Litigants Can't Be Compelled To Deposit Higher Amounts For Instituting Proceedings; ₹125 Cap On Photo-Identification Fee: Allahabad HC

While partially upholding the order of the Single Judge removing excessive fee for photo identification at the Allahabad High Court, the Lucknow Bench held that amounts higher than those prescribed in office memorandum dated 22.11.2024 cannot be charged from litigants to file cases or affidavits in the High Court.While observing that there was a difference in the receipts printed at the photo identification centres at Allahabad and at Lucknow, the bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Shree Prakash Singh observed,“Both the Bar Associations being in agreement are directed to re-model the receipts issued so as to be in conformity with the circular dated 22.11.2024 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 this court. We also make it clear that no litigant for institution of the proceedings before this court is compelled to deposit any amount higher than what is prescribed in the aforesaid office memorandum dated 22.11.2024.”In May, Justice Pankaj Bhatia had removed the cost of Rs. 500 which the litigants were being asked to pay during photo identification at Lucknow and at Allahabad. The amount was being collected towards Advocates' welfare funds at the behest of the Bar Associations of the High Court in both cities. Justice Bhatia had held that the amount was being collected without sanction of any law. The Court had further held that the list of 272 defects which was used by the Registry to point out defects in the affidavits filed before the High Court was not prescribed in the High Court Rules. It directed the Registry to not report defects in the affidavits sworn by Notary Public. High Court Bar Association Allahabad (HCBA) was not a party to the writ petition, however, it approached the Lucknow Bench in Special Appeal through its Elders Committee on grounds that it was not heard before passing of the order. The division bench in Special Appeal heard HCBA and granted them leave to appeal.The Court observed that vide office memorandum dated 22.11.2024, the High Court had fixed Rs. 125 as the charge per photo identification. “The requirement of the passport size photograph together with the identification number was permitted to be generated by the respective Bar Associations for which, separate rates were fixed from time to time. In the latest office memorandum issued on 22.11.2024, the rates fixed for such a purpose is Rs.125/- only per identification number, which is permitted to be charged by the respective Bar Associations of the High Court at Allahabad and Oudh Bar Association for Lucknow Bench, Lucknow.”Noting that there was no dispute regarding implementation of the office memorandum, the Court observed that the counsel for HCBA had conceded that the deposit towards welfare scheme for advocates was not mandatory on the litigants and did not affect the filing ofd affidavits. Upon perusal of the photo identification receipts generated at Allahabad and Lucknow, the bench observed “The Oudh Bar Association in the receipts issued merely generates the receipt numbers and does not mention the amount of Rs.125/- on the photographed receipts,whereas, the receipts issued at Allahabad, bear a single receipt number both for issuance of a passport size photograph together with the identification number and the same receipt number is issued for charging an additional amount of Rs.475/- against 'Adhivakta Nidhi'.”The Court held that the charges towards Advocates' welfare funds cannot be a part of the photo identification receipts. The Court observed that the Bar Association had agreed to remodel the receipts within 15 days. An objection was raised by the counsel for High Court regarding the direction to not mark defects in affidavits sworn by Notary Public. “From perusal of provisions of Chapter II, Rule 1, Sub. Rule (ii) of the High Court Rules, it is amply clear that the registry is empowered to mark the defects for which the opportunity to rectify the defect is granted to the respective counsel. To this extent, such a direction does not stand in consonance with the relevant rule and calls for modification. The submission has force,” observed the Court. Modifying the order of Single Judge, the Court allowed the Registry to act in accordance with rules. Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Litigants Can't Be Compelled To Deposit Higher Amounts For Instituting Proceedings; ₹125 Cap On Photo-Identification Fee: Allahabad HC

Upasna Agrawal

Tags