The Allahabad High Court has clarified that an affidavit duly notarised anywhere in the country is accepted at the stage of filing a writ petition, and that litigants are not required to travel to the HC benches in Allahabad or Lucknow for photo verification before instituting writ proceedings.

A Bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai made the clarification while dealing with a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Photo Affidavit Identification Regime.

The Bench noted that since the High Court Registry has already clarified that duly notarised affidavits are accepted at the filing stage, there is no mandatory requirement for any person to physically appear before the Photo Verification Centre at either Allahabad or Lucknow.

Case in brief

It was the petitioner's case that the Office Memorandum dated October 7, 2015, along with connected memoranda and administrative instructions, was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it gives a “differential treatment” to officials of the State Government, Union Government and instrumentalities of the State vis-à-vis ordinary citizens and litigants under the Photo Affidavit Identification Regime.

According to the petitioner, litigants residing outside Allahabad or Lucknow were compelled to travel to the High Court in person solely for photo identification, which, the petitioner contended, is a mandatory precondition for filing a writ petition.

After being granted liberty by the Supreme Court to make a representation before the Chief Justice, the petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act regarding the legal basis, scope, operation, exemptions and continuing applicability of the Photo Affidavit Identification Regime.

The RTI response placed before the Court stated that the Stamp Reporting Section of the Lucknow Bench accepts all duly sworn affidavits, whether sworn through the Photo Affidavit procedure or otherwise, in accordance with the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, the Code of Civil Procedure, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the Notaries Act, 1952.

Counsel appearing for the respondents also informed the Bench, on instructions, that notarised affidavits are accepted by the Stamp Reporting Section and no defects are raised regarding notarised affidavits.

High Court's observations

Recording its findings, the Court observed:

"Accordingly, we find that even an affidavit duly notarised anywhere in the country is accepted at the stage of filing a writ petition. Therefore, no person is mandatorily required to approach the Photo Verification Centre established in the High Court for photo verification of the affidavit at the stage of filing a writ petition".

The Bench further noted that the e-filing rules introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic remain in force.

It added that any person desirous of filing a writ petition or any other application is required to file an affidavit along with such petition or application, and such affidavit may be notarised anywhere in the country, which clearly indicates that there is no mandatory requirement for any person to physically appear before the Photo Verification Centre at either Allahabad or Lucknow.

During the hearing, the petitioner stated that he had earlier travelled to Allahabad for photo verification because his counsel had advised him that it was mandatory to travel either to Allahabad or Lucknow before a writ petition could be filed.

The Court, however, declined to comment on the legal advice rendered by the petitioner's counsel, observing that such advice cannot be made the subject matter of adjudication in a writ petition.

The Court said that such advice could not be the subject of adjudication in a writ petition, and that it could only adjudicate upon the relevant rules governing the swearing of affidavits.

“We can only adjudicate upon the relevant rules governing the swearing of affidavits whether through the Photo Verification Identification procedure or by way of notarised affidavits", the bench remarked.

Holding that the High Court itself had categorically informed the petitioner through its RTI response that duly notarised affidavits are accepted, the Bench observed that it saw no reason for the petitioner's insistence on pursuing the writ petition.

It held that the petition had become "superfluous" and had "unnecessarily consumed the valuable time of this Court." The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

Case Title - Biswajit Chowdhury vs. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 507

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 507

Click Here To Read/Download Order