Bounce Crisis
a. What is a Cheque Bounce Case?
A cheque is considered to have “bounced” or to have been “dishonoured”, wherein the bank refuses to honour the payment due to a lack of funds in the account, a discrepancy in the signatures, or the account being closed.
Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, this is a criminal offence which can lead to imprisonment (maximum of two years), or a fine (up to double the amount of the cheque), or both.
This provision was introduced as an important safeguard to protect the integrity of commercial transactions by creating accountability for cheque payments. What
b. Scale of the Problem
Court records and Registry data show that in some states, cases of cheque bounce comprise around 50% of total pending criminal cases. This number is staggering and reflects the prevalence of cheques as a mode of payment and the failure to hold people to account. In 2025, a bench of Justices Manmohan and N.V. Anjaria referred to the increasing pendency and said it “clogs the justice system, delays economic recovery and undermines honest business practice.”
2. Why the Supreme Court Stepped In
In earlier cases, the Supreme Court has also made attempts to reduce the caseload relating to these types of cases, including:
• M/s Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. v. Kanchan Mehta (2018) – advocated for compounding and resolving matters early.
• Makwana Mangaldas Tulsidas v. State of Gujarat (2020) – highlighted the need for systemic change in litigation involving dishonoured cheques.
• Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 NI Act (2021) – issued directions for issuing summons in summary trial procedures and making use of technology.
Even with these suggestions, pendency continued to increase, and therefore, in 2025, the Court decided to take a more digitally oriented approach to service, settlement and monitoring.
3. The 2025 Supreme Court Guidelines: Key Highlights
The Supreme Court’s new directives, issued in October 2025, aim to expedite the entire lifecycle of cheque bounce litigation — from summons to settlement.
Here are the core reforms introduced:
a. Service of Summons via WhatsApp and Email
In the past, it could take weeks or even months before serving a court summons due to delays in the postal service or addresses being written down incorrectly. The Court has now allowed service of summons in digital ways—WhatsApp, email and SMS—confirming receipt is sufficient proof.
- Receipt of the digital communication (delivery report or blue tick) can be treated as a service.
- This process diminishes procedural delay from the start.
- This is consistent with a case from sometime during COVID-19 when the Supreme Court recognised WhatsApp and
b. Use of QR Codes and UPI Links for Settlement
To facilitate speedy and convenient resolution, the Court has instructed lower courts to implement QR codes or UPI payment links for payments of compensation and/or fines. Accused persons will be able to make digital payments. Implementing QR codes will diminish the necessity to appear in court to settle. And, it will promote compounding (mutual settlement) earlier in proceedings. This is part of India’s blossoming digital payment environment, where benefits can lead to greater compliance and accountability with respect to payment and penalties.
c. Fast-Track Benches and Summary Trials
The Court has recommended that all High Courts establish specialised fast-track benches or summary trial courts for cheque bounce cases.
• Evidence may be recorded by way of affidavits,
• Cross-examinations and arguments may be restricted to required questions, and
• The emphasis is on expediting the process to facilitate justice — prefer a six-month process once the matter is filed.
d. Integration with e-Courts and Online Portals
The recommendations suggest the linkage of cheque bounce case management to the NJDG portal and the eCourts portal to enable:
• Monitoring summons and notices in real time.
• Providing automated updates on case status to litigants.
• Centralising data to monitor trends in pendency.
e. Encouragement of Mediation and Pre-Trial Settlement
The courts have been encouraged to explore pre-litigation mediation, pursuant to the Legal Services Authorities Act and the Mediation Act, 2023, before engaging in litigation. If both parties agree to a resolution, the case can be compounded without going through the motions of a formal trial, thus affording some judicial time and preserving the relationship in business transactions.
4. Digital Justice in Action: How It Works
The use of WhatsApp, email, and QR code-based processes represents an important step towards e-justice.
Consider a simplified process of the new process of e-justice:
1. Filing: The complainant files a cheque bounce complaint online or in person.
2. Notice & Summons: The court issues a digital summons via WhatsApp or email.
3. Acknowledgement: A confirmation of delivery serves as verification of service.
4. Response & Appearance: The accused can respond to a summons or appear through video conferencing.
5. Settlement: A QR/UPI link is provided, and a fine or compensation payment arrangement is reached.
6. Case Tracking: Both parties can track the status of the case with the eCourts Pilate and in real-time.
7. Closure: The court finalises the action electronically once payment or other terms of settlement are met.
This method saves time and paper, and increases the transparency of the justice process.
