Allahabad HC Pulls Up Stamp Reporting Section for Clearing Petition With Italicised Relief Clause

A Division Bench summoned the Assistant Registrar and ordered an explanation after a writ petition's relief clause was drafted in italicised fonts, breaching court rules and directions of the Chief Justice.

On 6 August 2026, a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad comprising Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad took suo motu cognisance of a serious procedural irregularity in Sheo Kinkar Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others. The relief clause in the writ petition had been typed in italicised fonts, a practice expressly prohibited under the Rules of the Court and the orders passed by the Chief Justice. That the petition cleared the Stamp Reporting Section without being flagged prompted the bench to immediately summon the Assistant Registrar and demand an explanation — by 2.30 p.m. the same day.

The Formatting Violation

When the petition came up before Court No. 1, the bench noticed that the relief clause had been drafted using italicised fonts. Under the Rules of the Court and the Chief Justice's standing directions, such formatting is not permitted in petitions filed before the court. The violation was therefore not a minor clerical slip but a departure from an explicit prohibition.

The bench was concerned not merely with the petitioner's lawyers having used disallowed fonts, but with how the petition passed through the Stamp Reporting Section without any objection being raised. The Stamp Reporter's office is the first institutional filter through which filed petitions must pass, and its failure to flag non-compliant formatting was the central issue the bench addressed.

Bench Summons Assistant Registrar, Seeks Accountability

Sri Ram Bhawan, Assistant Registrar, was summoned and appeared before the bench on behalf of the Stamp Reporter. The bench directed him to submit a written explanation by 2.30 p.m. on 6 August 2026 itself. Alongside the explanation, an action taken report was also called for, specifically to fix responsibility on the staff member of the Stamp Reporting Section who cleared the petition despite the visible formatting defect.

In compliance with the order passed at the forenoon sitting, a written explanation was subsequently submitted. The explanation offered was that the defect could not be detected at the Stamp Reporting stage. The bench received this explanation but did not treat the matter as closed.

Registrar General Directed to Report on Font and Formatting Rules

Separately, the bench directed the Registrar General of the court to place before it, on the following Monday, a report setting out the existing instructions issued by the Chief Justice — if any — regarding the use of typing fonts, spacing, signs, and margins while drafting petitions to be presented before the court.

This direction indicates that the bench intended to examine whether the existing framework of instructions on petition formatting is comprehensive, and whether any gaps in those instructions may have contributed to the situation.

Outcome

The bench, on 6 August 2026, directed the Stamp Reporting Section to submit a written explanation and an action taken report fixing individual responsibility for clearing a writ petition whose relief clause was formatted in italicised fonts contrary to court rules. The Registrar General was separately directed to place before the bench, on Monday, a report on the Chief Justice's instructions concerning typing fonts, spacing, signs, and margins in court petitions.