Introduction:
The Allahabad High Court, in Biswajit Chowdhury v. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Others (2026 LiveLaw (AB) 507), has clarified that litigants are not required to personally appear before the Photo Verification Centres at Allahabad or Lucknow for the purpose of filing writ petitions. A Division Bench comprising Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai held that an affidavit duly notarised anywhere in India is accepted at the stage of filing a writ petition and satisfies the procedural requirements under the applicable rules.
The case arose from a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Photo Affidavit Identification Regime introduced through an Office Memorandum dated 7 October 2015 and related administrative instructions. The petitioner alleged that the regime discriminated against ordinary litigants by effectively compelling them to travel to Allahabad or Lucknow for photo verification, while government officials and public authorities were exempted from such requirements. The challenge was primarily based on Article 14 of the Constitution, alleging arbitrariness and unequal treatment.
After obtaining liberty from 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 and operation of the Photo Affidavit Identification Regime. The RTI response and subsequent clarification by the High Court Registry became central to the adjudication of the dispute.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner contended that the Photo Affidavit Identification Regime imposed an unnecessary and discriminatory burden upon ordinary citizens, particularly those residing outside Allahabad and Lucknow. It was argued that litigants were compelled to travel long distances solely for photo verification before a writ petition could be instituted, resulting in avoidable expense and hardship. According to the petitioner, such a requirement violated Article 14 of the Constitution by treating private litigants differently from government authorities and their instrumentalities.
The petitioner further submitted that he had personally travelled to Allahabad for photo verification because his legal counsel had advised him that such verification was mandatory before filing a writ petition. He therefore sought a declaration that the administrative instructions introducing the photo verification mechanism were unconstitutional.
The respondents, however, relied upon the clarification issued by the High Court Registry and the information furnished under the RTI Act. They submitted that the Stamp Reporting Section accepts all duly sworn affidavits, including affidavits notarised anywhere in the country, 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. It was also stated that no objections or defects are ordinarily raised against properly notarised affidavits at the filing stage.
Court’s Judgment:
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition after holding that the petitioner’s grievance was based on a misconception regarding the existing filing procedure. The Court observed that the High Court Registry had categorically clarified that affidavits duly notarised anywhere in India are accepted while filing writ petitions and that there is no mandatory requirement for litigants to appear personally before the Photo Verification Centres at Allahabad or Lucknow.
The Bench further noted that the e-filing mechanism introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic continues to remain operational. The existing procedure permits litigants to file petitions supported by notarised affidavits without requiring physical presence before the High Court for photo verification. Consequently, the Court held that the apprehension regarding compulsory travel for photo identification was unfounded.
Addressing the petitioner’s submission regarding the legal advice received from his counsel, the Court declined to examine its correctness. It observed that advice given by an advocate cannot become the subject matter of judicial review in a writ petition. The Court clarified that its jurisdiction was confined to interpreting the relevant statutory provisions and procedural rules governing affidavits.
The Bench emphasised that the RTI response itself established that notarised affidavits are fully recognised and accepted by the High Court Registry. Since the petitioner had already received this clarification, there remained no surviving cause of action requiring adjudication. The Court therefore held that the writ petition had become unnecessary and had consumed valuable judicial time without any real controversy remaining for determination.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. The judgment serves as an important clarification for litigants across the country by confirming that affidavits duly notarised anywhere in India are sufficient for instituting writ proceedings before the Allahabad High Court and that personal appearance for photo verification is not a mandatory precondition for filing such petitions.