The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Shree Prakash Singh, has disposed of Special Appeal No. 208 of 2025, filed by the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad, challenging certain directions issued in the writ judgment dated 19 May 2025 in Writ-C No. 3389 of 2025.
The appeal arose from the alleged prejudicial observations in paragraphs 34, 35, 36, and 38 of the writ judgment, particularly concerning the Bar Association, which was not a party to the original writ petition. Observing that the impugned directions were issued without hearing the Bar Association, the Court allowed the application seeking leave to appeal, stating:
“…if the directions issued against the Bar Association are prejudicial to the interest of Bar, leave to appeal deserves to be granted in the interest of justice.”
Background
The controversy pertains to the implementation of an Office Memorandum dated 22 November 2024 issued by the Allahabad High Court to regulate the process of filing affidavits with passport-size photographs and identification numbers. This system was introduced to prevent impersonation in affidavit filing and ensure authenticity.
As per the Office Memorandum:
- Every affidavit must have a passport-size photograph and identification number issued by the Bar Associations.
- A fixed charge of ₹125 per identification number may be levied by the Bar Associations at Allahabad and Lucknow.
- Government officials are exempt from these requirements.
- No advocate possessing an AOR number shall be denied issuance of an identification number, even if not a member of the associations.
Court’s Observations
The Court noted that both the Allahabad High Court Bar Association and the Oudh Bar Association at Lucknow had accepted the ₹125 fee structure. However, discrepancies were observed in the receipts issued at both benches:
- At Allahabad, the same receipt number was used for both the ₹125 affidavit charge and an additional ₹475 for the “Adhivakta Nidhi” (Welfare Fund), which the Court held should not be conflated with the official affidavit process.
- At Lucknow, receipts did not mention the ₹125 amount at all.
The Court directed:
“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…”
Additionally, the Bench clarified:
“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.”
The Court also distinguished that welfare schemes introduced by the Bar Associations are independent efforts and are not part of the affidavit filing process.
Modification of Direction Regarding Notarized Affidavits
The Court also addressed objections raised by counsel regarding paragraph 24 of the original writ judgment, which prohibited the Stamp Reporting Section from raising defects on affidavits sworn before a notary public.
Referring to Chapter II, Rule 1(ii) of the High Court Rules, the Court noted:
“…the registry is empowered to mark the defects for which the opportunity to rectify the defect is granted to the respective counsel.”
Accordingly, the Court held:
“Such a direction does not stand in consonance with the relevant rule and calls for modification.”
The direction was modified to allow the registry to function per the applicable rules.
