Allahabad High Court: In an appeal filed by the Allahabad High Court Bar Association challenging the order of the Single Judge, who directed the removal of the Rs. 500 charges imposed on litigants for photo identification at both Allahabad and Lucknow Benches and held that the Registry’s use of a list of defects in affidavits lacked support under the High Court Rules, a Division Bench comprising Attau Rahman Masoodi and Shree Prakash Singh, JJ., partially upheld the Single Judge’s ruling.
The Division Bench affirmed the direction for removal of excessive fees charged for photo identification, holding that litigants cannot be compelled to pay any amount exceeding what is prescribed under the Office Memorandum dated 22-11-2024, which fixes the charge at Rs.125/- for the issuance of a passport-size photograph along with the identification number. The Court clarified that any demand for amounts over and above the prescribed rate by Photograph Affidavit Centres is impermissible in law and reiterated that only the statutorily fixed fee is permissible for affidavit-related formalities required at the High Court.
Moreover, Court held that the direction issued by the Single judge, restraining the Registry from marking defects in affidavits sworn before a notary public was not in consonance with the relevant provisions of the High Court Rules, particularly Chapter II, Rule 1(ii).
Background
The issue raised in the present appeal concerning the implementation of the Office Memorandum dated 09-08-2023 had arisen in the context of an order passed on an application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 19-05-2025, delivered by the writ court, wherein the Single Judge ordered the removal of the Rs. 500 charge that litigants were required to pay for photo identification at both Lucknow and Allahabad. This amount, collected towards Advocates’ Welfare Funds at the behest of the Bar Associations of both Benches, was held to be without the sanction of law.
It was further held that the Registry’s practice of using a list of defects to point out issues in affidavits was not supported by the High Court Rules. The Court directed that defects should not be reported in affidavits sworn before a Notary Public, thereby curbing procedural irregularities not backed by statutory authority.
The Office Memorandum clearly stipulates that the Oath Commissioner is required to maintain a register containing prescribed particulars for each affidavit sworn in. Furthermore, it mandates that every deponent affix a passport-size photograph along with the identification number issued by the Allahabad High Court Bar Association or the Advocates’ Association for Allahabad, and the Oudh Bar Association for the Lucknow Bench.
The requirement for affixing the photograph and identification number was facilitated by the respective Bar Associations, which were permitted to generate these identification numbers at rates fixed from time to time. As per the latest Office Memorandum dated 22-11-2024, the rate fixed for this purpose was Rs. 125/- per identification number, chargeable by the respective Bar Associations of the High Court at Allahabad and the Lucknow Bench.
However, it came to the Court’s attention that complaints had been received regarding the collection of amounts in excess of the prescribed rate by the Bar Associations at the Photograph Affidavit Centres. These complaints formed the basis of the issue brought for consideration before the writ court.
Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that with respect to the applicability of the Office Memorandum dated 22-11-2024, there appeared to be no dispute between the parties regarding its implementation. Both the Bar Associations had conceded that the Photograph Affidavit Centres, set up for generating passport-size photographs along with identification numbers could not charge more than Rs.125/- for the issuance of such identification at the centres. The prescribed charge of Rs.125/- for the photograph and identification number was admitted and accepted by all concerned.
In light of this, the Court held that no substantive question remained for consideration in the present appeal insofar as the implementation of the Office Memorandum dated 22-11-2024 is concerned.
The Court took note of the appellant’s submission that any welfare scheme formulated by the Bar Association is independent of the process concerning the generation of photo identity and identification numbers. It was clarified that such welfare schemes are voluntary initiatives, representing the independent contributions of individual advocates, and do not form a part of the mandatory procedure for the filing of affidavits. Consequently, no litigant is obligated to subscribe to these schemes, nor do they interfere with or affect the affidavit filing process.
The Court further observed that Bar Associations are free to evolve their own welfare schemes, in accordance with independent resolutions passed from time to time. In this regard, the Court held that no question regarding the legality or propriety of such schemes arises in the present appeal, nor is there any need for the Court to adjudicate on the matter.
The Court, upon a bare perusal of the receipts generated by the Bar Association at Allahabad for the issuance of passport-size photographs along with the identification number, observed that a common receipt number was being used to collect payments both for the photo-affidavit process and for the contribution towards the welfare scheme. In contrast, it was found that at the Oudh Bar Association, Lucknow, the format of the photo receipt issued to deponents did not mention the amount of Rs.125/- being charged specifically for the purpose of photography and generation of the identification number.
It was further noted that the receipts issued at Lucknow merely contained receipt numbers, without clearly stating the Rs.125/- charge on the receipt bearing the photograph. Meanwhile, the receipts issued at Allahabad used a single receipt number both for the issuance of the passport-size photograph and identification number, and for charging an additional amount of Rs.475/- towards the ‘Adhivakta Nidhi’ (Advocates’ Welfare Fund).
The Court held that any receipt issued for collecting contributions under a welfare scheme cannot be allowed to form part of the mandatory procedural requirement laid down under the Office Memorandum dated 22-11-2024. Both the Bar Associations at the High Court at Allahabad and Lucknow Bench acknowledged the existence of this anomaly.
The Court, noting the agreement of both the Bar Association at Allahabad and the Oudh Bar Association at Lucknow, directed that the receipts issued for the purpose of generating passport-size photographs and identification numbers be re-modelled to bring them in strict conformity with the Office Memorandum dated 22-11-2024. This exercise is to be carried out at the earliest and preferably within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt and circulation of this order by the Registrar General of the Court.
The Court further clarified that no litigant seeking to institute proceedings before the High Court shall be compelled to deposit any amount exceeding what has been prescribed in the Office Memorandum dated 22-11-2024, i.e., Rs.125/- for the passport photograph and identification number.
Lastly, the Court made it clear that it was not expressing any opinion on the welfare schemes independently evolved by the Bar Associations at the High Court, Allahabad and the Lucknow Bench, as such schemes fall within the autonomous domain of the respective associations and were not the subject of adjudication in the present matter.
The appellant contended that imposing a blanket prohibition on the marking of defects on affidavits sworn before a notary public was contrary to the spirit and intent of Chapter II, Rule 1(ii) of the High Court Rules. Upon examining the provisions of the said rule, the Court observed that the registry is indeed empowered to mark defects on affidavits, and further, that counsel must be given an opportunity to rectify such defects.
The Court held that the direction issued by the writ court, which effectively restrained the registry from marking such defects, was not in consonance with the applicable rules and therefore required modification. The Court found merit in the appellant’s submission.
Accordingly, in view of the submissions made, the Court clarified the earlier direction, permitting the registry to act in accordance with the relevant rules. The direction issued by the writ court was modified to that extent.
[High Court Bar Association Allahabad v State of UP, Special Appeal No. 208 of 2025, decided on 03-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Appellant :- Satyanshu Ojha
Counsel for Respondent :– C.S.C.
