Allahabad HC Lucknow Bench: No Mandatory Photo Verification for Filing Writ Petitions, Notarised Affidavits Sufficient

A Division Bench at the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench has held that physical appearance before the Photo Verification Centre is not mandatory and notarised affidavits filed anywhere in India are accepted at the stage of filing a writ petition.

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a Division Bench comprising Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai, dismissed a writ petition on 16 July 2026 that challenged the Photo Affidavit Identification Regime operated by the High Court Registry. The petitioner, Biswajit Chowdhury, appearing in person through online mode, had argued that compelling ordinary litigants to physically travel to either Allahabad or Lucknow solely for photo identification — while exempting government officials — was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The bench found that the High Court's own RTI responses had already settled the matter: notarised affidavits executed anywhere in India are accepted, and no one is required to appear before the Photo Verification Centre to file a writ petition. The petition was dismissed as superfluous.

The Dispute Before the Lucknow Bench

Chowdhury filed Writ-C No. 6896 of 2026 assailing the Office Memorandum dated 07.10.2015, along with all connected memoranda and administrative instructions, which together constituted what he described as the Photo Affidavit Identification Regime. His core complaint was that the regime mandated personal appearance before the High Court for photograph-based affidavit attestation as a precondition for filing a writ petition.

He contended that the regime created an impermissible distinction: officials of the State Government and the Central Government were exempt from the requirement, while ordinary litigants — whether appearing in person or through counsel — were compelled to travel to Allahabad or Lucknow. This differential treatment, he argued, was arbitrary and violated Article 14.

Before approaching the Lucknow Bench, Chowdhury had filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 479 of 2025 before the Supreme Court challenging the same regime. The Supreme Court disposed of that petition and granted him liberty to submit a representation before the Chief Justice. He then filed several RTI applications seeking disclosure of records, circulars, and office memoranda relating to the legal basis, scope, exemptions and continuing applicability of the regime.

The RTI Queries and the High Court's Responses

The five RTI queries Chowdhury raised went to the heart of the regime's practical operation. He asked whether litigants residing outside Allahabad or Lucknow were required to travel solely for photo-based affidavit attestation; whether the Office Memorandum dated 07.10.2015 remained in force; whether notarised affidavits sworn before notaries public appointed under the Notaries Act, 1952 were accepted; whether affidavits with photographs taken elsewhere were treated as defective; and whether affidavits notarised through e-notarisation platforms were accepted.

The High Court's response annexed as Annexure P-11, dated 03.06.2026, addressed each query. On the travel requirement, the Registry stated that all cases at the Lucknow Bench were being accepted through e-filing mode under instructions approved by the Chief Justice vide Notice dated 16.08.2017. On the status of the 07.10.2015 Office Memorandum, the Registry's answer was a simple “No.” On the acceptance of notarised affidavits, the Registry stated that the Stamp Reporting Section at the Lucknow Bench “accepts all the duly sworn affidavits whether sworn through the Photo Affidavit procedure or otherwise” in accordance with the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the Notaries Act, 1952. On the treatment of photographs taken elsewhere, the Registry referred the petitioner to the judgment dated 19.05.2025 in M/s Rajdhani Inter State Transport Co., New Delhi v. State of U.P., Writ-C No. 3389 of 2025.

Shri Vijay Dixit, appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2, also informed the bench on instructions that notarised affidavits are accepted by the Stamp Reporting Section and no defects are raised in respect of such affidavits.

How the Bench Reasoned

The bench's reasoning was direct. Once the High Court had itself categorically informed the petitioner through the RTI process that duly notarised affidavits are accepted, the bench saw no remaining basis for the writ petition to proceed.

The bench held that any person filing a writ petition or other application must submit an affidavit, but that affidavit may be notarised anywhere in the country. That conclusion, drawn from the Registry's own RTI response and counsel's confirmation in court, eliminated the mandatory nature of the Photo Verification Centre. The bench stated that “no person is mandatorily required to approach the Photo Verification Centre” for photo verification of an affidavit at the filing stage.

The bench also noted that e-filing rules introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic by the Chief Justice continued to remain in force, further reinforcing that physical presence in Allahabad or Lucknow was not a precondition.

The bench did address one specific factual claim by the petitioner: that he had filed Writ Petition No. 7285 of 2023 under Article 227 of the Constitution and had physically travelled to Allahabad to obtain photo verification and identification, acting on advice from his counsel that such travel was mandatory. The bench noted that no adverse report had been raised by the Registry in respect of that petition. On the advice the petitioner had received from his counsel, the bench declined to comment, observing that legal advice tendered by counsel cannot be made the subject matter of adjudication in a writ petition. The court's role, it said, was limited to adjudicating upon the relevant rules governing the swearing of affidavits.

Finding that the regime as actually operated did not impose the mandatory physical appearance the petitioner feared, and that the RTI response had resolved every operational question he had raised, the bench concluded that the writ petition was superfluous and had unnecessarily consumed court time.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed Writ-C No. 6896 of 2026. The bench declined to interfere with the Office Memorandum dated 07.10.2015 or any connected instructions. It recorded that the High Court had already clarified through its RTI response that notarised affidavits are acceptable and that photo verification at the High Court's Verification Centre is not a mandatory precondition for filing a writ petition. No directions were issued to the Registry beyond what had already been stated in the RTI response.