In a very bold initiative, we see that the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled M/S Rajdhani Inter State Transport Co. New Delhi vs. State of U.P. & Ors. in Writ – C No. – 3389 of 2025 that was pronounced as recently as on 19.05.2025 has ruled most clearly, cogently, courageously and convincingly that no amounts shall be charged for photo identification on affidavits filed before the Court, declaring such practices by Bar Associations as unlawful and contrary to the constitutional mandate of ensuring access to justice. To put it differently, the Allahabad High Court has prohibited the collection of Rs 500/- as photo identification charges by Bar Associations from litigants. In another interim measure, the Court has further directed the Registry to accept affidavits sworn before public notaries holding them valid under the Notaries Act, 1952 and making it absolutely clear that no rule prohibits their acceptance.
We need to note that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Pankaj Bhatia had passed the order on May 19 while hearing a petition that had been filed by M/s Rajdhani Inter State Transport Co., New Delhi, through its authorized signatory Sunil Kumar Magoo challenging the requirement of photo identification for filing petitions. We need to pay attention here that the Court very clearly said that, “It is high time in the era where efforts are being made to promote digital India, continuing with a regressive practice of the litigants travelling from far-off places solely for photo identification is, on the face of it, is regressive. The same has 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 augur well for the temple of justice which is to function with the active help of Bar Associations in furtherance of the Constitutional goal of providing access to justice to all.” Absolutely right!
It is also an unpalatable truth that Uttar Pradesh is the most populated State of India with more than 26 crore which is more than Pakistan at 25 crore and so also with maximum number of pending cases among all the States in India and here too West UP owes for majority of pending cases in India and still both Allahabad High Court created more than 200 years ago by Britishers and a single High Court Bench at Lucknow created about 77 years ago in July 1948 are in Eastern UP only most astoundingly and nowhere else and worst of all, we see that the litigants of West UP have been attached with not even Lucknow but right uptill Allahabad which is more than 700 to 800 km from most of the districts due to which litigants have to travel by train whole night and nearly a day which makes absolutely just no sense at all! States like Maharashtra, Assam, Karnataka, West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh with far less pending cases and so also far less population have multiple High Court Benches but most perplexingly West UP has no single Bench! This alone explains why even Justice Jaswant Singh Commission appointed by Centre itself headed by former Supreme Court Judge recommended permanent seat of High Court Bench in West UP yet not created even about 50 years later till date which is worst discrimination, most blatant cheating, biggest betrayal of Constitution, deepest burial of justice and worst mockery of poorest litigants of West UP and States like Maharashtra which already had multiple High Court Benches at Nagpur and Panaji was given one more at Aurangabad! Supreme Court which takes suo motu cognizance of cheating in a Mayor election in Chandigarh must also take suo motu cognizance of this most blatant, blind, baseless and brutal cheating perpetrated right under the nose of the Apex Court!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Pankaj Bhatia of Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “In furtherance to the order dated 16.04.2025 wherein, this Court had noticed the grievances as raised by the petitioner with regard to the affidavit sworn before the Notary Public not being accepted and also with regard to the manner in which the amount of Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- was being charged from the litigants contrary to any provisions of law, the instructions were called and have been given by the counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court which are taken on record.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 19 that, “Considering the submissions made at the Bar and recorded above, it is clear that access to justice is becoming increasingly cumbersome because of two things mainly: the first being, charging of amounts in the name of photo identification at the rate of Rs.500/- per affidavit and secondly, the number of list of defects which the Stamp Reporting Section is making in the petitions, applications, etc.”
Most significantly, most remarkably and so also most forthrightly, the Bench encapsulates in para 21 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “It is clear in terms of the constitutional mandate that access to justice is a valuable right vested in citizens, in fact right to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 is a fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of Constitution; the right to approach other Courts in the country is also a constitutional right. 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. Procedures prescribed for access cannot be such that defeat the very purpose they seek to achieve. The procedures should be to lubricate the path instead of becoming a resistance. Procedures although essential are like friction which is a ‘necessary evil’ but cannot be excessive lest it brings the entire machinery to a stand still.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 22 that, “Considering the submissions made at the Bar, it is essential to notice that Notaries Act was promulgated in the year 1952 with prescriptions for appointment of Notaries by the Central Government as well as by the State Government. The functions conferred upon the Notaries are specified in Section 8, and Section 8(1)(e) empowers the Notaries to administer oath to, or take affidavit from any person.”
Do further note, the Bench then notes in para 23 directing that, “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.”
For clarity, the Bench then clarifies in para 24 stating 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.”
Further, the Bench directs in para 25 observing that, “Let a copy of this order be circulated by the Registrar General/Senior Registrar of this Court to the Stamp Reporting Section to ensure the compliance with directions that any violation would result in proceedings for contempt.”
Most rationally, the Bench dares to go ahead and say most forcefully asserting in para 26 that, “Coming to the second question with regard to the photo identification, the prescriptions as have taken place in the form of amendments are owing their genesis from Chapter IV Rule 3 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, however, it is high time in the era where the efforts are 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 same has 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 Bar Associations in furtherance of the constitutional goal of providing access to justice to all.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 27 that, “In view thereof and considering the laudable efforts taken by the High Court of Kerala, let the matter be placed before the Hon’ble 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.”
Needless to say, the Bench states in para 28 that, “On perusal of the Allahabad High Court Rules, it is clear that Chapter IV Rule 1 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).”
Notably, the Bench notes in para 33 that, “Let a copy of this order be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for consideration.”
More to the point, the Bench forthrightly points out in para 34 directing that, “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 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.”
Adding more to it, the Bench hastens to add in para 35 clarifying that, “The Bar Associations would, however, are at liberty to take such welfare steps for their members as may be advised but cannot be coupled with any filings before this court.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench directs in para 36 holding that, “Linking of the affidavits with the amounts collected would amount to Contempt of Court by the members of the Governing Body of the Bar Association.”
What’s more, the Bench then directs in para 37 stating that, “Let a copy of this order be sent to the Governing Body of both the Bar Associations for its compliance.”
Still more, the Bench leaves not even an iota of doubt to state most clearly in para 38 directing that, “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.”
Finally, the Bench then draws the curtains of this robust judgment and concludes by holding aptly in para 39 that, “The issue stands disposed off with the said order. The writ petition shall continue to be listed for deciding the issue as raised in the writ petition.”
Sanjeev Sirohi