Justice Pankaj Bhatia, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
Allahabad High Court: Practice Of Not Accepting Affidavits Sworn Before Notary As Per Notaries Act Contrary To High Court Rules
|The Allahabad High Court took up the case addressing the Rules regarding photo identification and swearing of affidavits, raising questions about the current practices.
The Allahabad High Court remarked that the practice of not accepting affidavits sworn before a Notary under the Notaries Act is contrary to the Allahabad High Court Rules.
The Court took up the case, addressing the Rules regarding photo identification and swearing of affidavits, raising questions about the current practices, and whether they were in consonance with Article 265 of the Constitution.
A Single Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia held, “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 and only then the said affidavit can be said to be properly sworn in terms of the provisions of the Rules, 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.”
Advocate Tushar Mittal appeared for the Petitioner.
Brief Facts
During the proceedings, the Petitioner sought an adjournment because the necessary affidavit could not be sworn, as the deponent was unable to come to Lucknow for photo identification. The Court questioned why the affidavit could not be sworn before a Notary Public under the Notaries Act, 1952, at the deponent's place of residence.
The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that while the Notaries Act, 1952, allowed notaries to swear affidavits, the Allahabad High Court Registry, in practice, only accepted affidavits sworn before an Oath Commissioner appointed under Chapter IV of the Allahabad High Court Rules, which required photograph identification.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court remarked, “Another aspect as highlighted in the office memorandum issued indicates that the power of identification has been delegated to the Bar Association, who are empowered to charge an amount of Rs.125/- and in addition to the said amount, an amount of Rs.400/- goes to the account of the lawyer concerned directly from the photo centre. Prima facie, the collection of the said amount is neither sanctioned by any law nor is it in consonance to Article 265 of the Constitution of India.”
“This is an important aspect to be decided, as such, the Counsel for the petitioner Sri Tushar Mittall is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on the issue of swearing of the affidavit,” the Lucknow Bench stated.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “The Registrar General is also directed to place the requisite office memorandums based upon which the cost is being imposed and charges are paid to the Bar Association…For this limited aspect, list this case on 29.04.2025. On which date, the necessary assistance as directed above shall be provided.”
Accordingly, the High Court listed the matter on April 29, 2025.
Cause Title: M/S Rajdhani Inter State Transport Co. v. State Of U.P. & Ors. (WRIT - C No. - 3389 of 2025)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Tushar Mittal, Kartikey Dubey and Shrikant Tripathi