Relief For Litigants As Allahabad High Court Suspends ₹500 Charge For Photo Identification, Permits Affidavits Sworn Before Any Public Notary

The Allahabad High Court has, as an interim measure, directed that the charge of Rs. 500/- towards photo identification by the Bar Associations is not to be realized from the litigants. 

Justice Pankaj Bhatia in his order said that it is high time that in the era where efforts are being made to "promote digital India, continuing with a regressive practice of the litigants traveling from far off places solely for photo identification is on the face of it retrogressive".

The court observed that this had also resulted in the High Court Bar Association as well as Oudh Bar Association charging amounts "beyond the sanction of law solely based upon resolutions, and continuation of such practice is neither desirable nor does it goes augur well for the temple of justice" which is to function with the active help of the bar bodies in order fulfil the constitutional goal of providing "access to justice to all". 

Granting an interim measure the court said: 

"As regard the charging of the amount of Rs.500/-, Shri Manoj Dwivedi, General Secretary of Oudh Bar Association apprises that in terms of their resolution, it is the lawyers who are depositing the said amounts which is thereafter paid to them in their account. The said submission is clearly an attempt to bypass the Division Benches orders. Although, the High Court Bar Associations have the power to take steps for welfare of their members, however, the same cannot be linked with the quantum of litigation that is filed in the form of petitions, applications, appeals, etc., before this Court. Linking of the welfare measures as argued by Shri Manoj Dwivedi with the affidavits is clearly 12 impermissible and contrary to law, as such, through this interim order, the High Court Bar Association and the Oudh Bar Association are directed to ensure that no amounts are charged from the litigants/advocates towards the photo identification at any rate whatsoever". 

As a further interim measure the court directed that the Registry must accept affidavits sworn before Public Notaries as they are valid affidavits under the Notaries Act, 1952 and no rule prohibits accepting the same.

"Considering the submission of Shri Gaurav Mehrotra that the affidavits sworn before the Notary Public under the Notaries Act are accepted as valid affidavits, as an interim measure, it is directed that the Registry/Stamp Reporting Section shall accept all the petitions, applications, appeals etc., filed before the High Court, both at Allahabad and Lucknow and duly supported by the affidavits sworn before the Notary Public appointed in the entire country of India as a valid affidavit in support of the petitions, applications, appeals, etc". 

Earlier, Petitioner's counsel had sought adjournment for filing of supplementary affidavit as the deponent could not travel to Lucknow for photo identification and swearing-in of the affidavit. To this, Justice Bhatia inquired as to why under the Notaries Act, 1952 the affidavit could not have been sworn in at the place where the deponent was residing by a Notary. Counsel for petitioner stated that though there is no bar under the Notaries Act, 1952, the Registry at the Allahabad High Court only accepts affidavits sworn in by Oath Commissioners appointed under Chapter IV of the Allahabad High Court Rules.

Noting that prima facie an additional cost of Rs. 400/- being charged from the litigants which is going to the lawyers from the photo affidavit centre was not sanctioned by law, the Court had appointed Advocate Tushar Mittal as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on the said issue.

Counsel for High Court submitted before the Court that as per the Registrar, High Court, there were no proposals to reject any petitions, applications and other filing which are supported by the affidavit sworn by Notary Public appointed under the Notaries Act. It was stated that any such notarized affidavit was valid document.

On this issue, it was stated that if the affidavits are notarized by Public Notary, then a filing defect would occur according to the list of defects on the High Court website and litigants would be inconvenienced anyways. It was further stated that such defects (272 in number) was not prescribed in the High Court Rules.

It was brought on record that in Public Interest Litigation No.55060 of 2015, a division bench of the Allahabad High Court had restrained the Bar Association from charging according to their resolutions unless the modalities were submitted before the Chief Justice and were approved by him.

In Abhishek Shukla v. High Court Bar Association & Anr., again a stay order was passed against the resolution dated 31.10.2022 passed by the Governing Council of the High Court Bar Association whereby the fees of Rs. 500/- for photo identification was prescribed. Despite this, the fees of Rs. 500/- was being charged at both the photo affidavit centres, at Allahabad and at Lucknow.

The Court observed that by Administrative Committee resolution in its meeting held on 06.10.2015 and an Office Memorandum was issued on 10.09.2018 by the Registrar General, the fees to be charged for photo identification for affidavit was set at Rs. 70/-. Thereafter, vide Office Memorandum Dated 09.08.2023 issued by the Registrar General, the fees was enhanced to Rs. 125/- and the same could not be enhanced without prior permission of the Chief Justice.

Observing that the right to approach the Court is a Constitutional right, the court said:

“Once there is a right to avail judicial remedies being a constitutional right, the road to access justice has to be smooth and free of unwanted road blocks, lest it becomes road less travelled. The procedural requirements to achieve and ensure the access to justice has to be erased so that the constitutional right is not reduced to an empty provision.”

Directing that affidavits sworn before Public Notaries shall be accepted by the Registry for now, the Court held that

“In view of the practical difficulties pointed out, it is further clarified that the list of defects pertaining to the affidavits shall not be raised by the Stamp Reporting Section in respect of petitions which are supported by affidavits sworn before the Notary Public.”

The Court directed that the copy of the order be circulated to the Stamp Reporting Section for compliance and held that any violation would lead to contempt proceedings.

Lauding the steps taken by the Kerala High Court in introducing email and OTP verification for filing documents before the Court, Justice Bhatia directed that the order be placed before the Chief Justice to consider taking steps on the administrative side for suitably modifying the rules, as may be advised, so that the litigants do not suffer.

The Court further noted that the Chapter IV Rule 1 of the Allahabad High Court Rules prescribes for Appointment of Oath Commissioner and swearing of the affidavits; Chapter IX Rule 8 prescribed for documents which are to accompany memorandum of appeal and writ petition; Chapter XI Rule 3 prescribes for the office report empowering the Registry to specify the defects that are specified in Chapter XI Rule 3 Clause (a) to (f). However, no provision empowers the Registry to point out defects in the writ petitions under Article 226 and Article 227 of Constitution.

Accordingly, the Court held that list of 272 defects had no force of law and was still being reported by the registry, therefore, the matter required consideration by the Chief Justice.

The Court however said that the Bar Associations were at liberty to take measures for the welfare of lawyers, but no such amount could be charged in connection with the filings made before the High Court.

“It is further directed that the persons manning the Photo Identification Centre, either a firm or a company, would also be personally liable if it is brought to the notice of this Court that any amounts are being charged for photo identification over and above what have been sanctioned by the Hon'ble Chief Justice under Chapter IV Rule 3 of the Allahabad High Court Rules.”

Accordingly, the issue was disposed of, however, the writ petition would continue on its merits.

Also Read:

High Court Questions Legality Of Swearing-In Of Affidavits Only At Allahabad, Lucknow; Questions Charges For Photo Identification

Click Here To Read/Download Order