5. The Economic and Legal Impact
a. Judicial Burden Reduction
Interventions by the Supreme Court may reduce the delay of hearings in the lower courts. For example, if 30% of the cases were fast-tracked, this may save thousands of hours of judicial time per year.
b. Business Confidence
The delay in getting cheques cashed often prevents small businesses and traders from pursuing their commerce. Predictability of the process can improve business confidence and credit flow into the economy.
c. Digital Payments
Adding QR codes and UPI into the process is completely compatible with the government's Digital India road map. It adds to the digital record-keeping and limits corruption or cash payment handling.
d. Right to a Speedy Trial
The right to a speedy trial is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. These guidelines endorse that right due to the prevention of either total or partial denial of justice due to delayed proceedings.
6. Challenges and Practical Concerns
While the reform is a step forward, implementation will not be straightforward, as several issues need to be addressed:
a. Digital Divide
Many small traders or accused persons may not have smartphones and/or email or stable internet access, and consideration will need to be given to providing digital access for all.
b. Authentication Issues
WhatsApp delivery receipts are incompatible. Courts will continue to require verified channels or integrate into the eCourts official server to avoid potential issues.
c. Lack of Technical Training
Judicial staff and lawyers will need to learn how to use digital tools effectively. If there is no continual capacity-building, then efficiency simply will not happen.
d. Enforcement of Settlements
There may continue to be disputes about confirmation or how soon the money will actually be credited to the receiving party, even with QR-based payments. The judiciary needs to set up clear processes for verification.
e. Need for Legal Reform
Although the guidelines were enacted as a law by virtue of Article 141 (the Supreme Court has declared the law), longer-term reform may require amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and/or the NI Act to provide institutional legitimacy.
7. Comparative Perspective: Learning from Other Jurisdictions
Countries such as Singapore, the UK, and the UAE have extensively embraced digital processes to facilitate the enforcement of financial offences:
• Singapore uses an e-summons system and offers mediation online for minor commercial disputes;
• The UAE has recently decriminalized cheque bounce offences and replaced imprisonment with the collection of digital fines.
• The UK has promoted online dispute resolution for small financial claims.
India's reform efforts in 2025 echo these aims - bringing speed, digitisation, and restorative justice as a primary endpoint rather than mere punishment.
8. Role of High Courts and State Governments
As directed in the SC's order, every High Court has to:
• Frame rules, specifically on the format of digital summons and, ultimately, payment infrastructure.
• Correspond with state governments for funding and technology-related infrastructure.
• Report compliance and progress regularly to the Supreme Court Registry.
State Legal Services Authorities are also expected to conduct awareness campaigns for litigants about promoting early settlement.
9. Public and Legal Community Reaction
The legal community has been largely in favour of the shift:
• Attorneys believe it will reduce frivolous adjournments.
• Business groups see it as an act of confidence.
• Judges like to know there are firm deadlines and timelines in place and crystal clear procedures to follow.
That said, a few lawyers have voiced appropriate concerns that digital service, like service by email, could result in entirely ex parte decisions issued if accused parties miss emails about the notice or if the accused party is simply not technologically savvy and can’t use the digital notice.
There may still be some need for safeguards in these cases—mandatory acknowledgement or hybrid service (i.e. digital and physical)—could be reasonable.
10. Way Forward: Building a Digitally Efficient Judiciary
The 2025 guidelines signal the dawn of a new chapter in the administration of financial justice. However, its success will depend on a host of factors:
1. Legislative support: Amend the NI Act to include digital settlements formally in law.
2. Training & infrastructure: Increase the court's tech support capacity, so courts are supported through long-term training initiatives.
3. Periodic review: Monitor implementation and reduction of pendency.
4. Public awareness: Educate the public about digital summons and settlements.
5. Data and communication security: Ensure confidentiality and data integrity around digital communications.
The three combined elements of law, technology, and accountability can help propel cheque bounce litigation from one of India's heaviest and most heavily burdened categories of cases to one where equity and swift justice can be delivered.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's 2025 directives for prompt disposal of cheque-bouncing cases mark an important transformation in the judicial context of India. By incorporating electronic summons, QR-based settlements, fast-track benches, and e-tracking, the Court has charted a course towards efficient access to justice.
If the directives are effectively implemented, these reforms would greatly reduce any backlog and restore trust in business and faith in the judiciary.
However, technology alone cannot replace judicial will - it must be combined with consistent implementation, strong training, and monitoring.
Justice delayed is justice denied, and with these directions, the Supreme Court was clear: justice in the digital age should be swift, accessible, and accountable.
Author:
.jpg)
Leave a Comment
Previous Comments