Allahabad High Court criticizes State for casual approach in filing affidavits

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that State authorities and their counsel frequently display a lack of care when filing affidavits before the Court [Smt. Indrawati Devi And 2 Others v. State of UP and ors].

A Bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal observed that the State continued adopting such a casual approach despite repeated instructions to address such shortcomings.

"The approach of the State Authorities as well as Counsels who represent the State, are very casual. The Court has granted indulgence at various occasions for rectifying the mistakes or shortcomings in filing the affidavits, but in vain," the Court said.

The Court made the observation after taking note of certain discrepancies in a personal affidavit submitted by the District Magistrate of Bhadohi in a case involving a challenge to the stamp duty assessment for certain land.

The Court had earlier granted multiple adjournments in the matter on requests by the State's standing counsel. In February this year, the Court made it clear that if the State does not file a counter affidavit by March 15, the concerned authority would have to appear personally to assist the Court.

Later, on the State's request, the time to file the counter affidavit was extended again by a couple of weeks on March 2, before the matter was listed on July 30.

However, no counter affidavit was filed even by August 30, prompting the Court to order the District Magistrate of Bhadohi to file a personal affidavit. The State was also ordered to ensure that its counter affidavit is filed.

In the personal affidavit filed subsequently, the District Magistrate assured that he did not mean to flout the court's earlier directives. He submitted that the Court's orders were never communicated to him. As a result, the counter affidavit could not be filed within the given deadline, he said.

The Court, however, was surprised to note several errors in this affidavit. Among such errors was a mistaken reference to the High Court instead of a self-reference to the District Magistrate. In this regard, the Court noted that paragraph 4 of the affidavit said:

“The High Court first got information about the previous orders passed in the above petition after receiving the fax dated 30.8.2024..."

The Court pointed out that, upon simply reading the paragraph, it was unclear what the District Magistrate was trying to convey.

The Court also noted that while the affidavit was filed by the District Magistrate, it mistakenly indicated that the affidavit was filed by the "Commissioner of Police" in one page.

The Court made note to reproduce the affidavit and underline these errors in its September 17 order.

"It appears that the affidavits have been filed before this Court in a very casual and lethargic manner even without proper drafting / reading before signing," the Court concluded.

The Court noted that similar concerns were also recently noticed in a September 13 order passed in another case (Vijay Singh vs. State of UP).

In that case, the Court had directed the Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh and the Principal Secretary (Law), Government of UP, to take cognizance of such issues.

"Let the present matter be also placed before the Advocate General of State of UP as well as Principal Secretary (Law) & L.R. to look into the matter ... The Registrar (Compliance) shall communicate this order to the Advocate General of State of UP as well as Principal Secretary (Law) & L.R. within a week from today," the Court proceeded to order.

The main case was posted for further hearing on November 4.

Advocates Rajeev Kumar Singh and Ravikar Pandey appeared for the petitioner.

[Read Order]