The Allahabad High Court while staying the execution of an award raised important questions regarding the affidavit swearing procedure prescribed under the High Court Rules and the imposition of monetary charges on litigants for such verification. The Court directed that the matter be further examined, particularly in light of the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952 and Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
Case Background
The writ petition was filed by M/S Rajdhani Inter State Transport Co. through its authorised signatory Mr. Sunil Kumar Magoo, challenging the execution of a labour award. During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel, Sri Tushar Mittal, submitted that an earlier adjournment was sought due to the deponent’s inability to appear in Lucknow for photo identification required for swearing the affidavit.
Court’s Query and Legal Framework
Justice Pankaj Bhatia posed a query regarding why the affidavit could not be sworn before a Notary Public under the Notaries Act, 1952 at the deponent’s place of residence. In response, a brief note was submitted by the petitioner’s counsel stating that, although there is no legal bar under the Notaries Act, in practice, the Registry of the High Court accepts only those affidavits that are sworn before an Oath Commissioner appointed under Chapter IV of the Allahabad High Court Rules, following photo identification at the designated Photo Centre.
The Court observed:
“Prima facie, the non-acceptance of the affidavit deposed before the Notary under the Notaries Act is not permissible under the Allahabad High Court Rules also.”
Reference was made to the Court’s earlier judgment in Sajjan Kumar vs. C.L. Verma and another, AIR 2006 All 36, which had touched upon similar procedural inconsistencies.
Concern on Charges Levied for Affidavit Swearing
The Court also scrutinised the imposition of financial charges on litigants for affidavit swearing. It noted that:
“The power of identification has been delegated to the Bar Association, who are empowered to charge an amount of Rs.125/- and in addition to the said amount, an amount of Rs.400/- goes to the account of the lawyer concerned directly from the photo centre.”
Justice Bhatia further remarked:
“Prima facie, the collection of the said amount is neither sanctioned by any law nor is it in consonance to Article 265 of the Constitution of India.”
Taking note of these concerns, the Court passed the following directions:
- Appointed Advocate Sri Tushar Mittal as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on the issue of affidavit swearing and notarization.
- Directed that a copy of the petition along with the written note be served to Advocate Mr. Gaurav Mehrotra, appearing for the High Court, who shall assist the Court along with necessary office memorandums.
- Ordered the Registrar General to place on record the relevant office memorandums under which the impugned charges are being imposed and paid to the Bar Association.
The Court fixed 29.04.2025 for further hearing on this limited aspect.
The execution of the labour award dated 15.04.2022 shall remain stayed until the next date of listing.
The written note filed by the petitioner’s counsel has been directed to be kept on record.
Case Title: M/S Rajdhani Inter State Transport Co. New Delhi vs State of U.P. & Others
Case No.: Writ – C No. 3389 of 2025
