Relief for litigants: HC stays ₹500 charge for photo identification
Justice Pankaj Bhatia passed the order on May 19 while hearing a petition filed by M/s Rajdhani Inter State Transport Co., New Delhi, through its authorised signatory Sunil Kumar Magoo, challenging the requirement of photo identification for filing petitions.
The court said that in the era where efforts are being made to promote digital India, 'continuing with a regressive practice of the litigants travelling from far-off places solely for photo identification is, on the face of it, is retrogressive'.
The court observed that the practice had led the High Court Bar Association and the Oudh Bar Association to charge amounts 'beyond the sanction of law, solely based upon resolutions.' It remarked that 'continuation of such a practice is neither desirable nor does it augur well for the temple of justice,' which must function with the support of Bar Associations to fulfil the constitutional goal of providing 'access to justice to all'.
Earlier, the petitioner's counsel had sought an adjournment to file a supplementary affidavit, citing the deponent's inability to travel to Lucknow for photo identification. In response, the court questioned why the affidavit could not be sworn before a notary at the deponent's place of residence, as permitted under the Notaries Act, 1952.
The petitioner's counsel explained that while there was no bar under the Act, the registry at the Allahabad high court typically accepts only affidavits sworn before oath commissioners appointed under Chapter IV of the Allahabad High Court Rules.
Noting that prima facie an additional cost ( ₹400-500) being charged from the litigants, which is going to the lawyers from the photo affidavit centre, was not sanctioned by law, the court had appointed advocate Tushar Mittal as amicus curiae to assist the court on the said issue.
The court, however, said that the Bar Associations were at liberty to take measures for the welfare of lawyers, but no such amount could be charged in connection with the filings made before the high court.
Accordingly, the court disposed of the issue, however, it ordered the writ petition would continue on its merits.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
5 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Technology is powerful but cannot replicate human touch in justice delivery or legal aid: Justice Surya Kant
Supreme Court judge, Justice Surya Kant, said that though technology can make justice delivery systems and legal aid efficient, it cannot replace the human touch. 'Technology is only a tool. The heart of justice must remain human... In a world where machines write poetry and algorithms predict behaviour, we must remember: justice is still a human act. It is not rendered by bandwidth but by conscience. The greatness of the law lies not in authority, but in service; not in rigidity, but in compassion,' Justice Kant said. He was speaking on bridging the 'digital gap' and 'reimagining legal aid in the digital age for inclusive justice in India' at the Justice RC Lahoti Memorial Lecture on Saturday. His speech touched on significant statements regarding the limitations of technology in the field of law. Justice Kant is the Executive Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and in line for appointment as the next Chief Justice of India in November as per the seniority norm. The senior top court judge said the legal aid system cannot become a 'factory of canned responses'. 'Automated systems are efficient, but they cannot replace the human touch. Legal aid cannot become a factory of canned responses; it must not reduce people's problems to ticket numbers. There must always be a human fallback — someone to listen, explain, and reassure,' he said. The judge said human empathy was central to justice, whether it was a lawyer responding to a distressed call, a judge presiding over a video-enabled hearing or even a chatbot answering a query. Technology was powerful, but could not replicate the human element at the heart of legal aid. Pointing to Article 39A of the Constitution, Justice Kant said the constitutional provision called upon the State to provide free legal aid to ensure that no citizen was denied justice owing to economic or other disabilities. He said India was among the few nations to constitutionally mandate legal aid. 'Yet, the stark truth is that vast sections of our population — rural citizens, the urban poor, women, children, persons with disabilities, the elderly — still encounter formidable barriers in accessing justice. These may be barriers of awareness, geography, language, money, physical mobility, or social stigma,' Justice Kant noted.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
HC sets aside RDO's order restoring tribal land to non-tribal parties
Kochi: The high court has set aside the orders issued by the Ottappalam RDO and Palakkad district collector in 2010, which had wrongfully restored possession of around 12 acres of tribal land at Kottathara village in Agali, Palakkad, to non-tribal parties. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Justice Harisankar V Menon delivered the judgment on Wednesday in a petition filed by Rangan of Kottathara and his three brothers, challenging the RDO's orders and the collector restoring possession of the tribal land to non-tribal parties. The petitioners contended that their father, Chathamooppan, had made an application under the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on Transfer of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act, 1975, stating that he had originally possessed around 12 acres in Kottathara, which had been transferred to certain non-tribal parties between 1964 and 1990 under the guise of various sale deeds. In 1995, the Ottappalam RDO, acting on the application, issued an order directing the non-tribal parties to deliver possession of the land to Chathamooppan and his brother within 30 days and further directed the applicants to pay compensation under the Act. However, in Dec 2010, the Ottappalam RDO, acting suo motu and without notice to the petitioners, sons of the deceased Chathamooppan, reviewed the 1995 order and restored possession of the land to the non-tribal parties under Section 5(1) of the Kerala Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999, which permits the transfer of up to 2 acres of tribal land to non-tribal parties. The district collector upheld the RDO's order, prompting the petitioners to move HC. Upon perusal of the records, the bench held that the proceedings regarding the land in question under the 1975 Act had attained finality with the 1995 order of the RDO, as no one had challenged the same later. Further, the 1999 Act does not contain any provision authorising the RDO to review an order passed under the 1975 Act. Accordingly, the bench set aside the 2010 orders of the RDO and the collector. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Similarly, T V Krishnan of Agali, who is also a party respondent in Rangan's petition, filed a separate petition alleging that he had been interdicted by the police from cutting and removing timber from his property, based on a complaint filed by one Murugan of Agali. However, the court noted that Krishnan had failed to disclose that he was a party respondent in Rangan's petition. The court further directed the revenue authorities to verify whether the property referred to in Krishnan's petition is the same as that involved in Rangan's petition and to take appropriate action accordingly.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Forest Dept. grants permission to capture one more elephant in Karnataka's Chikkamagaluru dist.
The Forest Department has granted permission to capture one more elephant roaming in the villages of N.R. Pura taluk of Karnataka's Chikkamagaluru district. The department staff captured an elephant on July 29, following the incidents of human-elephant conflicts in the region. Prabhash Chandra Ray, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), issued an order on Saturday granting permission to capture a tusker, aged around 25 to 30, as per the Wildlife (Conservation) Act, 1972. MLA for Sringeri T.D. Raje Gowda had met Forest Minister Eshwar Khandre and appealed to him to grant permission to capture the trouble-causing elephant. Conservator of Forests of Chikkamagaluru, Yashpal Kshirasagar, had submitted a proposal seeking permission to capture the elephant that caused damage to crops and left the local people worried. The Forest Department captured a tusker on July 29, following protests by local people in N.R. Pura condemning the repeated incidents of human-elephant conflict in the region. The local people hit the streets of Balehonnur in N.R. Pura taluk on July 28, as two people had died in elephant attacks within a gap of four days. The department had given permission for the capture and relocation of one elephant. A team of officials succeeded in capturing a 15-year-old elephant near Elekallu in N.R. Pura taluk. The local people were anticipating that one more trouble-causing elephant would be captured. However, the PCCF had not granted permission to capture one more elephant.
