+91 964 334 1948
17 Jul 2025, 02:06 PM
The Supreme Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the administrative requirement of the Allahabad High Court that mandates personal appearance of litigants at the High Court for issuance of photo affidavits.
The petitioner, appearing in person, had alleged that this requirement was arbitrary, lacked statutory backing, and violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan refused to interfere with the High Court's administrative decision. The Court observed that such matters, being within the administrative domain of the High Court, are not appropriate for adjudication under Article 32 of the Constitution. However, it granted liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the Chief Justice of the High Court in accordance with law.
“We are of the view that such administrative decisions taken by the High Court own its administrative side should not be interfered with by this Court in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner wants to file a representation in this regard addressed to the Chief Justice of the High Court, he may do so in accordance with law”, the Court held.
According to the petitioner, in the process of weeding out or ensuring that no unscrupulous litigant files a false affidavit, other innocent litigants are being harassed unnecessarily.
The petitioner had also sought directions for the acceptance of affidavits attested by Notaries or Magistrates in the local jurisdiction of the deponent, or for permitting remote or digital verification methods such as Aadhaar-based authentication, digital signatures, or video verification. He also sought a direction to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to frame uniform digital affidavit verification guidelines in coordination with the Supreme Court's e-Committee.
Earlier this year, the Allahabad High Court also questioned procedure of the High Court's affidavit requirements. On May 19, Justice Pankaj Bhatia of the High Court passed an interim order directing that litigants should not be charged ₹500 for photo identification by the Bar Associations at Allahabad and Lucknow. The Court noted that such charges were being levied without any sanction of law and were based solely on resolutions of the Bar Associations.
The High Court observed that in the era of Digital India, requiring litigants to travel from distant places solely for photo identification was a retrogressive practice. It said that this process was causing practical hardship and was contrary to the objective of ensuring access to justice. The High Court noted that despite earlier stay orders, the ₹500 charge continued to be collected at photo affidavit centres in both benches.
Justice Bhatia directed that the Registry must accept affidavits sworn before Notaries Public appointed anywhere in the country under the Notaries Act, 1952, and clarified that these are valid affidavits. He further ordered that such filings must not be rejected or treated as defective by the Registry's Stamp Reporting Section. The High Court also noted that a list of 272 types of filing defects published on the High Court's website had no force of law and could not be a basis for rejection of valid filings.
The High Court had previously raised concerns when a petitioner sought time to file a supplementary affidavit due to the deponent's inability to travel for photo identification. The Court asked why the affidavit could not have been sworn before a Notary at the deponent's place of residence. Though there is no bar under the Notaries Act, the Registry was reportedly insisting on affidavits sworn only before Oath Commissioners appointed under Chapter IV of the Allahabad High Court Rules.
Justice Bhatia pointed out that the Rules do not empower the Registry to refuse affidavits sworn before a Notary, and said that the practice of forcing litigants to appear at designated centres was beyond the powers conferred under the Rules. The High Court also noted that while an administrative resolution and Office Memoranda had fixed the photo affidavit fee at ₹70 and later revised it to ₹125, an additional ₹400 was being collected, allegedly credited to lawyers from the photo affidavit centres. The Court held this collection as prima facie contrary to Article 265 of the Constitution.
The Court directed that any person or body charging amounts beyond the sanctioned fee would be personally liable and could face contempt proceedings.
The High Court also took note of steps taken by other courts, such as the Kerala High Court's email and OTP-based verification system, and directed that its order be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration of similar reforms.
Case no. – Writ Petition (Civil) No. 479/2025
Case Title – Biswajit Chowdhury v. Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad & Anr.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 719