The notification prescribes no penalty amount or slab — penalties are “as provided under the Act,” capped at the maximum specified under the Act. The Rules do not alter the court-fee system itself, apply to the Union Territories, and their appellate-finality clause governs only the statutory appeal track.
- Issuer
- Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Justice)
- Act
- Union territories Court fees (Adjudication of Penalties and Appeal) Rules, 2026
- In force
- Status
- in-force
- Outcome
- Subordinate legislation notified and in force from publication in the Official Gazette (16 October 2026).
What was notified
The Central Government has notified the Union territories Court fees (Adjudication of Penalties and Appeal) Rules, 2026, as G.S.R. 900(E), dated New Delhi, the 16th October, 2026. Issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Justice), it was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II–Section 3–Sub-Section (i), No. 829, dated Friday, October 16, 2026 (Gazette ID CG-DL-E-17102026-277237).
Made under sub-section (1) of section 34 of the Court-fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), the Rules operationalise sections 34A and 34B of the Act — the adjudication-of-penalties and appeal provisions inserted by the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026. Rule 1(2) brings them into force “on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette”, so the regime runs from 16 October 2026; with no separate extent clause, application to the Union Territories follows from the short title itself.
How a case begins: the complaint
Rule 3 opens the machinery to any revenue officer, licensed vendor, or individual having knowledge of a contravention of any rule made under section 34 of the Act, who may complain to the adjudicating officer — defined in Rule 2 as the Deputy Commissioner or Deputy Collector, or an officer of equivalent rank appointed under section 34A(1). Adjudication thus sits with the district revenue administration, not the criminal courts.
Every complaint must be in Form-I, which calls for the complainant’s details, particulars of the alleged contravention, date and place of occurrence, details of the person concerned, documents relied upon, relief sought, and a truth declaration — and may be submitted electronically, by speed post, or by hand.
The inquiry: notice, hearing, reasoned order
Rule 4 codifies fair hearing around four timelines: the officer must issue a show-cause notice in Form-II within thirty days of receiving the complaint, giving the person not less than thirty days from service to respond; a hearing notice, if needed, goes within fifteen days of the reply; and proceedings are to be completed within three months of the show-cause notice. No order may be passed without “a reasonable opportunity of being heard”, and ex-parte action needs reasons recorded in writing.
Every penalty order must be in writing, specifying the contravention, the rule provisions contravened, reasons for the findings, the penalty amount, and the payment period — with a free copy to the parties. Rule 5 adds four service modes: personal delivery, electronic means, speed post, or affixture at the last known residence or business as a last resort.
Penalties: factors, but no figures in the Rules
Rule 6 gives seven factors for fixing the penalty — the court-fee or stamps involved, duration of contravention, vendors affected, public loss or hardship, repetition, disproportionate gain or unfair advantage, and any other factor bearing on licensed vendors’ interests. Rule 7 requires payment within the order’s period, electronically or as specified, with default recovery “as an arrear of land revenue”.
Critically, the notification prescribes no penalty amount or slab. Rule 4(6) empowers penalties only “as provided under the Act”, capped by Rule 10(2) at “the maximum penalty specified under the Act”. Any rupee figure in news headlines about these Rules comes from section 34A of the Court-fees Act itself — not from G.S.R. 900(E) — and must not be attributed to this notification.
The appeal ladder: 30 days to appeal, 60 days to decide
Rule 8 gives any person aggrieved by the adjudicating officer’s order an appeal before the appellate authority designated under section 34B(1), in Form-III — within thirty days of receipt of the order (condonable for sufficient cause), with a fifteen-day window to cure defects and fifteen days for the respondent’s reply. The appellate authority “shall dispose of the appeal within sixty days from the date of its filing”.
Appellate orders must be written, reasoned, dated and signed, with copies to appellant, respondent and adjudicating officer. Rule 10 permits confirming, modifying, setting aside or remanding the order, and reducing, enhancing or annulling the penalty; Rule 11 makes every appellate order “conclusive and final”.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
This notification is decriminalisation in action — study it as the Jan Vishwas method made concrete. Where the Court-fees Act once met stamp-rule violations with criminal punishment, specified non-fraudulent violations now travel an administrative track: complaint, show-cause, hearing, reasoned order, appeal. Notice the drafting discipline — every discretion is fenced with timelines, mandatory order contents, and a seven-factor quantum checklist. That is where administrative-law fairness lives.
And practise source hygiene on this very story. Headlines about a maximum fine describe section 34A of the Act, not this notification. G.S.R. 900(E) fixes procedure — Forms, notices, hearings, appeals — and leaves quantum to the parent Act. In an exam or a court, citing the notification for a penalty figure would be citing the wrong instrument.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- Trace the procedural path from complaint to final appellate order under the Rules, naming the three Forms and the four key statutory timelines.
- Why would it be wrong to cite G.S.R. 900(E) as authority for any specific maximum penalty figure? Where is the quantum actually fixed?
- Identify three safeguards in Rule 4 that embody the audi alteram partem principle, and explain what each requires of the adjudicating officer.
