Affidavit filing rules and unauthorised identification charges questioned over notary affidavits, photo verification, and registry practice.

Affidavits sworn before a Notary Public were questioned for filing where the Registry accepted only affidavits sworn before the Oath Commissioner with prior photo identification, raising consistency concerns with the High Court Rules. The matter also raised whether identification charges collected through a photo centre and the Bar Association for swearing affidavits had any statutory sanction, with an apparent issue of unauthorised levy. Notice was issued, an amicus curiae was appointed on the affidavit-swearing question, the Registrar General was directed to place the relevant office memorandums on record, and execution of the award was stayed until the next date.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether affidavits sworn before a Notary Public could be refused for filing on the ground that the Registry accepts only affidavits sworn before the Oath Commissioner with prior photo identification. (ii) Whether the charges collected through the photo centre and the Bar Association for identification and swearing of affidavits were legally sanctioned.

Analysis: The matter raised a prima facie question whether the practice of insisting upon oath before the Oath Commissioner and prior photo verification, despite affidavits sworn before a Notary under the Notaries Act, was consistent with the High Court Rules. The Court also noticed the complaint that identification charges were being collected through institutional arrangements involving the Bar Association and photo centre, and that such collection appeared to lack statutory sanction and raised a question under the constitutional prohibition against unauthorised levy.

Outcome: Notice was issued, an amicus curiae was appointed to assist on the question of affidavit swearing, the Registrar General was directed to place the relevant office memorandums on record, and the execution of the award remained stayed until the next date.

---