No Mandatory Photo-Verification for Filing Writ Petitions Where Duly Notarised Affidavits Are Accepted
1. Introduction
In Biswajit Chowdhury v. Registrar General, High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And Ors.
(Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; WRIT - C No. 6896 of 2026; decided on 16.07.2026),
the petitioner (appearing in person online) challenged the validity of the Office Memorandum dated 07.10.2015
and “connected and consequential memoranda/instructions” relating to a “Photo Affidavit Identification Regime”.
The core allegation was of Article 14 violation: according to the petitioner, government officials enjoyed exemptions,
while ordinary litigants were allegedly compelled to physically appear at Allahabad/Lucknow only to get photo identification for affidavits
as a precondition to filing writ petitions.
The petition was preceded by (i) the petitioner’s approach to the Supreme Court by Writ Petition (Civil) No.479 of 2025,
which was disposed of with liberty to submit a representation to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, and (ii) multiple RTI applications
seeking the legal basis and operational details of the regime. The High Court’s RTI response became central to adjudication.
2. Summary of the Judgment
The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner’s premise—mandatory physical appearance for photo verification as a condition
to file—was incorrect. Relying on the High Court’s RTI reply and counsel instructions, the Court recorded that the Stamp Reporting Section
accepts duly sworn affidavits including notarised affidavits sworn anywhere in the country, and that
no defect is raised merely because an affidavit is notarised.
The Court also noted that e-filing instructions approved by Hon’ble the Chief Justice (referred to as received vide Notice dated 16.08.2017)
apply and continue. Consequently, no person is mandatorily required to approach the Photo Verification Centre at Allahabad or Lucknow
at the stage of filing a writ petition. The Court found the petition “superfluous” and an unnecessary consumption of judicial time,
and therefore declined interference and dismissed it.
3. Analysis
3.1 Precedents Cited
The judgment refers to one prior decision:
-
“M/s Rajdhani Inter State Transport Co., New Delhi v. State of U.P.”
(judgment dated 19.05.2025 in Writ-C No.3389 of 2025).
Role in the present case: The RTI response (quoted in the judgment) specifically directs the petitioner to this decision in connection with
the query on whether “affidavits that include photographs taken elsewhere” are treated as defective at filing/stamp reporting. While the present
judgment does not extract or analyse the ratio of that case, it treats it as the relevant internal judicial reference point for registry practice
on photo-related affidavit issues.
Apart from the above, the judgment mentions the petitioner’s earlier approach in Writ Petition (Civil) No.479 of 2025 before the Supreme Court,
but this is not discussed as a binding precedent; it is used to explain procedural history (liberty to represent to Hon’ble the Chief Justice).
3.2 Legal Reasoning
The Court’s reasoning is practical and record-based, turning on the actual filing requirement rather than a theoretical constitutional review:
-
Central factual finding: notarised affidavits are accepted.
The Court places decisive weight on the RTI reply (Annexure P-11 dated 03.06.2026), especially Point No.3, which states that the Stamp Reporting Section
accepts all duly sworn affidavits “whether sworn through the Photo Affidavit procedure or otherwise” in accordance with the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952,
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,
and the Notaries Act, 1952.
-
Reinforcement through instructions to counsel.
Respondent counsel, on instructions, confirmed that notarised affidavits are accepted and no defects are raised on that ground. This corroboration
removes the foundation of the petitioner’s claimed compulsion to travel for photo verification.
-
Consequent narrowing: no need to adjudicate the Article 14 challenge.
Because the Court finds no mandatory requirement of photo verification for filing, the asserted discriminatory “differential treatment”
does not crystallise into a live constitutional injury in the facts presented. The Court therefore declines to interfere with the Office Memorandum
and connected instructions, effectively treating the matter as non-justiciable on the petitioner’s stated premise.
-
Recognition of e-filing framework.
The Court notes that e-filing rules/instructions were introduced during COVID-19 and continue; filings were made through e-filing, and the instructions
approved by Hon’ble the Chief Justice remain in force. This supports the conclusion that physical appearance is not a universal filing precondition.
-
Limits of writ adjudication vis-à-vis legal advice.
The petitioner claimed he travelled earlier because counsel advised photo identification was mandatory. The Court declines to comment on the counsel’s
opinion, holding that such advice cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition; only the governing rules/practice on swearing affidavits can be assessed.
-
Characterisation as “superfluous”.
Once the Court concludes the registry accepts notarised affidavits and photo verification is not mandatory, it holds the writ petition unnecessary
and dismisses it.
A notable feature is what the Court does not do: it does not strike down or formally read down the Office Memorandum dated 07.10.2015.
Instead, it resolves the dispute by clarifying operative practice and the absence of mandatory compulsion at filing.
3.3 Impact
-
Lower procedural barriers for outstation litigants. The decision affirms that litigants need not travel to Allahabad/Lucknow solely
for photo verification if they file with a duly notarised affidavit, thereby reducing cost and access-to-justice friction.
-
Writ challenges may fail where the grievance is factually misconceived. The judgment underscores that constitutional review may be
declined where the complained-of burden is not shown to be mandatory in practice—especially when official RTI replies and registry practice contradict it.
-
Registry practice gains quasi-authoritative clarity. By judicially recording acceptance of notarised affidavits (and the absence of defects),
the Court provides a reference point for future filing disputes and for litigants-in-person uncertain about affidavit formats.
-
Encouragement to use e-filing systems. The Court’s reliance on continuing e-filing instructions supports a more digital-first understanding
of court access, indirectly discouraging unnecessary physical verification steps.
-
Constitutional question kept open in substance. Because the petition was dismissed as superfluous rather than on merits of Article 14,
a future case demonstrating an actual mandatory discriminatory practice (if any) may still raise the issue for adjudication on a concrete factual foundation.
4. Complex Concepts Simplified
- Photo Affidavit Identification Regime
-
A procedure (as described by the petitioner) in which a litigant’s affidavit includes photo identification/verification, allegedly requiring in-person
appearance at a court facility. The judgment clarifies that such photo verification is not mandatory for filing when a duly notarised affidavit is used.
- Notarised affidavit
-
An affidavit sworn before a Notary Public under the Notaries Act, 1952. The Court records that such affidavits—sworn anywhere in India—
are accepted at filing and are not treated as defective merely for being notarised.
- Stamp Reporting Section
-
The registry unit that scrutinises filings at the threshold (including checking whether affidavits and accompanying documents meet procedural requirements).
The judgment treats this unit’s acceptance practice as determinative of whether filing is practically possible without photo verification.
- Article 14 (Equality)
-
A constitutional guarantee against arbitrary and discriminatory state action. The petitioner invoked it to challenge alleged preferential exemptions
for government officials. The Court does not decide the Article 14 issue because it finds the underlying compulsion claimed by the petitioner does not exist.
- “Superfluous” writ petition
-
A petition that becomes unnecessary because the alleged legal injury is not made out on the facts (here, because filing does not require mandatory photo verification).
5. Conclusion
The principal legal takeaway from Biswajit Chowdhury v. Registrar General, High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And Ors. is the Court’s
clear holding that, at the stage of filing a writ petition, there is no mandatory requirement to physically appear for photo verification
when the affidavit is duly notarised and otherwise in accordance with applicable rules and statutes.
The judgment is significant less for constitutional doctrine and more for procedural clarity: it anchors litigant expectations to verified registry practice
(including RTI-confirmed positions) and signals judicial unwillingness to undertake abstract equality review when the challenged burden is not shown to be compulsory.