Allahabad High Court.
Allahabad High Court Bans Rs 500 Photo ID Fee by Bar Associations: Prayagraj – The Allahabad High Court has issued a strong interim order. It has stopped the High Court Bar Association (Allahabad) and the Oudh Bar Association (Lucknow) from charging ₹500 for photo identification. This fee was being collected from lawyers and individuals filing legal documents, known as litigants.
The Court, on June 27, called this practice illegal. It emphasized that such charges hinder access to justice.
The Problematic Practice
The issue came to light during a court hearing. The Court was informed that for affidavits to be accepted, they must be sworn before an oath commissioner. A photograph of the person making the affidavit is required for this process.
These photographs were being taken at designated centers. Here, the Bar Associations were allegedly collecting ₹500 as a “photo identification charge.”
Justice Pankaj Bhatia, taking note of this, issued a stern directive. “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,” he ordered.
Contempt of Court Warning
Justice Bhatia went further. He warned that if bar association members continued to link affidavits with these unauthorized charges, it would be considered contempt of court. “Linking of the affidavits with the amounts collected would amount to contempt of court by the members of the governing bodies of the bar associations,” he stated.
The Court also held that individuals or entities managing these photo centers would be held personally responsible. This applies if they continue to charge more than what is officially allowed by the Chief Justice under the Allahabad High Court Rules.
How the Issue Surfaced
The problem became apparent when a lawyer sought an adjournment. His client could not travel to Lucknow for photo identification and to swear the affidavit.
The Court had already, in April, found this practice of charging money for photo ID to be illegal. It also ruled that refusing affidavits sworn before a notary (a public official who certifies legal documents) went against High Court rules.
Official Stance and Existing Rules
During the recent hearing, the Registrar General of the High Court confirmed. He stated there was no policy to reject petitions that included affidavits sworn before a notary.
The Court was also informed that two other division benches had already issued directives against collecting ₹500 for photo verification.
It was noted that the officially sanctioned fee for verifying an affidavit before an oath commissioner is only ₹125. The Court was told: “The High Court either on its administrative side or the Hon’ble Chief Justice in exercise of powers, has never permitted the Bar Associations to charge any amount over and above the amount of Rs.125/-.”
The Court learned that the photo identification work was outsourced to the Bar Associations. They, in turn, had given it to a third party. This arrangement, the Court noted, was “beyond the control of the High Court.”
Access to Justice Paramount
The Court strongly emphasized the importance of easy and smooth access to justice. It highlighted that procedural requirements should not create obstacles.
“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,” the Court observed. It added that procedures should “lubricate the path instead of becoming a resistance.”
Based on these findings, the Court issued a critical interim direction. It ordered that the Registry/Stamp Reporting Section must accept all petitions, applications, and appeals filed before the High Court. This applies to both Allahabad and Lucknow benches. These documents must be accepted if they are supported by affidavits sworn before any Notary Public in India.
The Court also clarified that the Stamp Reporting Section should not raise any objections regarding such affidavits. It noted that the current list of 272 defects, as notified by the section, does not appear to have a “statutory basis.”
The Court criticized the current practice of forcing people to travel long distances for photo identification as “outdated and unnecessary.” It stated that the Bar Associations charging amounts “beyond the sanction of law solely based upon resolutions” was undesirable and did not “augur well for the temple of justice.”
To modernize the process, the Court suggested amending the High Court rules. It recommended adopting methods similar to the Kerala High Court, such as using OTP (One Time Password) and email verification.
Advocate Tushar Mittal represented the petitioner and also served as amicus curiae (friend of the court). Senior Advocate J.N. Mathur and Advocate S.M. Singh assisted the Court. Advocate Gaurav Mehrotra appeared for the High Court, and Advocate Manoj Dwivedi represented the Oudh Bar Association.
The case is titled Rajdhani Inter State Transport Co. New Delhi v. State of UP.
