Back
Rules Notarized Affidavits Suffice Ending Requirement For Mandatory Physical Photo Verification Today
In a recent ruling, the has brought clarity to the procedural requirements for filing , effectively putting to rest concerns regarding the "." A division bench comprising Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J. and Hon'ble Amitabh Kumar Rai, J. dismissed a petition filed by Biswajit Chowdhury, ruling that the mandatory physical presence of litigants for photo verification is not a prerequisite for filing legal documents.
The Genesis of the Dispute
The petitioner, appearing in person, had challenged the of the dated , alongside associated administrative instructions. Chowdhury contended that the prevailing regime was arbitrary, discriminatory, and in violation of . The core of his grievance was the alleged "differential treatment" between government officials—who supposedly enjoyed exemptions—and ordinary citizens, whom he claimed were compelled to travel to either Allahabad or the for mandatory photo-based affidavit identification.
Following an unsuccessful approach to the , which granted the petitioner liberty to raise his concerns before the High Court, Chowdhury utilized the to seek clarification on the legal basis of these identification protocols.
Arguments and Clarifications
The petitioner argued that no litigant should be forced to undergo the hardship of travel for the sole purpose of photograph-based identification as a precondition for filing. Conversely, the respondents, represented by counsel , maintained that the court’s existing procedural frameworks already accommodate broader methods of verification.
The High Court reviewed evidence from the , which explicitly clarified that all duly are accepted—whether via the traditional photo-affidavit procedure or through standard notarization—in compliance with the , the , the , the , and the .
Legal Analysis
The Court emphasized that the existing , introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic and approved by the Chief Justice, remain fully operational. By confirming that affidavits sworn before a anywhere in the country are legally sufficient for filing purposes, the Bench effectively nullified the petitioner's claim that a "mandatory" physical journey was required. The Court refrained from commenting on the legal advice previously received by the petitioner, focusing instead on the procedural rules governing the filing of petitions.
Key Observations
The Bench provided significant insights into the nature of current filing requirements:
-
"Therefore, no person is mandatorily required to approach the Photo Verification Centre established in the High Court for photo verification of the affidavit at the stage of filing a writ petition."
-
"In sum and substance, any person desirous of filing a writ petition or any other application is required to file an affidavit along with such petition or application. Such affidavit may be notarised anywhere in the country..."
-
"We can only adjudicate upon the relevant rules governing the swearing of affidavits whether through the Photo Verification Identification procedure or by way of notarised affidavits."
The Final Verdict
Finding that the High Court had already addressed the petitioner’s queries through proper administrative channels, the Bench determined the current litigation to be "superfluous." Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. This order reaffirms the accessibility of the judicial process by confirming that electronic and decentralized notarization methods remain valid pathways for all citizens to seek legal redress without the burden of unnecessary physical travel.
