Jahanvi Agarwal
On 18th April 2025, the Allahabad High Court has taken cognizance of procedural difficulties and alleged irregularities tied to the filing of affidavits in writ petitions, appeals, and revisions. Specifically, the Court expressed concern over the long-standing requirement that affidavits be sworn exclusively in Allahabad or Lucknow, depending on the territorial jurisdiction, despite the absence of any such statutory mandate in the Notaries Act, 1952.
The matter arose when the petitioner’s counsel sought adjournment, citing the deponent’s inability to travel to Lucknow for photo identification and the swearing-in of the affidavit. This prompted the Bench to inquire why the affidavit could not be sworn in locally before a Notary Public, as per the provisions of the Notaries Act. In response, counsel informed the Court that although no such restriction exists under the statute, the High Court Registry only accepts affidavits sworn before Oath Commissioners appointed under Chapter IV of the Allahabad High Court Rules.
Raising doubts about this practice, the Court noted the inconvenience faced daily by litigants who must physically travel to specific High Court centres just for the affidavit procedure. The Bench comprising of Justice Pankaj Bhatia observed, “Considering the fact that daily this Court is faced with the inconvenience caused to the litigants who come either at Allahabad or at Lucknow for visiting the photo centre to swear the affidavit… is contrary to the provisions of the Notaries Act but also prima facie, beyond the powers conferred by Chapter IV Rule 3 of the Allahabad High Court Rules.”
Justice Bhatia also took issue with the extra charges levied for photo identification, pointing out that while the Bar Association is authorised to collect Rs. 125, litigants are being charged an additional Rs. 400, allegedly benefiting lawyers at the affidavit centres. The Court termed this collection as “neither sanctioned by any law nor… in consonance to Article 265 of the Constitution of India.”
To assist the Court in examining the legal validity of these practices, Advocate Tushar Mittal has been appointed as Amicus Curiae. The Registrar General has also been directed to submit all relevant Office Memorandums, and the counsel representing the High Court has been asked to clarify the basis of the charges imposed.
Case Name: M/s Rajdhani Inter State Transport Co. New Delhi Thru. Auth. Signatory Mr. Sunil Kumar Magoo v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Labor Deptt. Lko. & 3 Ors.
Case Number: Writ (c) No. 3389 of 2025
Bench: Justice Pankaj Bhatia
